Tamron 18-270mm lens

[Chuckabutty]

Originally Posted by MarkD

To me the deciding factor between the the Sigma 18-250 and the Tamron 18-270 is the difference in focusing speed. If it's important, the HSM motor in the Sigma is significantly faster than the Tamron according to the tests and user reviews that I've read.

That is what sold me, Mark. I have seen nothing but good about the HSM motor. That focusing speed can mean the difference between a sharp or a blurred shot. I also chopped in my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. I got it because Pop Photo said I needed it, in their January issue, and I haven't taken one shot with it. It may be fast but it could take some getting used to when you've lived with zooms for so long.

[clmonk]

MarkD wrote: I think that 50mm lenses are not as useful on APS-C bodies as they are on 35mm SLR's or FF DSLR's. The 35mm f/1.8 lens plays the role of the 50mm on the APS-C bodies. The 50mm is a good portrait lens on an APS-C body.

Really?? That is definitely not true for what I shoot. I recently purchased a used nifty 50. I bought it because I noticed that 70% of my shots with my super-tele were shot in that vicinity. I took it to the State volleyball championships my daughter recently compteted in and I LOVED the speed and clarity. As a general statement of opinion, I would think it would very much depend on the photographer and the subject being shot.

Ya just GOTTA LOVE this forum's ability to sequence messages! Not to worry though...they now know what is causing this!

[MarkD]

I think that 50mm lenses are not as useful on APS-C bodies as they are on 35mm SLR's or FF DSLR's. The 35mm f/1.8 lens plays the role of the 50mm on the APS-C bodies. The 50mm is a good portrait lens on an APS-C body.

[MarkD]

Originally Posted by clmonk

MarkD wrote: I think that 50mm lenses are not as useful on APS-C bodies as they are on 35mm SLR's or FF DSLR's. The 35mm f/1.8 lens plays the role of the 50mm on the APS-C bodies. The 50mm is a good portrait lens on an APS-C body.

Really?? That is definitely not true for what I shoot. I recently purchased a used nifty 50. I bought it because I noticed that 70% of my shots with my super-tele were shot in that vicinity. I took it to the State volleyball championships my daughter recently compteted in and I LOVED the speed and clarity. As a general statement of opinion, I would think it would very much depend on the photographer and the subject being shot.

Ya just GOTTA LOVE this forum's ability to sequence messages! Not to worry though...they now know what is causing this!

I didn't say that the 50 was useless. Every lens has its uses or it wouldn't be made. Back when 35mm SLR's dominated and before zooms became so popular, 35mm SLR's often came with a 50mm lens. In those days 50mm lenses were among the most popular and most used lenses. On todays APS-C bodies a 35mm lens has the FOV of the 50 on a 35mm SLR, so for an APS-C body the 35mm lens plays the role that the 50 used to play.

The 50 is still a useful lens. When I said that it is not as useful as it used to be, I'm speaking in general.

[Chuckabutty]

I had mentioned earlier in this thread about the number of lenses I carry and wanted to lighten the load a bit. As you know I'm waiting on selling some of my lenses in order to purchase a Sigma 18-250 OS lens. In the meanwhile I'm using my Sigma 105mm macro lens for general purpose. I was reading about it being notoriously slow in AF but also very sharp so I was sitting here at my desk and messing with it. I took a shot of a page of the Pop Photo magazine and was amazed to see red letters with black dots in one of the ads. I know my eyes are not the best but I sure can't see the black dots, and can barely see them with a magnifying glass.

The ad is on Adorama's second page, following page 100, and is for the Universal Swivel Holder. (November issue)

No big deal but I was wondering why they couldn't just use red ink. Why the black dots?
(I'm posting this here because I don't see a more suitable part of the forum to post it)

[Nearly]

Since in the camera the linear size of an image is proportional to the focal length of the lens when the subject in focus is at infinity.That is, if the subject is at a distance less than infinity, the size of the subject would be proportional to the lens to image distance.
So, with a 100 mm lens the subject would be half as high and half as wide as that seen with a 200 mm lens. Then, the area of the subject produced by the 200 mm lens would be 4 times as big as the image with the 100 mm lens.

Nice example tather than words -- Once again a picture is worty ... . lol

The topic for search would be focal Length and image size if one would like to go further and learn more about lenses as it applies to photography.

Actually, this is probably not the place for this -- since one will choose what one apparently likes by their own perception.