Calling all Sony Alpha users!

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPS said:
I've not had too many chances to use my 70-200 in anger since I bought it. I took it out to Sherwood Forest last week and got a few shots but I've just had the bride of the last wedding I covered back in August order an extra 34 photos for her parents so I'm spending most of my spare time at the PC printing photos off. At least it brings in some more £££ for the bank.......

I have also been booked today to do the official photos again this year at the works Xmas do (in October) so they must have liked last years effort. Although I'll not be using the white lens for that night, but the 24-70 f2.8 will suffice I think.
Click to expand...

nice one on picking up the work :clap:.is your 24-70 F/2.8 a sigma? i quite fancy a fast lens in that range.i love my 17-70,but it's a bit slow at the long end for indoor shots...(i suppose i'd better go rob another bank :LOL:)
 
You too are milking this for all its worth!! :nono: You wait, I shall have my white lens soon and I shall have my revenge...mwahaha!!!

I really must take more water with it! :nuts:
 
stan the man said:
nice one on picking up the work :clap:.is your 24-70 F/2.8 a sigma? i quite fancy a fast lens in that range.i love my 17-70,but it's a bit slow at the long end for indoor shots...(i suppose i'd better go rob another bank :LOL:)
Click to expand...


Not a Sigma Stan, a Carl Zeiss and cost the same as the white lens did.
 
fabs said:
You too are milking this for all its worth!! :nono: You wait, I shall have my white lens soon and I shall have my revenge...mwahaha!!!

I really must take more water with it! :nuts:
Click to expand...

'And ye shall be known as White Lens Men, and people shall ye mock'

II Timothy III, verses IX to X :rules:
 
All this white lens envy nonsense... everyone knows tacky silver is the new white.
l5.jpg


Sony want their future pro lenses from to be easily distinguished from canon ones. Good idea in principle. Never been a fan of white, but this isn't the best :puke:

Could have been worse, might have ended up being alpha orange!
 
Chewy said:
All this white lens envy nonsense... everyone knows tacky silver is the new white.
l5.jpg


Sony want their future pro lenses from to be easily distinguished from canon ones. Good idea in principle. Never been a fan of white, but this isn't the best :puke:

Could have been worse, might have ended up being alpha orange!
Click to expand...

:puke:
 
And here's the 16-35 f2.8 Zeiss
2851809866_33e81586a9.jpg


Ah, back to black... all is good again.
 
For everyone else, on dpreview it says both will be released in Jan 09, 16-35 will be $1800 and the 70-400 will be $1500, no news on the sterling price yet.
 
The lens doesn't have to be silver to differentiate from Canon surely? The 70-200 is pristine white compared to the grubby grey of canon. :D
 
fabs said:
The lens doesn't have to be silver to differentiate from Canon surely? The 70-200 is pristine white compared to the grubby grey of canon. :D
Click to expand...

I was more impressed by the underlying sentiment that Sony want to compete with canon at the major events. We've all seen the rows and rows of grubby cream L series glass at the olympics / world cup etc... be nice to have that monopoly broken by a few tacky silver jobbies!
 
Took the plunge, Sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 2.0x EX DG Convertor, I don't have any white paint laying around but I think pink nail varnish should do the trick just means we may have to rename the group.

PS. Highly recommend 'Learning to see Creatively' by Bryan Peterson
 
mortm said:
Took the plunge, Sigma APO 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 2.0x EX DG Convertor, I don't have any white paint laying around but I think pink nail varnish should do the trick just means we may have to rename the group.

PS. Highly recommend 'Learning to see Creatively' by Bryan Peterson
Click to expand...

nice one mortm..i suppose we can forgive you this time,but ...DON'T PAINT IT PINK :eek:...



unless you're a female of course :LOL:
 
Hey, quick question... what all lens brands are compatible with Sony Alpha DSLRs??
 
TinySpark said:
Hey, quick question... what all lens brands are compatible with Sony Alpha DSLRs??
Click to expand...

if i read your question right,you're asking which other manufacturers make lens for the sony bodies...

as far as i know,sigma and tamron are the best known,although tokina may or may not make them also..

it's worth looking at second hand minolta lens as there's lots of them on e-bay going quite cheap.i can recommend the 50mm F/1.7 prime,and the beercan comes highly recommended by most on here
 
Thanks Stan_the_man, and I guess my grammar wasn't the greatest there! :LOL:
(also is Carl Zeiss a sony compatible lens?)

I really want to buy a lens for my a100 that has a wide aperture, for shots in dim light and also because i come across loads of really cool photos that have more of the subject OOF.

That minolta 50mm F/1.7 prime sounds perfect, but one thing I have no clue about is the use of fixed lenses... why would you use a fixed one rather than a zoom lens? Is it only the fixed ones that have very wide apertures (eg F/1.7)?


And in general...
whats a Beercan?

Oh and, I have a little lens i got with the camera when I bought of a TP member... It's a Minolta 35-80mm... and also on the lens it says 1:4 (22) - 5.6 (I assume the 5.6 is the widest aperture but don't know what the rest of those details refer to..)
But having the Sony 18-70mm kit lens, what really would i need the minolta for?
Hmmm...

(i really don't know a lot at this point... lol)
 
TinySpark said:
Thanks Stan_the_man, and I guess my grammar wasn't the greatest there! :LOL:
(also is Carl Zeiss a sony compatible lens?)

I really want to buy a lens for my a100 that has a wide aperture, for shots in dim light and also because i come across loads of really cool photos that have more of the subject OOF.

That minolta 50mm F/1.7 prime sounds perfect, but one thing I have no clue about is the use of fixed lenses... why would you use a fixed one rather than a zoom lens? Is it only the fixed ones that have very wide apertures (eg F/1.7)?


And in general...
whats a Beercan?

Oh and, I have a little lens i got with the camera when I bought of a TP member... It's a Minolta 35-80mm... and also on the lens it says 1:4 (22) - 5.6 (I assume the 5.6 is the widest aperture but don't know what the rest of those details refer to..)
But having the Sony 18-70mm kit lens, what really would i need the minolta for?
Hmmm...

(i really don't know a lot at this point... lol)
Click to expand...

A zoom lens, in effect, is a trade off in quality. A prime lens will, IMO anyway, produce better quality, sharper images. Prime lenses do tend to have wider apertures, but you can get up to f2.8 in zooms if you are willing to spend the spondooliks!

Also, if you are looking to get a shallow depth of field, you don't necessarily need a particularly wide aperture. You can use the distance between the lens and the subject and between the subject and the background to create a similar effect. Basically the closer you are to your subject and the futrther the backgound from the subject the shallower the depth of field will be.
 
TinySpark said:
Thanks Stan_the_man, and I guess my grammar wasn't the greatest there! :LOL:
(also is Carl Zeiss a sony compatible lens?)

I really want to buy a lens for my a100 that has a wide aperture, for shots in dim light and also because i come across loads of really cool photos that have more of the subject OOF.

That minolta 50mm F/1.7 prime sounds perfect, but one thing I have no clue about is the use of fixed lenses... why would you use a fixed one rather than a zoom lens? Is it only the fixed ones that have very wide apertures (eg F/1.7)?


And in general...
whats a Beercan?

Oh and, I have a little lens i got with the camera when I bought of a TP member... It's a Minolta 35-80mm... and also on the lens it says 1:4 (22) - 5.6 (I assume the 5.6 is the widest aperture but don't know what the rest of those details refer to..)
But having the Sony 18-70mm kit lens, what really would i need the minolta for?
Hmmm...

(i really don't know a lot at this point... lol)
Click to expand...

carl zeiss make lens for sony,and are badged "sony".

here's a list of all the sony fit lens on the warehouse express website....

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/category/basecategory.aspx?cat03=3079

to be honest,i've only used the 50mm F/1.7 once so far,and although it's a little belter,i tend to use my 17-70 sigma more,but as it only cost me £40..i know it's there should i need it.personally,i think it depends on how dark it is when/where you intend to use it.prime lens do tend to have wider apertures than zoom lens....out of choice,i'd sway towards a zoom lens with a fixed aperture of F/2.8,which will give you a lot more flexibility.

here's some bumf on the beercan lens...

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=48

i think the 1:4 is something to do with macro..ie quater life size

hope this helps
 
Hi TinySpark

What are you looking to photograph?

Probably the biggest deciding factor in the best type of lens will suit you. If you get hooked you will look to expand your range of lenses but to start if you have an idea of your main subject mater you can start with a lens suited to it.

Mel
 
Anybody on here just "won" a Beercan on e-bay? :cautious::cautious:
Beat me by £2.50 ya git :crying::crying:
 
Saw this thread whilst at work, and looked on ebay.

Should I have bought this?

Minolta Dynax 40 camera with AF zoom lens 28-100. also included AF zoom lens 75-300mm. (missing 1 lens cap)

would the lenses have fit the alpha?

It went for £45. I nearly bid but as new to this, was not sure if it would have been a waste of money, or if I would have bought a "beercan" for next to nothin'!!

Still undecided on what to buy, so at £45 would have helped make my mind up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top