TELE or WA?

[paulatukcamera]

I am obviously "bucking the trend" here!

Just been out this morning and bought myself a tele zoom for landscape photography!

I did go in to the shop intent on buying a much more manageable Sigma 50-150 f2.8, but the good old "can knock in a fencepost" construction just really attracted me (too many old AI/AIS lenses in my past I suspect)

This one:



Mint and very little used at a similar price to the "all plastic" new Sigma. Will have to do a bit of weight training if I am to do it justice!

Landscapes? Yes, seriously. As my photos are largely for the web, I honestly think that wideangle lenses, though a pictorialist's weapon of choice in the past, are not really the best choice for the tiny "box" format of the web. Panoramas are wonderful, but web pages can't use them without displacing a lot of text and that is not the way of the web.

Will try and prove my point when I post a few taken with it!

Paul

[nikonbob]

Paul

Nice lens and I think you will enjoy the weight training to be able to enjoy it. I can see your point about wides, scenics and the web but I also think that it holds true in prints as well. There are times when a wide just diminishes a landscape and a tele is a far better choice. I like to use wides up close and dirty for landscapes after learning by bitter experience that trying to get it all in with a wide usually results in not much of anything in particular.

Bob

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2008 12:36:48 GMT -5 paulatukcamera said:

Landscapes? Yes, seriously. As my photos are largely for the web, I honestly think that wideangle lenses, though a pictorialist's weapon of choice in the past, are not really the best choice for the tiny "box" format of the web. Panoramas are wonderful, but web pages can't use them without displacing a lot of text and that is not the way of the web.

Paul

Au contrair, Monsir! Viv le wide angle!

Nice lens, buy the way, Paul.

Wayne