Photography Shoutbox

[ryan s]

Loving this so far.

nice! i just cant get over how large and heavy sigmas are...like their new 18-35/1.8 is almost 2lbs

but more wide aperture lenses the better, they're so much fun.

Gotta love game day

id love a press pass for a badger game...or a race at road america...

ok, a quick group shot here while i prepare for the car show tomorrow. sold my 80-320mm yesterday, this is just my pentax stuff (540 flash not shown)

support

 

[Sketch o5]

roy is going to precum when he sees your post, ryan

 

[DarkSideAccord]

God damn ry ry

 

[ryan s]

i just did a quick calculation of what i paid for it all...

good thing the only items depreciating are the bodies.

 

[Dinzdale40]

i just did a quick calculation of what i paid for it all...

good thing the only items depreciating are the bodies.

nice collection ry ry. thats the one thing i love about photography. i bought my 70-200 f4 back in 2006 and sold it last year for $50 more than i paid for it.

my sigma35 doesn't feel big really...but then again my 5dmk3 is chunky. i'll have to post some pics i've taken with it really soon. maybe later tonight.

 

[Dinzdale40]

nice! i just cant get over how large and heavy sigmas are...like their new 18-35/1.8 is almost 2lbs

you do realize that is a 1.8 ZOOM right? It's also a crop body only lens. If it was FF it would be really HUGE. I've heard rumors of them making a 24-70 F2 OS, which I imagine would be as big as my 70-200. I think it is really cool that Sigma is stepping up and starting to push the limits. That's one of the reasons I bought the 35. I like what they are doing and want them to continue. I'm not really interested in having a huge zoom because it kind of defeats the purpose for me, but they have really stepped up in terms of optics. Their new ART line of lenses are scoring really high in MTF charts and the pictures look really good.

Mind listing what is in this picture? I'm not familiar with any of them.

 

[ryan s]

yeah, the 18-35 is meant to be the "equivalent" to the 24-70/2.8s on full frame (as much as i hate that term )...so its gonna be big. what i cant get over, though, is all the amateurs that want it. like, ok, i love wide aperture glass...but i just carried my K-5 and 12-24 over one shoulder, my K-01 with 43, and 77 in the bag over the other...there's no way i would have wanted to carry anything heavier. the 12-24 is 300-ish grams, and both primes are 200-ish each. the sigma on its own is 811. i weighed my messenger bag for the sake of this rant (because its still packed ) and its 7.5 lbs. with the 18-35, youd still have to carry something for ultra wide and short tele.

so thats my opinion on these heavy zooms

the IDs in that pic, starting in the upper left corner going right:

Q with 8.5mm/1.9 lens mounted, 3.2mm/5.6 fisheye
K-01 with 100/2.8 Weather Resistant macro mounted, 40/2.8 XS
K-5 with FA* (* is like L) 300/4.5

next row is the FA limiteds, all first-production runs which took me a year to find searching daily:

31/1.8, 43/1.9, 77/1.8

next row:

12-24/4
17-70/4
35/2.4 (silver version, imported from singapore)
DA* 55/1.4

gonna be selling the 17-70 to purchase the 18-135 WR...might sell the 12-24 to get a 15/4 limited.

 

[Dinzdale40]

cool. after using my 5dmk3 with 85 f1.2...everything feels remarkably light. the 85 weighs like 1025 grams itself. i've just kind of gotten used to it. my advice.....masturbate more

 

[ryan s]

with larger lenses, i tend to carry the camera in my left hand...maybe roy can give me some strangering tips

any lens of 1000 grams or more is like a chore to carry around my 12-24 is 430, and still, im thinking of selling it to get a 15/4 limited at 200 grams.

i can really see why mirrorless is catching on, even though once you have a lens mounted the camera really isnt that much smaller than an SLR.

also, dat thread tag doe some of us can palm a basketball

 

[Sketch o5]

i bet you're well versed in palming balls with your girly hands, ryan