Sony Lenses

T

Tabvla

Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Q1 : Do Sony manufacture professional quality lenses?

Q2 : If "yes", which Sony lenses qualify as "professional" ?

I am particularly keen to receive replies, opinions and advice from forum members that have practical "hands-on" experience of using Sony lenses.

Thanks

T.
 
Tabvla said:
Q1 : Do Sony manufacture professional quality lenses?

Q2 : If "yes", which Sony lenses qualify as "professional" ?

I am particularly keen to receive replies, opinions and advice from forum members that have practical "hands-on" experience of using Sony lenses.

Thanks

T.
Click to expand...

i suppose the answer is yes.

i have the 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM and 70-400 F/4-5.6 G SSM plus the 1.4 teleconverter,which are classed as proffesional lens,also..look at any of the zeiss lens in sony fit,which would also be classed as proffesional quality...

all the above cost big bucks.

image quality wise,both of the "G SSM" lens i have perform outstandingly IMO

take a look here..
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/category/basecategory.aspx?cat03=3079&brand=230

don't rule out sigma's "EX" range,and the tamron equivalent either,as they also produce fantastic results..

hope this helps (y)
 
Sony professional lenses have the letter G after the aperture size,similar to Canons L lenses.

Pete
 
Thanks Stan and Pete for your informative and helpful replies.

One further question, does Tamron have a way of identifying their professional lenses similar to the Sony "G" and Sigma "EX" as mentioned in your posts?

T.
 
Tamron "SP" lenses are always super - IMHO better than Sigma EX optically, if not in build quality.

The Sony Carl Zeiss lenses are "pro" lenses (although I really hate to label equipment as "Pro" as I don't think it means anything)
 
Tabvla said:
Thanks Stan and Pete for your informative and helpful replies.

One further question, does Tamron have a way of identifying their professional lenses similar to the Sony "G" and Sigma "EX" as mentioned in your posts?

T.
Click to expand...

can't help with regards to tamron range/proffesional i'm afraid,having no personal experience of them.

but it might be worth reading this...

http://www.tamronlenses.net/
 
In addition to the 'G' and 'CZ' (Zeiss) lenses, there are a couple of others which do not have either designation but are still 'high quality'

100 f2.8 macro
135 f2.8 STF (Smooth Transition Focus).
 
Thanks Andy and Stan for your helpful feedback.

Let me tell you where I am at the moment and then perhaps you could give me your opinion as to what option would be the best way forward.

My experience with lenses to date has been confined to a few excellent quality Minolta lenses that I have had for years and that have performed admirably providing images of outstanding quality. These lenses (as you know) are compatible with Sony cameras, and my tests to date have shown that they produce acceptable results when used with a Sony camera, although some of the lens functionality is not available with Sony.

At this point I would like to upgrade both camera and lenses but am very uncertain as to which route I should take.

Option 1. Move completely to Canon. My research shows that Canon lenses achieve consistent high scores in tests. So one option would be to change completely to Canon. This is the most expensive option which I would only consider if I was 100% confident that it was the way forward.

Option 2. Go with Sony. If I opted for this option then I could recycle the Minolta lenses, which is an attractive option from a cost viewpoint. I would still however like to upgrade the lenses to either Sony, Carl Zeiss, Tamron or Sigma (or a mix) and would need a new Sony camera.

This raises the following questions: -

1. Camera. Sony have not made things easy for buyers!! They keep adding model numbers to the range and these do not seem to have any real meaning in terms of what one gets. In tests lower model numbers often score higher than higher model numbers. That is counter-intuitive. With Minolta things were a lot less confusing. Each higher model number offered more features and (most importantly) superior image quality than lower model numbers. That does not seem to always be the case with Sony, especially with regards to image quality where I have seen in tests lower model numbers score significantly better than higher model numbers.

Therefore the question is, if I go with Sony, which camera ticks all the boxes with respect to first and foremost image quality and then functionality, handling, value for money.... etc

2. Lenses. Assuming that I go with Sony then I do have the Minolta lenses to start with. But I would want to quickly acquire new lenses which would either be Sony, Carl Zeiss, Tamron or Sigma or a mix of these.

I do very little studio work. Most of my work is outdoors and includes a wide variety of outdoor subjects including landscapes; wildlife; travel; farming; city life; country life.... etc. In the past a set of zoom lenses ranging from 18mm to 400mm have served my purposes well. If I buy new lenses I would probably be looking for 3 lenses with ranges of about 18mm to 70mm; 70mm to 200mm and 200mm to 400mm.

The question therefore is, which of the lens options from Sony, Carl Zeiss, Tamron and Sigma would best serve my needs.

I would be very grateful to receive your opinions, advice and knowledge gained from practical experience.

T.
 
as a sony user i definitely think its better going with sony.

sony have quite alot entry level camera's but thats because they need to get as many newbie togs to buy into there system and then sony will gradually start maaking the higher end models. i personally think that sony have the best entry level camera's to date.

in my opinion the sony lens line up is perfect for my needs while they do not have a cheaper 35mm or 85mm options i can still cope with the rest of there optics and i like the offers from tamron. i do more portraits than any other and find that a simple 50mm, 90mm macro, and a nice zoom like the 28-75mm is perfect for me, i also think there telephoto lenses are brilliant for outdoor togs like yourself.
 
Tabvla said:
I do very little studio work. Most of my work is outdoors and includes a wide variety of outdoor subjects including landscapes; wildlife; travel; farming; city life; country life.... etc. In the past a set of zoom lenses ranging from 18mm to 400mm have served my purposes well. If I buy new lenses I would probably be looking for 3 lenses with ranges of about 18mm to 70mm; 70mm to 200mm and 200mm to 400mm.

The question therefore is, which of the lens options from Sony, Carl Zeiss, Tamron and Sigma would best serve my needs.
Click to expand...
unless you have £4.5k+ for a Nikon 200-400/4 the best ~>400mm zoom going is the Sony 70-400mm G SSM (~£1200) - better than the Canon 100-400mm & the Nikon 80-400mm.
Unless you need an f2.8 aperture I would suggest that you may well be able to get away with just that between 70 & 400mm & e.g. a 24-70mm ZA (esp. if going FF).

have you considered whether FF may be better for your needs than APS-C (& if so can you afford the extra cost of the body)?
This will also have a bearing on lens choice.
Have you a total budget in mind?
 
Which body you want depends on a couple of questions, and budget:)

1) Do you want Full Frame - if so, go for the A900 to A850 (if A900 is out of budget).
2) Do you want Live view? - If not, get the A700 (if you can find one).

If you do want live view, then the A550 appears to be the best option.

On the lens front budget will be a major driving factor.

Good options are the CZ 16-80 (APS-C only), 70-300G and 70-400G.
 
Thanks Luke, Scott and Jonathan for your feedback.

Thanks also for the really good questions that you asked, here are the answers to those questions...

1. Budget. Max budget is £5000 for camera, lenses and wireless flash. I have everything else.

2. APS-C vs FF. Since going digital I have only had experience with APS-C cameras and lenses. I understand the theory behind the differences between APS-C and FF but have no practical "hands-on" knowledge of whether the one is more suitable than the other for what I do. What I do know is that there is usually a gap of galactic proportions between "theory" and "hands-on". So based on that presumption I can honestly say that I really don't know.

3. Liveview. Have not used a camera with Liveview so I don't know if this is a "must-have" feature or simply a consumer gimmick. My experience with P&S cameras is that you cannot see anything on the screen on a bright day. I cannot imagine taking photographs without my eye glued to the viewfinder. So without knowing anything about Liveview my "gut-feel" is that the only time I would use it is if I was shooting directly into the sun and did not want to ruin my eyesight by looking through the viewfinder.

T.
 
Have not used a camera with Liveview so I don't know if this is a "must-have" feature or simply a consumer gimmick.

Consumer gimmick. Only an idiot would hold a camera at arms length to take a shot. SLR's require good technique, and handholding looking at an LCD is not the way God intended.

I think from your post, you are probably an SLR film shooter. I have a feeling you would like a Sony 850 or A900. Its a very "pure" photographic machine, no "features" pandering to the "Me Too" school.
 
Andy you are almost right.... an ex SLR film shooter. Converted to digital about a year ago and have spent the past year getting to understand the differences in technique between film and digital.

My digital (as opposed to film) images are now starting to sell so I am feeling confident that I have graduated from DSLR beginners school and can now spend the money on getting my kit up to where I want it.

Money is obviously an important factor but is not (in my view) the most important. When I buy new kit it takes me a really long time to learn all the peculiarities of that kit so as to get the best out of it. The investment in time, effort and blood, sweat and tears always seems to be considerably larger than the money spent.

The kit I buy now I will live with for at least the next 5 years, so making the right decision is...... :help:

T.
 
obviously nobody knows your needs like you do but based on what you have said I think that I would be looking at an A850/A900 plus 24-70/2.8 + 70-400 G SSM.
24mm on FF is pretty wide so you may not need anything wider. These are both pretty substantial lenses so if you want something lighter maybe look at other options.

The above is going to run you ~£4000 leaving ~£1000 for flash (possibly vertical grip too if you feel that you need/want one?).
The Sony 58AM is an excellent flash gun but the A850/A900 don't have inbuilt pop-up flash to control it wirelessly off-camera so you would need either another 58AM or the far cheaper but much more limited 20AM for that. It may be that you don't need all the sophistication of the 58AM though in which case you could get by with a 42AM?
 
Hi,

if chances are you're not going to be using your existing minolta lens, cause it sounds like you want to delve in buy some 'quality' lenses don't feel shackled by them, just as easy to sell them and add to your budget.

I would second hiedfirst selection. A850/A900 plus 24-70/2.8 + 70-400 G SSM + Sigma 12-24 (ultra wide), then a set of 58am and 42am flashes. Unfortunately 'pro' type lens and lightweight don't really go hand in hand.

I don't think Live-view is really a consumer gimmick, there are other applications where live-view is desirable, such as tri-pod work. The ability to digitally zoom into macro shots and check critical focus on a really nice LCD screen which is 3/4 times bigger than the viewfinder, even better if it has exposure gain in low light situations. Certainly not having live view has not stopped people taking pictures before, but neither has making a phone call without a touch screen ;)
 
Thanks Scott and Evo for your opinions. Both interesting and informative.

I did not know that Sony made a good wireless flash, so that was really useful info. Thanks.

Scott, the two lenses that you mention (24-70/2.8 + 70-400 G SSM), are these Sony lenses or some other brand? And the 24-70, what is the suffix (or prefix) to that lens?

On the question of Liveview... my initial opinion of Liveview was that is was just another of these silly "enhancements" that manufacturers seem obsessed with adding to the next version of almost any product that you can imagine.

However, having given it some thought, and reflecting on the comments made by Evo, I can see some really useful applications of Liveview. About 90% of my shots are taken using a tripod, so I can imagine that Liveview (when combined with the normal viewfinder) could provide an additional tool to facilitate the taking of a particular shot - which could be very advantageous. Need to find someone who will let me use their Liveview camera so that I can make a hands-on evaluation of this function.

Liveview is something I would never have considered, so thanks Evo for making me think about this again.

T.
 
Tabvla, glad I could help. Cameras are tools, and it's usefulness can be determined by way you use it. How useful a feature or gimmick is of course down to personal preference & style. There is no perfect camera for everybody;)

You're doing the right things, you've done some research, asked for some opinions and now going out and trying it out for yourself- Good luck, and take your time. Should you need any more inputs I'm sure the folks on here are more than happy to share their thoughts.
 
Tabvla said:
Thanks Scott and Evo for your opinions. Both interesting and informative.

I did not know that Sony made a good wireless flash, so that was really useful info. Thanks.

Scott, the two lenses that you mention (24-70/2.8 + 70-400 G SSM), are these Sony lenses or some other brand? And the 24-70, what is the suffix (or prefix) to that lens?

On the question of Liveview... my initial opinion of Liveview was that is was just another of these silly "enhancements" that manufacturers seem obsessed with adding to the next version of almost any product that you can imagine.

However, having given it some thought, and reflecting on the comments made by Evo, I can see some really useful applications of Liveview. About 90% of my shots are taken using a tripod, so I can imagine that Liveview (when combined with the normal viewfinder) could provide an additional tool to facilitate the taking of a particular shot - which could be very advantageous. Need to find someone who will let me use their Liveview camera so that I can make a hands-on evaluation of this function.

Liveview is something I would never have considered, so thanks Evo for making me think about this again.

T.
Click to expand...


Well make sure you try a Sony live view - if you try a Canon or Nikon, it will be a lot slower than the Sony's. ;)
 
Tabvla said:
I did not know that Sony made a good wireless flash, so that was really useful info. Thanks.

Scott, the two lenses that you mention (24-70/2.8 + 70-400 G SSM), are these Sony lenses or some other brand? And the 24-70, what is the suffix (or prefix) to that lens?
Click to expand...
iirc Minolta were the first SLR manufacturer to offer built-in wireless flash control (something like 1991?) & that of course meant that they had to offer wireless flashes too.
The Sony 58AM is full featured & in some ways quite revolutionary but the 42AM is a very good mid-range offering. There's also the now discontinued 56AM which you may get a deal on old stock or s/h.

Both Sony - the Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA is arguably the finest in class (a toss up with the Nikon & both better than the Canon) as imo is the Sony 70-400 G SSM the best reasonably affordable >400mm zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top