Goodness, my apologies— I'll type slower next time.Sorry, Piyono, this isn't making any sense to me.
Ah, see, that explains it: in the narrow corridor of existence that is my reality, anything over f/2 is slow. I like shooting people up close in low light with no flash. What can I say... I dream of 35mm f/1.2 at noiseless high ISOs. I don't shoot birds. Well, not with cameras. And, not, come to think of it, with anything else. Unless, by "bird" you mean "attractive human female", a species whose members at which I will, occasionally, shoot a glance.Now you have lost me. What slower glass? f/4 is the fastest glass there is in 500mm, it delivers more light than any other lens of equal length. A 500mm f/2.8 would cost maybe US$20,000 and weigh enough to break your back. No-one makes them.
Hmmm... perhaps it is you who should type slower. I know almost as much about golf as I do about bird photography. I concede defeat and thank you for broadening my island of knowledge / shore of ignorance.In summary, buying a D3 for birding would be like buying the world's best 9 iron - for driving off the tee on long par fives. Great tool, but entirely the wrong job for it.
I'd imagine you would want very tight control of the focal plane, so something fast. You will also want to stay out of the way, so something slightly long. A 50/1.2 would be great, but my 50/1.8 could do as well.What lens do you use at a funeral?
I'd imagine you would want very tight control of the focal plane, so something fast. You will also want to stay out of the way, so something slightly long. A 50/1.2 would be great, but my 50/1.8 could do as well.
Whose funeral?
Those are not a "real" lens, in the sense that you can't actually buy one. That is a one-off they made for a trade show. Sigma don't seem to be in any hurry to make them, and at this stage have not committed to ever making them, although they may do at some time in the future.
The weight is phenomenal, of course, and the cost would be staggering.
I know, I know. Would you belive it? Eight hours after I posted that "not a real lens" Sigma announced that they were realising it to manufacture.
I mean, I was right when I posted it, but eight hours? Couldn't they have waited a week or two out of courtesy?
Hmmm... $30,000 AU, near enough. That's a crazy price for a few bits of glass in a metal tube. Mind you, initial advertised price for the Canon 800/5.6 I have my eye on is AU $20,000, so I can see I'm going to have to save my pennies.
Eric, according to a sidebar in Geoffrey Crawley's recent review of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Kubrick did own the lens, but he never paid for it:
"When movie director Stanley Kubrick insisted that the candle-lit dinner scene in the film Barry Lyndon (1975) should be filmed lit only by candles and with no artificial lighting, I remembered the lens and recommended he try it. Zeiss opticians later told me that I had cost them DM40,000, to adapt it for the Arri movie camera. When I askes why they hadn't sent Kubrick the bill, the reply - typical of Zeiss idealism - was: 'How could we? the guy was creating something with it.'"
Geoffrey Crawley, Amateur Photographer magazine, 24th June 2006.
Could be the pancake lens. Could be the 'retro chic'. I don't know... but I like it.
What I really want is a slimmed down, ligher weight, fully sealed, ISO 6400 (same width for better handholding ergo) version of the Canon 5D, a FF '3D' for less than the price of a 40D, lol.
Canon is so slow, I wouldn't expect a 5D update until at least photokinky later this year, but just to piss me off, after I buy a Rebel XSi (450D) in April, Canon will probably release the 5D update a few months later.
I expect Nikon will release such an equivalent like model next year, an FX smaller than the d80, larger than the d60 (size wise, not cost wise).
So who will be the 1st manufacturer to put out a FF digicam for less than $1000. Canon? Not likely, even though Canon was the 1st to release an under $1k crop sensor dSLR, in the form of the Rebel 300d.