Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 5)

Hi guys looking to do some macro photography now that I have a mini stuido kit and wondered if theres 1:1 macro lens that anyone could recommend.
 
BalSanghera said:
Hi guys looking to do some macro photography now that I have a mini stuido kit and wondered if theres 1:1 macro lens that anyone could recommend.
Click to expand...

It depends on your budget, and what you're wanting to shoot, but the three general macros are the Sigma 105, Tamron 90 and Sony (Minolta) 100.

A cheaper option would be a 50mm macro, but you have to get significantly closer to your subject, which is a problem with insects if that's what you're after.
 
Just want to do some basic stuff with rings and small items nothing moving like insects... I bought a mini studio kit from redsnapper and thought perfect chance to do some macro stuff.
 
snapsnap said:
I was looking at that lens. Worth the money then?? i see it half the price of the sony but would you say half the quality

Cheers
Click to expand...

Optically the Tamron is just as good as the Sony, the price differential is in build quality and lack of SSM - although on a body like the A900 AF is very fast on the Tamron anyhow.
 
After much deliberation (where I posted on a possible change of system), I have taken the plunge and bid on E Bay for a Minolta lens - and won! The lens in question is the 35 70 F4 Macro ("mini beercan"), which I want to use as a "portrait zoom". It cost the grand sum of £50.50, so I feel as though I have "pushed the boat out a bit there :LOL:
Anyway, I now have to wait for it to arrive (fingers and toes crossed).
Is it normal to feel this apprehensive about buying something off E Bay, or is it just me?
Andy
 
I had the same lens for sale here for less than that. and it was absolutely mint. since it didn't sell here I posted in on the bay and sold it there.
 
snapsnap said:
Thanks Andy i took the jump and got the lens for £500 delivered

Can't wait to try it out
Click to expand...

Great, I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

I bought one in Nikon fit about 2 years ago and loved it optically, but the AF is dog slow on Nikon.

The Sony fit is pretty quick, and the sharpness / bokeh wide open at 200mm f/2.8 is very nice :love:
 
Starastin said:
I had the same lens for sale here for less than that. and it was absolutely mint. since it didn't sell here I posted in on the bay and sold it there.
Click to expand...

I only started looking for one of these recently, and it was only last week that someone on here suggested this particular lens. It has arrived and everything is very neat and tidy. The macro works fine (just on manual though, but that is what I expected). The colours and sharpness are very impressive next to the 18-70 kit lens, and the construction is streets ahead, far more solid.
 
Everyone seems to call any f/4 Minolta lens a "beercan" ;)

In reality its just the 70-210 f/4 that should be called that ("Mini" would be the 100-200 f/4.5 which is very nice too, if there was such a thing as a "mini")
 
Hey guys I am planning to to do some landscape shots using long exposure with my 10-20mm but I dont have any filters. So the question is really what filter should I be looking at to ensure I dont turn out with overexposed shots or even worst just a white image lol.

I have looked online but its bit of a minefield with loads of different brands, grades and sizes.

I know its a 77mm thread size that I need but thats about it.
 
BalSanghera said:
Hey guys I am planning to to do some landscape shots using long exposure with my 10-20mm but I dont have any filters. So the question is really what filter should I be looking at to ensure I dont turn out with overexposed shots or even worst just a white image lol.

I have looked online but its bit of a minefield with loads of different brands, grades and sizes.

I know its a 77mm thread size that I need but thats about it.
Click to expand...

sufice to say that to shoot at 10mm,you will need the likes of lee or cokin [z]pro filters,which[as far as i know anyway]are the only one's that won't give you vignetting at these wide angles.to lengthen your exposures,you'll need ND filters,and to balance the sky/foreground,ND grads.which you will need will depend on certain factors...difference between foreground/sky in terms of stops of light for ND grads,and length of exposure required for effect ie silky waterfalls require an exposure time of approx 1-2 secs..any longer and you risk blowing the highlights.

i'm no expert,but i hope this helps (y)
 
Hey guys I seem to be getting the same sort of feedback on all my recent posts that my images are too soft... I dont know if I am doing something wrong technically or maybe an issue with lens. I didnt actually notice how bad it was until I applied Sharpen filter in PS.

Pictures have all been taken with A700 and Sigma 24-70mm.

After looking at the lens I noticed the lens protector was really dirty so iv given that a good clean and hoping thats all it was. But would they be any other reason why my images would come out soft?

You can view the images in my last few threads http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/search.php?searchid=4358075
 
try too shoot some shots in controlled environment in manual focus. then post the results .
the shots look dull and with a back focus problem. not the first ones seen here with this lens. sorry, but it seems that you need to send it to sigma or talk to the person who sold it to you.
 
i think i might of got this wrong do we post here if its a sony ??
if so cool if not whoops

hi i have a sony a450
current lens
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 17-35 2.8 d lens
Sony 18-55 kit lens
Tamron 55-200

i shoot mainly landscapes i suppose but i do like to take the odd portrait and just anything really
question is im struggling with a bit of sharpness and wondered if its time for a better lens im happy with the 50mm as i find this great and very sharp but the 17-35 seams a bit soft does anyone have any advise on a replacement
i will probably have to sell some to get funds a suppose
thanks
 
Starastin said:
minolta 17-35mm f2.8-4 d - I believe. I don't think it should be that bad.
soft wide open ?
Click to expand...

i think so unless im doing something wrong its no where near as sharp as the 50mm prime or a least i dont think so or is this because im noticing more faults ?
i suppose its difficult to tell !
best way is can you have a look at my website and pick a image that's sharp and i know if which lens i used ! www.wix.com/pdebrito/best-yet
 
debrito said:
i think so unless im doing something wrong its no where near as sharp as the 50mm prime or a least i dont think so or is this because im noticing more faults ?
Click to expand...

I have never owned the 17-35/2.8-4 D but it doesn't get the best scores for sharpness on the dyxum lens database. Generally I wouldn't expect a wide angle zoom to do as well for sharpness as a 50mm prime.

I think puddleduck has or had one so might be able to give some real life experience about this lens.

I was using the Sony ZA 16-80 as a wide angle zoom on my A700 and had no complaints, that's a bit more expensive though.
 
Starastin said:
try too shoot some shots in controlled environment in manual focus. then post the results .
the shots look dull and with a back focus problem. not the first ones seen here with this lens. sorry, but it seems that you need to send it to sigma or talk to the person who sold it to you.
Click to expand...

I think it may be problem with the lens tooo but bought it around 2years ago on here and doubt it has warranty now.

I will try doing some controlled shots with this lens and try the samr settings using my a350 and see whats going on.

Whats the back forward focus problem? Where its focusing on the background instead of object in front... Cus thats exactly was happening yesterday but I wasnt sure if it was because I set it wrong. Will post example 2nite.
 
BalSanghera said:
I think it may be problem with the lens tooo but bought it around 2years ago on here and doubt it has warranty now.

I will try doing some controlled shots with this lens and try the samr settings using my a350 and see whats going on.

Whats the back forward focus problem? Where its focusing on the background instead of object in front... Cus thats exactly was happening yesterday but I wasnt sure if it was because I set it wrong. Will post example 2nite.
Click to expand...


when the focus is like an half inch off although you did focus on the persons face. a very common problem with sigmas unfortunately.
 
onomatopoeia said:
I have never owned the 17-35/2.8-4 D but it doesn't get the best scores for sharpness on the dyxum lens database. Generally I wouldn't expect a wide angle zoom to do as well for sharpness as a 50mm prime.

I think puddleduck has or had one so might be able to give some real life experience about this lens.

I was using the Sony ZA 16-80 as a wide angle zoom on my A700 and had no complaints, that's a bit more expensive though.
Click to expand...


but for landscape work I can't see him using anything less than F8, so it should be sharp there.
 
onomatopoeia said:
I have never owned the 17-35/2.8-4 D but it doesn't get the best scores for sharpness on the dyxum lens database. Generally I wouldn't expect a wide angle zoom to do as well for sharpness as a 50mm prime.

I think puddleduck has or had one so might be able to give some real life experience about this lens.

I was using the Sony ZA 16-80 as a wide angle zoom on my A700 and had no complaints, that's a bit more expensive though.
Click to expand...

There is another lens which rarely comes up for sale (although a boxed, mint one sold on ebay today for under £90), which is the Tamron SP AF 20 - 40 IF 2.7 - 3.5. It has a very good reputation for sharpness, but has a somewhat restricted range.
 
The KM 17-35mm f2.8-4 is a nice UWA lens on FF. It is soft wide open but you don't often use a UWA wide open. On APS-C it's not as good as it's no longer UWA and has a limited zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top