Ed Sawyer wrote:
Crikey, I can see some slapping around needs to happen here. Ok, first:
1) Man up! Make your own decisions! WTF is this about \"my wife doesn\'t like this lens\" blah blah blah... frigging grow a pair, already! ;-) Let her get her own gear if she\'s such a \'pro\'. And not able to remember exposure compensation? When you have a digital camera and can chimp? Come on!
Thanks to you, I slept on the couch last night. After reading this I slapped her and told her \"get your own god-damned gear\". It didn\'t have the desired effect. (Should I have waited until we were making love )
2) the only Canon EF 50/1.8 to talk about is the Mk.1. If it\'s a mk2, keep it to use as a loupe but otherwise get a Mk 1. Which, btw is a pretty decent lens overall, though the bokeh can be edgy. It\'s a way better value than the sigma.
Well the MkI goes for closer to $200 these days, has no warranty, is buzzy as hell, has a bad focus ring, and harsh bokeh. I\'m not so sure that\'s a much better value than the Sigma, which is superior in basically every way and costs $550, with a 5 year warranty.
3) Obviously keep the rokkor. that\'s a given. And It\'s the sigmasux, not the sigmalux. (Sigma screwed me over years ago and it still pisses me off.)
I have to try to disregard Sigma-bias. I know they have had issues in the past, but I try to remain objective and take it on a lens-by-lens basis.
As an aside, gear-lust and acquisition is a fun means to its\' own end, but only that. It\'s not a way to become a better shooter in general, and in almost every case the $ would be better spent on something else. That said, I like many others, easily fall into the trap of \"must have that lens!\" thinking it will bring about glory and stunning results only to find out, well,... maybe not so much. Having/owning/shooting with various exotic and unique lenses is it\'s own reward, but it\'s not likely the means to further one\'s abilities as a photographer. Rarely is the lens or equipment holding one back.
I agree. This is more a case of trying to be practical, by getting as many of the features and functions that both my wife and myself desire packed into a lens line-up that doesn\'t fill 6 camera bags.
(I too need to thin the herd of lenses. Most of the above is tounge-in-cheek/humor intended in case you didn\'t notice. ;-)
Now you tell me! Maybe you should be the one to apologize to my wife.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Crikey, I can see some slapping around needs to happen here. Ok, first:
1) Man up! Make your own decisions! WTF is this about \"my wife doesn\'t like this lens\" blah blah blah... frigging grow a pair, already! ;-) Let her get her own gear if she\'s such a \'pro\'. And not able to remember exposure compensation? When you have a digital camera and can chimp? Come on!
Thanks to you, I slept on the couch last night. After reading this I slapped her and told her \"get your own god-damned gear\". It didn\'t have the desired effect. (Should I have waited until we were making love )
2) the only Canon EF 50/1.8 to talk about is the Mk.1. If it\'s a mk2, keep it to use as a loupe but otherwise get a Mk 1. Which, btw is a pretty decent lens overall, though the bokeh can be edgy. It\'s a way better value than the sigma.
Well the MkI goes for closer to $200 these days, has no warranty, is buzzy as hell, has a bad focus ring, and harsh bokeh. I\'m not so sure that\'s a much better value than the Sigma, which is superior in basically every way and costs $500, with a 5 year warranty.
3) Obviously keep the rokkor. that\'s a given. And It\'s the sigmasux, not the sigmalux. (Sigma screwed me over years ago and it still pisses me off.)
I have to try to disregard Sigma-bias. I know they have had issues in the past, but I try to remain objective and take it on a lens-by-lens basis.
As an aside, gear-lust and acquisition is a fun means to its\' own end, but only that. It\'s not a way to become a better shooter in general, and in almost every case the $ would be better spent on something else. That said, I like many others, easily fall into the trap of \"must have that lens!\" thinking it will bring about glory and stunning results only to find out, well,... maybe not so much. Having/owning/shooting with various exotic and unique lenses is it\'s own reward, but it\'s not likely the means to further one\'s abilities as a photographer. Rarely is the lens or equipment holding one back.
I agree. This is more a case of trying to be practical, by getting as many of the features and functions that both my wife and myself desire packed into a lens line-up that doesn\'t fill 6 camera bags.
(I too need to thin the herd of lenses. Most of the above is tounge-in-cheek/humor intended in case you didn\'t notice. ;-)
Now you tell me! Maybe you should be the one to apologize to my wife.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Crikey, I can see some slapping around needs to happen here. Ok, first:
1) Man up! Make your own decisions! WTF is this about \"my wife doesn\'t like this lens\" blah blah blah... frigging grow a pair, already! ;-) Let her get her own gear if she\'s such a \'pro\'. And not able to remember exposure compensation? When you have a digital camera and can chimp? Come on!
Thanks to you, I slept on the couch last night. After reading this I slapped her and told her \"get your own god-damned gear\". It didn\'t have the desired effect. (Should I have waited until we were making love )
2) the only Canon EF 50/1.8 to talk about is the Mk.1. If it\'s a mk2, keep it to use as a loupe but otherwise get a Mk 1. Which, btw is a pretty decent lens overall, though the bokeh can be edgy. It\'s a way better value than the sigma.
Well the MkI goes for closer to $200 these days, has no warranty, is buzzy as hell, has a bad focus ring, and harsh bokeh. I\'m not so sure that\'s a much better value than the Sigma, which is superior in basically every way and costs $500, with a 5 year warranty.
3) Obviously keep the rokkor. that\'s a given. And It\'s the sigmasux, not the sigmalux. (Sigma screwed me over years ago and it still pisses me off.)
I have to try to disregard Sigma-bias. I know they have had issues in the past, but I try to remain objective and take it on a lens-by-lens basis.
As an aside, gear-lust and acquisition is a fun means to its\' own end, but only that. It\'s not a way to become a better shooter in general, and in almost every case the $ would be better spent on something else. That said, I like many others, easily fall into the trap of \"must have that lens!\" thinking it will bring about glory and stunning results only to find out, well,... maybe not so much. Having/owning/shooting with various exotic and unique lenses is it\'s own reward, but it\'s not likely the means to further one\'s abilities as a photographer. Rarely is the lens or equipment holding one back.
I agree. This is more a case of trying to be practical, by getting as many of the features and functions that both my wife and myself desire packed into a lens line-up that doesn\'t fill 6 camera bags.
(I too need to thin the herd of lenses. Most of the above is tounge-in-cheek/humor intended in case you didn\'t notice. ;-)
Now you tell me! Maybe you should be the one to apologize to my wife.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Crikey, I can see some slapping around needs to happen here. Ok, first:
1) Man up! Make your own decisions! WTF is this about \"my wife doesn\'t like this lens\" blah blah blah... frigging grow a pair, already! ;-) Let her get her own gear if she\'s such a \'pro\'. And not able to remember exposure compensation? When you have a digital camera and can chimp? Come on!
Thanks to you, I slept on the couch last night. After reading this I slapped her and told her \"get your own god-damned gear\". It didn\'t have the desired effect. (Should I have waited until we were making love?)
2) the only Canon EF 50/1.8 to talk about is the Mk.1. If it\'s a mk2, keep it to use as a loupe but otherwise get a Mk 1. Which, btw is a pretty decent lens overall, though the bokeh can be edgy. It\'s a way better value than the sigma.
Well the MkI goes for closer to $200 these days, has no warranty, is buzzy as hell, has a bad focus ring, and harsh bokeh. I\'m not so sure that\'s a much better value than the Sigma, which is superior in basically every way and costs $500, with a 5 year warranty.
3) Obviously keep the rokkor. that\'s a given. And It\'s the sigmasux, not the sigmalux. (Sigma screwed me over years ago and it still pisses me off.)
I have to try to disregard Sigma-bias. I know they have had issues in the past, but I try to remain objective and take it on a lens-by-lens basis.
As an aside, gear-lust and acquisition is a fun means to its\' own end, but only that. It\'s not a way to become a better shooter in general, and in almost every case the $ would be better spent on something else. That said, I like many others, easily fall into the trap of \"must have that lens!\" thinking it will bring about glory and stunning results only to find out, well,... maybe not so much. Having/owning/shooting with various exotic and unique lenses is it\'s own reward, but it\'s not likely the means to further one\'s abilities as a photographer. Rarely is the lens or equipment holding one back.
I agree. This is more a case of trying to be practical, by getting as many of the features and functions that both my wife and myself desire packed into a lens line-up that doesn\'t fill 6 camera bags.
(I too need to thin the herd of lenses. Most of the above is tounge-in-cheek/humor intended in case you didn\'t notice. ;-)
Now you tell me! Maybe you should be the one to apologize to my wife.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Crikey, I can see some slapping around needs to happen here. Ok, first:
1) Man up! Make your own decisions! WTF is this about \"my wife doesn\'t like this lens\" blah blah blah... frigging grow a pair, already! ;-) Let her get her own gear if she\'s such a \'pro\'. And not able to remember exposure compensation? When you have a digital camera and can chimp? Come on!
Thanks to you, I slept on the couch last night. After reading this I slapped her and told her \"get your own god-damned gear\". It didn\'t have the desired effect.
2) the only Canon EF 50/1.8 to talk about is the Mk.1. If it\'s a mk2, keep it to use as a loupe but otherwise get a Mk 1. Which, btw is a pretty decent lens overall, though the bokeh can be edgy. It\'s a way better value than the sigma.
Well the MkI goes for closer to $200 these days, has no warranty, is buzzy as hell, has a bad focus ring, and harsh bokeh. I\'m not so sure that\'s a much better value than the Sigma, which is superior in basically every way and costs $500, with a 5 year warranty.
3) Obviously keep the rokkor. that\'s a given. And It\'s the sigmasux, not the sigmalux. (Sigma screwed me over years ago and it still pisses me off.)
I have to try to disregard Sigma-bias. I know they have had issues in the past, but I try to remain objective and take it on a lens-by-lens basis.
As an aside, gear-lust and acquisition is a fun means to its\' own end, but only that. It\'s not a way to become a better shooter in general, and in almost every case the $ would be better spent on something else. That said, I like many others, easily fall into the trap of \"must have that lens!\" thinking it will bring about glory and stunning results only to find out, well,... maybe not so much. Having/owning/shooting with various exotic and unique lenses is it\'s own reward, but it\'s not likely the means to further one\'s abilities as a photographer. Rarely is the lens or equipment holding one back.
I agree. This is more a case of trying to be practical, by getting as many of the features and functions that both my wife and myself desire packed into a lens line-up that doesn\'t fill 6 camera bags.
(I too need to thin the herd of lenses. Most of the above is tounge-in-cheek/humor intended in case you didn\'t notice. ;-)
Now you tell me! Maybe you should be the one to apologize to my wife.
Feb 10, 2010 at 09:42 AM
Previous versions of cogitech's message #8115078 « Sell Rokkor and buy Sigmalux? »
) 
