File :-(, x, )
OiD
Just got another lens, Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX aspherical to join with my 18-70 3.5-5.6, 28 2.8 and 100-400 4.5-6.7.

Problem is I cant fit all this in my teeny shoulder bag like before :(

What lenses would you pick to take with you?
I love the 18mm 18-70, should I take it with the 100-400? The 28-70? The 28 prime?

Tl;dr another gear thread
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-P200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:16 02:27:18Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Compulsory, Return DetectedFocal Length10.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1328Image Height626RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
18-70, 28-70 and 100-400

your sigma covers 28mm at 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>276314
Now I see the problem here, you're using a Sony... Sony... Sony... better man up and get a fucking Nikon/Canon.
>> Anonymous
OP: What do you shoot? How do you like to shoot? What sort of perspective do you typically use?

For general photography, I'd suggest taking the 28 and 18-70 and leave the Sigma and 100-400. Personally, I'd leave it all but the 28, perfect for my taste and style.

>>276316
What, and two standard zooms don't duplicate "coverage?"

Anyway, lens choice isn't just sheer numerics.
>> Anonymous
>>276325

18-70 for walk around because it's nice and light

pulls out the 28-70 if you need 2.8, pulls out 100-400 if you need tele
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OMFG
>> Anonymous
>>276328
1) He's carrying all this in a bag. If you're rejecting the Sigma because it's a heavy f/2.8 zoom, you're missing the point.

2) No one really "needs tele" in the way you're talking except people who actually need tele because everything they shoot in far away, e.g. wildlife photographers.

For typical subjects and styles, the 70mm he has is enough.

3) The times when one needs a fast lens are usually predictable. He can take the Sigma then. As a general kit, when he has an 18-70, a 28-70 doesn't add anything.
>> Anonymous
>>276333
Goddamn, no one cares. Yes we know Sony panders to consumer ignorance. No it doesn't mean anything else except that they're good at being a soulless amoral corporation.
>> OiD
>>276316
My ideal choice if it fit in the bag xD

>>276324
Buy me one

>>276325
I shoot groups and portrait with the occasional low light scene. I love the prime, it's my always on lens.

I need a bigger bag. or a 8-500mm f0.9 ultrasharp ultralight ultrasonicboomfocus bla bla bla for free.

Tomorrow I'll try taking just the 28-70 an 100-400.

How do you guys carry your stuff around?
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
28-70 and 100-400
you pretty much have 28-400 covered that should be enough......
>> Anonymous
wow, you're being awfully butthurt about this, buddy

>> 1) He's carrying all this in a bag. If you're rejecting the Sigma because it's a heavy f/2.8 zoom, you're missing the point.

uhhh the 18-70 actually covers more range than the 28-70, is lighter and smaller so therefore, is better suited for walking around with it

>> 2) No one really "needs tele" in the way you're talking except people who actually need tele because everything they shoot in far away, e.g. wildlife photographers.

um, this guy has a 100-400, for whatever reason, so fucking obviously, he would need it, jesus

>> 3) The times when one needs a fast lens are usually predictable. He can take the Sigma then. As a general kit, when he has an 18-70, a 28-70 doesn't add anything.

thanks for proving what i said
>> OiD
>>276333
Go buy a hasseblad.
>> Anonymous
>>276342
>butthurt
>buddy
>uhhh
>thanks for proving what i said
>[excessive and odd comma use]
>[lowercase]

Ah, this troll again. I'm going to give>>276316the benefit of the doubt an assume you're not him.
>> Anonymous
uh, wat

whatever, dude. thanks for proving i'm right and that you know nothing. nice of you to call trolling when you lose the argument