Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking to replace my Tamron 70-300 with something faster and that will give me sharper images, main use will be rally photography.
 
or if you really wanna break the bank..a 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM :love:

DSC04403.jpg
 
I would have to own the bank to get one of those Stan, I was thinking about the Tamron F2.8 but again £600 ouch:eek:
 
rhonddaboy said:
Looking to replace my Tamron 70-300 with something faster and that will give me sharper images, main use will be rally photography.
Click to expand...

SAL70200G. Splendid lens. Of course, it cost me more than several of the cars I've owned in my life, but it's lovely.
 
rhonddaboy said:
I would have to own the bank to get one of those Stan, I was thinking about the Tamron F2.8 but again £600 ouch:eek:
Click to expand...

yeah,they ain't cheap alan,but the best option for the alpha range.it might be worth looking at the sigma 70-200 as well,as apparently it focusses faster,less noisy AF than the tamron,but maybe not quite as sharp unless you get a good copy...

onomatopoeia said:
SAL70200G. Splendid lens. Of course, it cost me more than several of the cars I've owned in my life, but it's lovely.
Click to expand...

tell me about it :LOL:
 
I've got the Minolta 800-200 f/2.8 HS APO which is the forerunner of the Sony 70-200 SSM and it seems very nice - its also really quite small and compact compared to many other 70-200 f/2.8.

You can see it in my bag here - note a lot bigger than the CZ 16-35 or 24-70 really!

http://www.andydrakeimages.co.uk/FS/TP/DSC09122.jpg

Very sharp, and the focusing is amazingly quick - on my A900 the focusing is faster than some Nikon AF-S lenses, and certainly as quick (if not quicker!) than my SSM lenses.
 
mastertrinity said:
ive just thought, if sony allowed all minolta lenses to come back into production people would be having trouble with lens finding and it would be equal to canikons. if only....
Click to expand...

A lof of "Sony" lenses are Minolta, including the 50mm f/1.4, 70-200 SSM (Minolta made this just before the take over), 50mm f/2.8 macro, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 28mm wide etc etc

The lenses are still being made, just with a Sony label :)
 
puddleduck said:
A lof of "Sony" lenses are Minolta, including the 50mm f/1.4, 70-200 SSM (Minolta made this just before the take over), 50mm f/2.8 macro, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 28mm wide etc etc

The lenses are still being made, just with a Sony label :)
Click to expand...

it would have seem easier though if sony was body maker and minolta made the lenses and then carl zeiss make there special editions, that way we will still have all the old lenses available for cheaper than what they are now.
 
mastertrinity said:
it would have seem easier though if sony was body maker and minolta made the lenses and then carl zeiss make there special editions, that way we will still have all the old lenses available for cheaper than what they are now.
Click to expand...

The problem is the ones they haven't put back into production are now fetching premium prices second-hand - 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 200/2.8, 200/4 macro etc.

Get on with it Sony!
 
onomatopoeia said:
The problem is the ones they haven't put back into production are now fetching premium prices second-hand - 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 200/2.8, 200/4 macro etc.

Get on with it Sony!
Click to expand...

Is there a real demand for a 28mm f/2 or a 100mm f/2 or a 200mm f/ macro though?

I shoot both Nikon and Sony, and certainly Nikon has more lenses. However I've never felt limited in choices for Sony.

All my favourite 3rd party lenses are readily available, and I really do wonder if there is really a demand for such exotics? - even in Nikon fit, there is no 28mm f/2 in autofocus, no 100mm f/2 auto focus, and while there is a 200mm f/4 macro anyone with any sense would just buy a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 or Sigma 180mm f/3.5

I think a lot of lens "demand" is theoretical rather than actual :)
 
puddleduck said:
Is there a real demand for a 28mm f/2 or a 100mm f/2 or a 200mm f/ macro though?

I shoot both Nikon and Sony, and certainly Nikon has more lenses. However I've never felt limited in choices for Sony.

All my favourite 3rd party lenses are readily available, and I really do wonder if there is really a demand for such exotics? - even in Nikon fit, there is no 28mm f/2 in autofocus, no 100mm f/2 auto focus, and while there is a 200mm f/4 macro anyone with any sense would just buy a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 or Sigma 180mm f/3.5

I think a lot of lens "demand" is theoretical rather than actual :)
Click to expand...

but think about other lenses, nikon has a a 35mm f2 that can be bought for £250 whereas minoltas are now selling at £400, if sony made a new version it would be less than that and would compete with nikons price. i would be perfectly happy if sony made a 35mm f1.8/f2 and an 85mm f1.8 because that would be the perfect set up for me having a 35mm,50mm,85mm and then 100mm macro.
 
Yep, the Nikon 35mm f/2 is a super little lens.

One slight problem with making new primes is that the CZ 24-70 is so good from 24mm to 35mm that there is a chance you might not really improve optical performance. And a Sony 35mm f/2 won't be £250 - add £150 for the Sony label.

Certainly in Nikon land, the 14-24 f/2.8 obsoleted all the primes in that overlapping range and the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 (which I still have) is better than any AF primes in the overlapping range too - I think to a large extent the CZ 16-36 and 24-70 are doing better than primes. Certainly the Minolta 28mm f/2.8 looks very very weak compared to a Tamron 28-75 or CZ 24-70 for corner shading and sharpness.
 
mastertrinity said:
but think about other lenses, nikon has a a 35mm f2 that can be bought for £250 whereas minoltas are now selling at £400, if sony made a new version it would be less than that and would compete with nikons price.
Click to expand...
doubt it - it would be a new design with R&D & tooling etc. all at today's costs. Look at how all Canon & Nikon's updated lenses (e.g. 70-200/2.8s) are dearer than the older versions.
 
puddleduck said:
Is there a real demand for a 28mm f/2 or a 100mm f/2 or a 200mm f/ macro though?
Click to expand...

I don't know. You missed the 35/2 from the list, the Sony 35/1.4 is great (I really like the focal length on APS-C), but expensive, a slower version that is cheaper I think would be popular. The 100/2 might be an affordable alternative to a CZ 85mm (there being no cheaper 85/1.8 like can be found in Cankion)- currently when available (Japan, US) they are around £500 equivalent, plus VAT, plus duty, plus clearance charges which starts to make a new CZ look more attractive.

I don't do macro, but the 200/4 seems to go for prodigious amounts of money every time one comes up on ebay (£1400+) so there must be some demand.

I didn't even mention 'G' quality primes over 300mm, Canon or Nikon equivalents of which are seen at lots of sporting events. Bleeding loads of them when I went to the first day of England vs Australia at Cardiff and for the England vs WI one-day at Bristol last year. Yes that's exotica again and my Minolta 300/4 is enough for my needs (no Sony equivalent there either) but these things must sell.

I'm sure people would welcome (and buy) a non £4000 300mm prime from Sony for example.
 
heidfirst said:
doubt it - it would be a new design with R&D & tooling etc. all at today's costs. Look at how all Canon & Nikon's updated lenses (e.g. 70-200/2.8s) are dearer than the older versions.
Click to expand...

yes you are right about that, thats why the new sony 50mm f1.8 is meant to be better than the canon and nikon versions because its all digitized. though i would pay to have a 35mm f2 for something like £400 at least then there will be no skimping on IQ and less flare, CA's etc.
 
there's a 500mm f4 or f4.5 coming & could well be a 200mm macro too ...
optically you can expect them to be topnotch so don't expect them to be cheap but I woud expect them to be priced not too different from CaNikon offerings (as long as theirs isn't ancient & hence R&D, tooling etc. have all been written off already).
 
onomatopoeia said:
I didn't even mention 'G' quality primes over 300mm, Canon or Nikon equivalents of which are seen at lots of sporting events. Bleeding loads of them when I went to the first day of England vs Australia at Cardiff and for the England vs WI one-day at Bristol last year. Yes that's exotica again and my Minolta 300/4 is enough for my needs (no Sony equivalent there either) but these things must
Click to expand...

Sony don't really have a body geared up to Pro sports shooters (seeing as most Pro's seem think they need 8 to 10 fps..) and the AF might need some work as well.

So factor in a new Pro body and a lens that'll probably cost £1k more than Nikon, and probably £1.5k more than Canon.. and in all honesty if you need a 300mm now, its probably best to buy a Canon body + lens than hope / wait for Sony to maybe do something. Its just the sensible pragmatic approach if you are Pro shooter needing long lenses at sport events.

PS: How is that Minolta 300mm f/4? I still have my Nikon f/4 - can't let it go, even though I don't have a Nikon body now :nuts::bang:
 
Last edited:
quick question - i want to do macro photography (not insects) of abstracts etc would it be better for my 50mm to have some extension tubes or to get the 30mm f2.8 macro?

also if i had extension tubes on my 50mm will it give a 1:1 ratio?
 
To get your 50mm to go to 1:1 you'll need around 50mm of extension.

Actually a Kenko 36mm tube will get you close to 1:1.

Alternatively get a reversing ring for a fiver on Ebay.
 
puddleduck said:
To get your 50mm to go to 1:1 you'll need around 50mm of extension.

Actually a Kenko 36mm tube will get you close to 1:1.

Alternatively get a reversing ring for a fiver on Ebay.
Click to expand...

so how does the whole ratio thing work, do you essentially double the focal length to get to 1:1?

also i hear that with extension tubes you have light loss and a small depth of field, is this true? will it affect my photography much?
 
mastertrinity said:
so how does the whole ratio thing work, do you essentially double the focal length to get to 1:1?

also i hear that with extension tubes you have light loss and a small depth of field, is this true? will it affect my photography much?
Click to expand...

You can roughly estimate that way although as some lenses will focus closer than others, its not exact. There is a complicated formular but its close enough.

With a tube you'll lose light. A 50mm lens with 50mm extension going to 1:1 will have the same depth of field of a real 50mm macro at 1:1 - remember though that all macro lenses lose light as they focus closer (which is why they are only f/2.8 at infinity, and drop to say f/4.5 at mimimum focus distance). The tube is no different.
 
puddleduck said:
PS: How is that Minolta 300mm f/4? I still have my Nikon f/4 - can't let it go, even though I don't have a Nikon body now :nuts::bang:
Click to expand...

I'm delighted with it so far, even though all I've done is some test shots in my garden so far as circuit based motorsport doesn't really get going until April (and I'm course controller at our first Combe event so wont be able to take any pictures there).

Seems to do everything I want - focus is fast and accurate, very sharp even at f/4 so 100% crops are useable, colours are lovely (like many Minolta lenses and Sony copies thereof) and has a nice defocused effect.
 
Just taken delivery of my new Siggy 17 - 70 F/2.8 - 4 and Im very pleased with it as a kit lens replacement. Really sharp and I cant wait to use it in ernest as soon as possible.
 
Looking for a good lens upto round 300mm. I have the kit lens but looking at getting something better. I have looked at the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM but it ent that low on f stop. Is this a good lens or should i be looking at something different. The best price is £499

Cheeers
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
snapsnap said:
Hi infact i am going to have to think about this. I have a tamron 200-500 and a sigma 2.8 24-105 as well as kit 70-300 would it be best to go for a Tamron 2.8 70-200 will this be faster than the sony 70-300 g ssm.

The main reason i need this lens is for wildlife a birds that are flying.

Thanks in advance

http://www.fotosense.co.uk/tamron-a...NUSD-wZpuJ9xx3uq873U3OFEblhhQYFkp5n5bkNaUeTL1 or

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/ddl-sony-g-lenses/sal-70300g

or other choice
Click to expand...

i would go for the tamron 70-200mm purely for the f2.8 aperture and i believe its faster than the 70-300mm.
 
snapsnap said:
Hi infact i am going to have to think about this. I have a tamron 200-500 and a sigma 2.8 24-105 as well as kit 70-300 would it be best to go for a Tamron 2.8 70-200 will this be faster than the sony 70-300 g ssm.

The main reason i need this lens is for wildlife a birds that are flying.

Thanks in advance

http://www.fotosense.co.uk/tamron-a...NUSD-wZpuJ9xx3uq873U3OFEblhhQYFkp5n5bkNaUeTL1 or

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/ddl-sony-g-lenses/sal-70300g

or other choice
Click to expand...

1) is 200mm going to be long enough in focal length for you (I suspect not for flying birds)
2) the Tamron 70-200/2.8 isn't the fastest focusing (e.g. for not much more the Sigma HSM II is supposed to be quicker at AF but possibly not quite as sharp)

How about a Sony 70-400mm G SSM to replace the Tamron 200-500 & the kit 70-300? Yes, it's dearer & heavier but it's also better.
 
ki_user said:
Hi guys, I'm getting a little miffed changing my lens all the time thinking of ditching my kit lens in favour of a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II. Any good?
Click to expand...

the tamron 18-200mm is a decent superzoom however the long focal range comes at a mahoosive comprimise of image quality and as you know there is no fast aperture. how come you dont like changing lenses, if it was me i would spend my money on a decent couple of zooms that will save you from replacement loads of times, eg. a 28-75mm and a 70-300mm and that way you only need to change when you need the focal length.
 
Gazbag said:
Yep, thats the one. I only took delivery on Friday afternoon and have only tried a couple of snapshots indoors so far. I have to say that it appears to give very good sharp images but I will reserve my opinion until I have taken it out for its first live test. So far I am pleased with it.
Click to expand...

how does it compare to the 18-70mm? first thoughts.
 
mastertrinity said:
the tamron 18-200mm is a decent superzoom however the long focal range comes at a mahoosive comprimise of image quality and as you know there is no fast aperture. how come you dont like changing lenses, if it was me i would spend my money on a decent couple of zooms that will save you from replacement loads of times, eg. a 28-75mm and a 70-300mm and that way you only need to change when you need the focal length.
Click to expand...

Was out today and I found myself changing lens loads, I tried to use one lens as much as possible. When I was out walking I tend to go from landscape to birds to macro to landscape................... and so on. :eek: I just can't settle on one lens for any length of time.

I should add I have the tamron 70-300, sony 11-18 & sony 17-55
 
Last edited:
ki_user said:
Hi guys, I'm getting a little miffed changing my lens all the time thinking of ditching my kit lens in favour of a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II. Any good?
Click to expand...
the Tamron 18-250mm is noticeably better (& the Sony version seems a bit better again).
The Sigma 18-250 OS is supposed to be another step up in quality (as well as price).
Imo I would get either 18-250 over the 18-200mm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top