Digital BW, The Print

This is not exactly to the point so far but in my own adventures with Sigma
I got myself  a 55-200 as Nikon didn¹t make anything like that.
The idea of shooting with a zoom which went into the wide angle range on my
white backdrop dis appealed to my logic on the whole optics thing.
My 55-200 is the first third party lens I¹ve ever landed. I¹ve always been
against that sort of thing.
Unless they were making something your own camera system didn¹t already
have. And this was that.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3288&navigator=6

What I was looking for was a ³digital² replacement for my D100 of your
typical very useful 70-200 for shooting on my white backdrop. People in
portraiture and fashion situations.
That would translate to a 50-135.
But 55-200 is close enough.  70-300¹s have taken over unless you are getting
a 2.8 so I¹d be resigned to that sort of thinking ahead of time.
With film I use Nikons 70-300 ED instead of the 2.8
I don¹t need 2.8 I tend to shoot at f11.

This week however Nikon announces it¹s own 55-200 finally.
And it¹s AF-S.  meaning silent wave. Or American field service depending on
how you look at it.
And I¹ts not going to be free like the Sigma.

For $123.45 cents my Sigma 55-200 does not have an ultrasonic anything in
it..
I¹ts light as a feather and has a finish which makes my D100 look bad in
comparison.
It kind of looks like expensive golf clubs. I¹ts like it¹s graphite or
something.

The whole idea of optics designed for this smaller digital crop circle
appeals like crazy to me. Its close enough to half frame which is almost
identical to APS-C.
The compactness of what the glass could be appeals to me.

But the big question is how can something this cheap be any good?
But another question might be how bad would it have to be to not be worth
the money?
I had a hunch it might be worth checking out. So I landed one.
Sigma made a lens or two for Leica over the years. Leica would get in a
shipment of 100;
And pick out 20 which passed their tests.
But Sigma has a good ring to it for me. Tamron does not.

I walked it around the neighborhood and around Portland and all the images
appeared to be beyond reproach.
It sure balances well and doesn't get in the way.

I shot a family and my backdrop light was not going off. So I cranked it up.
Makes for a nice look anyway.
I got Kojak like blobs. Blue;
On one out of every dozen frames. One or two of the "keepers".
I took them out easily enough having my clone tool set to "color" as I
recall.

I tested the lens some more on the backdrop and as long as I don¹t create a
high flare situation like I did by cranking up the backdrop light. (I
figured out what went wrong on that). Then it works just fine.

And I have the AF turned off half the time anyway. So the silent wave might
not be a big deal for me.
I don't need AutoFocus.
I AM AutoFocus.

When I think ³Silent wave² I think the trailer for Blue Velvet!

Eventually I'll probably will get the Nikon if it's comes down in price and
if it gets great reviews. Both.
A lens of such specs is the real money maker for me.
Although I'm ok with primes.
Like the 60 macro which becomes a 90.
But then I have to run forward quickly to get a head shot. :)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/