Malo is talking about the A*, not F/FA*.

On Stan's site it is described as "staggeringly good", and if it were AF, I would expect it to go for much more money.

An FA* 300 1:4.5 went for UKP 561 recently, which compares well with the UKP 400 which I paid for my F version (which is more desirable).

G

I suspect the books you have been reading reflect particular interests. If you were reading about architectural photography, or portraiture, the choice of lenses would be very different.

Be careful you don't spend money on lenses you don't need. (Says the voice of experience.)


G

Jeff,

The list is like a menu in Jamaica - not everything is available. But it does apply universally.

Mid-range lenses are easy to make, and easy to make fast. As you get wider or longer, it is harder to make fast lenses, so the longer/wider the lens, the slower it will be.

But although 1:5.6 (aka f5.6) is slow in absolute terms, it would be considered fast for a very long lens. That is what I mean by "relative".

G

Jeff, you do need to get a book.

The "speed" of a lens is determined by it's largest aperture, and is relative. A 400mm lens with an aperture of 1:2.8 is considered fast, but a 50mm lens with an aperture of 1:2 is considered slow.

A fast lens confers three advantages.

First it provides very limited depth of field when wide-open, allowing you to isolate your subject from the background. Portrait lenses are traditionally fast for that reason.

Second, it permits the use of a higher shutter speed, which is useful in low light or for fast-moving subjects.

Third, it allows more light through the lens when focussing/framing, which helps both.

The disadvantages are cost and bulk.

G

There's going to be a lot of unhappy Sigma users, then.

(Just joking!)

G

I think that the academic community, who really started the whole thing off, were of the view that the Internet existed for the free exchange of information.

Then it became commercialised, and there was horror in the halls of academe.

G

We are honoured.

G

Shame you didn't have longer - and better weather.

But I hope you had time for a nice pair of Manx kippers, and a plate of Queenies.

G

So you didn't mean a word of it? Great, progress at last.

G

The blindingly obvious does not need to be written.

It's called evolution. Animals or machines designed to do the same thing eventually evolve into the most efficient way of doing whatever it is that they are designed to do. That means that different designs will eventually converge.

We used to have 6x6 cm in MF, until people realised that the most pleasing pictures are rectangles, not squares. Heard of the golden mean?

Bright people then designed the 6x4.5 format, which became easily the most popular MF format. This slashed film costs by a third, whilst permitting equal quality. Lenses became smaller too.

By the way, you'd need a 29.39mm square to be compatible with 35mm camera lenses.

Waffle

No idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that modern cameras should look like Spotmatics?

The jelly-mould shape you deride has a lot of structural integrity. Think ping-pong balls. Curves mean strength, and reduce weight.

Did what?

Viewfinder, you are off on one of your rants again.

How are you getting on with your new camera?

G