"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Sigma now has available for most popular models of Digital SLRs this
gem:

30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

"Sigma Corporation is pleased to announce the launch of the new 30mm F1.4
EX DC HSM lens.

This large aperture 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM lens is designed to match the
APS-C size image sensors of digital SLR cameras. Two SLD glass elements
are especially effective in the compensation of magnification chromatic
aberration.

Glass mold aspherical lens at rear group of lens reduces color aberration
and provides high-quality image results. From 40cm (15.7») minimum
focusing distance to infinity, this lens creates very sharp images with
high contrast.

The HSM models provide quiet high-speed auto-focus shooting, as well as
full-time manual focus. Large Maximum Aperture of F1.4 can perform
superbly in a great range of applications, including snapshots,
portraiture, indoor shooting and landscape photography."


It's about $375 in a mount to fit your SLR.

A 30mm lens on my Nikon is a 45mm lens, in other words, a "normal" lens.
But the attraction is the F1.4 - FINALLY a fast lens for a digital SLR.


On the other hand, Nikon makes a couple of very good prime lenses that are
great values. They offer an F1.4 50mm autofocus lens for only $270, and if
you don't mind going just a bit slower, an F1.8 50mm for right at $100, a
real steal. While these lenses would equate to 75mm in terms of a 35mm SLR,
and therefore are a bit longer than the Sigma lens, I would suspect that
they are superior glass over the Sigma lens, and can be had for less money.
Plus you get to keep your system all Nikon. One of these Nikon 50mm primes
is probably my next lens for my D70.

But then you wouldn't have a fairly fast approximately 50 mm lens. You'd
have a fairly fast 75 mm lens.
I would really like a fast 70 mm lens that would work as a fast 105 mm for
portraits. My Nikkor zoom that came with my D70 will, of course,
approximately equal a 105 in focal length, but not in speed.

A fast lens is always a nice thing to have, but perhaps not nearly as
important as it was in the days of film. Don't forget that your D70 can
shoot at up to 800 ISO with very acceptable results. The difference from
ISO 200 to ISO 800 is the equivalent of two f stops. That's the equivalent
of making an f4 lens as fast as an f2 lens, all other things being equal.
Still, there's nothing quite like fast glass, and f1.4 is pretty fast.

As for the focal length, unless you are doing tight work, in which case you
should just get a dedicated wide angle prime, I doubt that you'd really see
that much difference in usability between the 30mm sigma and the 50mm Nikon.
Assuming you have the standard kit zoom lens for the D70, compose a shot at
30mm using the focal length markings on the lens, and then frame the same
subject with the lens zoomed to 50mm. Not all that much different in my
book. When using any prime lens, remember that the zoom function is always
implemented with your feet.

I dabbled a bit in photojournalism when I was with the paper and with the
AP (meaning that if there wasn't an assigned staff photog with me, I could
take acceptable B&W photos, usually on Tri-X. I had a Nikon F with two
lenses, a 35 mm and a 105 f2.5. I felt able to do about anything with
those two, and my kit lens gives me about the same coverage. I jsut want
faster glass. Are you old enough to remember the Stroboflash IV flash?
That's what I used way back then. Now I use the Nikon SB-600, and it is
terrific.


Let's just say that I'm old enough to remember flash bulbs and leave it at
that. My first strobe was bought when I was in high school. A cheapo
Vivitar with no automatic features whatsoever. Manual calcs required using
guide numbers. Wouldn't have any idea how to do it anymore.

Which is a major problem for me as I like using long lenses for some
reason I can't figure out.


Probably because you shoot primarily outdoors, where things can get a bit
far away.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:28:38 -0700, "RG" wrote:



I dabbled a bit in photojournalism when I was with the paper and with
the
AP (meaning that if there wasn't an assigned staff photog with me, I
could
take acceptable B&W photos, usually on Tri-X. I had a Nikon F with two
lenses, a 35 mm and a 105 f2.5. I felt able to do about anything with
those two, and my kit lens gives me about the same coverage. I jsut
want
faster glass. Are you old enough to remember the Stroboflash IV flash?
That's what I used way back then. Now I use the Nikon SB-600, and it
is
terrific.


Let's just say that I'm old enough to remember flash bulbs and leave it
at
that. My first strobe was bought when I was in high school. A cheapo
Vivitar with no automatic features whatsoever. Manual calcs required
using
guide numbers. Wouldn't have any idea how to do it anymore.

I have an old Honeywell strobe in the basement and an honest to pete
foil flash bulb holder. :)

I miss the old "magic cube" flashes........they also made great special
effect props in theater :-)

I have an old Honeywell strobe in the basement and an honest to pete
foil flash bulb holder. :)

Remember the old flash cubes used on Instamatics back in the 60's?

Remember stereo slides? I have a hundred or so stereo slides shot by my dad
in the 50's. About ten years ago I set out on a search to find a stereo
viewer for them. Found one at an antique camera store for about $100.
Great images.

Harry Krause wrote:
RG wrote:
But then you wouldn't have a fairly fast approximately 50 mm lens. You'd
have a fairly fast 75 mm lens.
I would really like a fast 70 mm lens that would work as a fast 105 mm for
portraits. My Nikkor zoom that came with my D70 will, of course,
approximately equal a 105 in focal length, but not in speed.

A fast lens is always a nice thing to have, but perhaps not nearly as
important as it was in the days of film. Don't forget that your D70 can
shoot at up to 800 ISO with very acceptable results. The difference from
ISO 200 to ISO 800 is the equivalent of two f stops. That's the equivalent
of making an f4 lens as fast as an f2 lens, all other things being equal.
Still, there's nothing quite like fast glass, and f1.4 is pretty fast.


Well, I like to shoot at 200 ISO and on occasion will push to 400. I
don't much like the results on my big enlargements at speeds above 400.
That's why I want a nice chunka glass.




As for the focal length, unless you are doing tight work, in which case you
should just get a dedicated wide angle prime, I doubt that you'd really see
that much difference in usability between the 30mm sigma and the 50mm Nikon.
Assuming you have the standard kit zoom lens for the D70, compose a shot at
30mm using the focal length markings on the lens, and then frame the same
subject with the lens zoomed to 50mm. Not all that much different in my
book. When using any prime lens, remember that the zoom function is always
implemented with your feet.


I dabbled a bit in photojournalism when I was with the paper and with
the AP (meaning that if there wasn't an assigned staff photog with me, I
could take acceptable B&W photos, usually on Tri-X. I had a Nikon F with
two lenses, a 35 mm and a 105 f2.5. I felt able to do about anything
with those two, and my kit lens gives me about the same coverage. I jsut
want faster glass. Are you old enough to remember the Stroboflash IV
flash? That's what I used way back then. Now I use the Nikon SB-600, and
it is terrific.

I'd like the fast 70 (105 for me) for portraits. I love the 105 focal
length and natural light shots, and I think I need an F2.5 for that.


i love the look of a 105mm as well. it's been my most often used
length in recent days.

i'd be concerned about the sharpness of any 1.4 lens, btw. it takes a
lot of precision (and money) to reach those kind of limits with sharp
results.

OlBlueEyes wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in
:

RG wrote:

On the other hand, Nikon makes a couple of very good prime lenses
that are great values. They offer an F1.4 50mm autofocus lens for
only $270, and if you don't mind going just a bit slower, an F1.8
50mm for right at $100, a real steal. While these lenses would
equate to 75mm in terms of a 35mm SLR, and therefore are a bit longer
than the Sigma lens, I would suspect that they are superior glass
over the Sigma lens, and can be had for less money. Plus you get to
keep your system all Nikon. One of these Nikon 50mm primes is
probably my next lens for my D70.




But then you wouldn't have a fairly fast approximately 50 mm lens.
You'd have a fairly fast 75 mm lens.

So what? 50mm (for 35mm film) is an artificial choice for a "normal"
lens. A 35mm more accurately reproduces your field of vision, and an 85-
105 works ten times better as a portrait lens.

The shooter whose bag contains a 35mm and an 85 or 105 hardly ever uses
his 50mm.

Bull****! It all depends on subject.