Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know this might sound like a stupid question but I need to just double check.

I havea Minolta 50mm f1.7, I was always under the impression that it is fixed to the f1.7 stop, am I able to change this or is it fixed to 1.7? The reason why I am asking is that I have seen other photos with same lens at a different f stop and also it does not state a f stop range like the kit lens does eg f/3.5-5.6, same question applies to my Minolta beercan.
 
TurnipFarmer said:
I know this might sound like a stupid question but I need to just double check.

I havea Minolta 50mm f1.7, I was always under the impression that it is fixed to the f1.7 stop, am I able to change this or is it fixed to 1.7? The reason why I am asking is that I have seen other photos with same lens at a different f stop and also it does not state a f stop range like the kit lens does eg f/3.5-5.6, same question applies to my Minolta beercan.
Click to expand...

The ranges that you see are the maximum apertures (minimum f numbers) for the lens, depending on focal length (in the case of the kit lens). All lenses will stop down to way smaller. Some will go to f22, I have one that goes to f45!
 
kevin612 said:
I guess you do like the nikon glasses more than others right?
I looked at other thread about the 70-300mm SSM and you said that it is not that worth to spend 500 pounds for it..
Would it be better to get the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8?
And how would you compare the 70-300mm SSM to nikon 70-300mm VR

Sorry to ask you so many questions....
As a friend of mine might get D700 or A900 and lenses with it..
So wanting to help him out a bit...also 24-85mm F2.8-4 nikon seems good too as I have used it before..but any alternative that you could recommend except the 24-70mm (too expensive) also for the Sony as well...the Tamron/KM 28-75mm F2.8 would be the best option right if not the CZ 24-70mm

Kevin
Click to expand...

Yes - I do like Nikon glass.

No, the 70-300 SSM isn't a £500 lens. Its a £350 optic with £150 of Sony label extortion ;) Its no better than the Nikon 70-300 VR (which is a very decent lens). More to the point, the other guy who agreed with me in that thread is David Kilpatrick who I'm sure everyone knows... like him, I've used both, and feel qualified to comment on this one :)

Personally I'd get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - optically its better than the Sigma, 200mm f/2.8 is where the difference will show.

The Tamron 28-75 is super, one of the Minolta lens gurus (Kurt Munger) basically says its as good / better than the CZ 24-70. I own both, and probably would not go that far - actually the 24-70 was better optically than I expected, and is optically as good as the Nikon 24-70. Praise indeed. I'm trying out the new Sony 28-75 f/2.8 at the moment as well.

Regarding the 24-85 - its OK but its better to buy the 24-85 AF-S instead, its a nice lens.

Also the Tamron 24-135 is recommended in both Sony and Nikon fit - I own this lens in both mounts.
 
puddleduck said:
Yes - I do like Nikon glass.

No, the 70-300 SSM isn't a £500 lens. Its a £350 optic with £150 of Sony label extortion ;) Its no better than the Nikon 70-300 VR (which is a very decent lens). More to the point, the other guy who agreed with me in that thread is David Kilpatrick who I'm sure everyone knows... like him, I've used both, and feel qualified to comment on this one :)

Personally I'd get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 - optically its better than the Sigma, 200mm f/2.8 is where the difference will show.

The Tamron 28-75 is super, one of the Minolta lens gurus (Kurt Munger) basically says its as good / better than the CZ 24-70. I own both, and probably would not go that far - actually the 24-70 was better optically than I expected, and is optically as good as the Nikon 24-70. Praise indeed. I'm trying out the new Sony 28-75 f/2.8 at the moment as well.

Regarding the 24-85 - its OK but its better to buy the 24-85 AF-S instead, its a nice lens.

Also the Tamron 24-135 is recommended in both Sony and Nikon fit - I own this lens in both mounts.
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy
You must have lots of great lenses with nikon and sony mount
Are they hard to find in the UK?

Also the Tamron 28-75mm in Nikon D700 would it be same with the A900?

Kevin
 
The Tamron 24-135 was always a rare lens, Tamron made a few for their 50th Anniversary - I had to source my Sony fit from Germany! In Nikon mount, the 24-135 absolutely murders the Nikon 24-120 VR for example.

The Tamron 28-75 is pretty much the same lens in Nikon and Sony mount (assuming you buy the older screw-driven Nikon, the newer Nikon version has a slower built-in motor)
 
There are non Tamron 24-135mm on ebay UK....
Must be very hard to find...
But then might rather go for 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 if ebay has some.
 
Last edited:
argos-clearancebargains on eBay have Sony NP-FM500 batteries for £24.99+free P&P (Item # 330369188020). Only 64 left.

I tried to buy one a few weeks ago but none were in stock in the shops.
 
Hi all can someone answer this, I have a Minolta 30-110 lens which has 5 contact points but my Tamy and kit lens has 8, what is the Minolta lens missing ?
Alan
 
rhonddaboy said:
Hi all can someone answer this, I have a Minolta 30-110 lens which has 5 contact points but my Tamy and kit lens has 8, what is the Minolta lens missing ?
Alan
Click to expand...

all minolta lenses have 5 pins whereas sony has 8 pins because it has ADI metering which is a sony flash metering system, nothing special but its just a variant of TTL flash metering.
 
mastertrinity said:
all minolta lenses have 5 pins whereas sony has 8 pins because it has ADI metering which is a sony flash metering system,
Click to expand...
Not true - some Minoltas have 8 pins.
depending upon the lens the extra pins do power zoom (Xi), SSM &/or ADI (which was a Minolta introduction) connectivity.

the only real "new" technologies that I can think of atm that Sony have added to the line are DRO, LiveView & in-camera HDR.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys,
will a MC fit the alpha like an AF lens? i'm looking to buy a 2x converter off ebay and i was not sure if this would fit my alpha?
Any help please
cheers Andy
 
andytaff said:
Hi Guys,
will a MC fit the alpha like an AF lens? i'm looking to buy a 2x converter off ebay and i was not sure if this would fit my alpha?
Click to expand...

MC & MD lenses are for the old manual focus film cameras and won't fit your Alpha. You can get adapters but they contain an optical element that degrades the picture so they are not worth considering.

What lens are you considering a 2x for? If it's a f5.6 zoom (e.g. 75-300mm) then your camera won't autofocus with the converter. 1.4x converters are often a better choice.
 
andytaff said:
Hi Guys,
will a MC fit the alpha like an AF lens? i'm looking to buy a 2x converter off ebay and i was not sure if this would fit my alpha?
Click to expand...

MC can also stand for Multi Coated so check if that's what they are saying rather than MC/MD bayonet (technically it's actually called SR mount).
 
I posted this in the equipment forum, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=201474&highlight=blonkster

but realised this is problaby a better place for a reply, so here we go...

I've had my A200 for a year now and have bought the obligatory 'Beercan' and also a Minolta 75-300mm.

I'll be doing the Florida theme parks later in the year and I'm not sure what to do about lenses.

I wanted to travel failry light and not have to carry/swap lenses, if possible; so wondered if the kit lens focal range would be OK.

I assume most shots would be fairly wide (rollercoaster-type scenery and Mickey Mouse), but maybe something longer would be need for zooming in on show/dolphins and similar.

So, do I get a superzoom (18-250mm) and just take that - but worry about compromised image quaility. Or do I replace the kit lens with a Sigma 17-70, or maybe a Tamron 17-50 and take that and the beercan (or Minolta for lightness) - or maybe just the new smaller zoom?

Then again, do I get the current Sigma for about £250, or wait for reviews on the new HSM model to see how that compares, but it is about £300+ - the same as the Tamron, which may be a little short.

Discuss ! ;-)


Thanks for any advice, based on your expereinces in Florida theme parks or the above lenses.

Blonkster
 
Hi all, I have just bought a Minolta 5600HS D flash gun which is exactly the same as the Sony HVL-F56AM, can anybody give me an idea of settings for taking photo's on road rallies obviously at night, it is possible to get quite close to the cars not like stage rallying.
 
ki_user said:
Hi, not a sony related really, but I don't want to start a new thread. I have a tamron 70-300, what's the difference between this and a beercan lens?
Click to expand...

The beercan has 90mm less reach and continuous f/4 across the entire focal length range.

HAve a look at the reviews for both on dyxum, I've only owned the beercan so don't know how the Tamron compares from experience. I do know that I was really impressed with the results I got with the one I owned.
 
there's also a "big beercan" which goes upto 300mm at the long end.
Bear in mind that these are lenses from the 80s & if they were building & selling them now they would cost considerably more than a Tamron 70-300 LD Di (e.g. compare the cost of a Canon 70-200/4).
 
Last edited:
One for the Sony users:naughty:

I am looking to upgrade my processing software and think PSE7 is within my budget (£39 Amazon). Now I have never ventured into the world of RAW, so my question is in two parts reallly. 1) Is PSE7 a resonable programme for a beginner...2) Will it support RAW from a Sony A200?

Thank you in advance :clap:
 
Gazbag said:
my question is in two parts reallly. 1) Is PSE7 a resonable programme for a beginner...2) Will it support RAW from a Sony A200?
Click to expand...
PSE7 is fine for a beginner (8 is out now).
PSE7 on it's own won't iirc but used with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) it'll process A200 RAW.
 
Last edited:
ki_user said:
so is there an advantage or not from using a beercan over my tamron?
Click to expand...
the beercan should be better in it's range - of course the Tamron wins at 210mm+ ;)
ki_user said:
Showing my noobie side again, why is fixed aperture an advantage I would have thought that being able to change it was better.
Click to expand...
it's a fixed maximum aperture throughout the range rather than a variable max. aperture - you can of course stop it down as well.
 
Last edited:
ki_user said:
Showing my noobie side again, why is fixed aperture an advantage I would have thought that being able to change it was better.
Click to expand...

it's definately an advantage to have a constant aperture,so as you change focal length..no need to check/change your ISO to keep your shutter speed constant[unless conditions change of course].you will get better depth of field[if you want your subject in focus,but everything else out of focus],and as scott said...you can always stop down ;)
 
I cannot believe that nobody on here can give me advice on flash settings, does nobody have or has owned a Sony HVL-56 AM flash gun?:thinking:
 
rhonddaboy said:
I cannot believe that nobody on here can give me advice on flash settings, does nobody have or has owned a Sony HVL-56 AM flash gun?:thinking:
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone here uses that flash and uses it for car rallying - bit of an odd combo for anyone to offer advice on! We're not ignoring you.. I just don't think we know :)
 
Thanks Puddleduck, took this pic of my car expected better
Flashtrial.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top