Should I change system?

A

andya700

Messages
6,136
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I have at the moment a Sony Alpha 700, with kit 18 - 70 lens, and a couple of other lenses, Sigma 35 - 80 and a Tamron 70 - 300. I have no other accessories.
I also have a couple of 35mm cameras.
Canon EOS 30V with 28 105 F4 - 5.6
Nikkormat FTn with Sigma 70 - 210, Nikkor 55 F2, Nikkor 135 F3.5.

If I change system, would I be better off staying with Sony, or changing to either Canon or Nikon? The reason for asking, is that I am not convinced by the quality of the Sony lenses which I have, but I do like the quality of the Nikkor lenses (could I use them as manual only on a Nikon DSLR?).
I am confusing myself, should I stay or should I go?
Andy
 
I think you should be able to use your Nikkors on manual OK.

BTW I had a 135mm f3.5 Nikkor when I had a Nikkormat FT3. That was one super sharp lens.
Still have a 25" X 18" print on the wall taken by that lens.

If you ask on here what to do you'll likely get the Canon followers say go Canon and the Nikon followers say go Nikon and the Sony followers say stay Sony.
Try the cameras in the shop and see how they feel. The fact that you have Nikon lenses kind of biases things if you leave Sony, though.
 
I was thinking along those lines already Dougie, because I have no plans to sell the Nikkormat at all, and the quality of all three lenses (including the Sigma zoom) is outstanding.
I will not get much for the EOS 30V, but may still get a fair bit for the Sony Alpha kit, then it is down to which Nikon I choose.
 
Looking at your lens line-up you seem to have only kit lenses (the Sony ones) - unfortunately kit lenses are rarely excellent (regardless of manufacturer) and it's probably not a great idea to make your decision based on this alone. If possible see if you can try a better spec Sony lens - you may find its much more cost effective to upgrade your lenses to fit your current body than spend cash on a different one only to find you still need to spend on decent lenses.

Just my thoughts - I'm not getting involved in the C vs N debate BTW;) (mainly because I use Pentax !!)

Simon
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
IThe reason for asking, is that I am not convinced by the quality of the Sony lenses which I have, but I do like the quality of the Nikkor lenses
Click to expand...

From your description you only have one Sony lens (18-70) plus a Sigma and a Tamron in a-mount.

The 18-70 is a kit lens and not a good one at that. Comparing it to Nikkor primes is never going to be that instructive. Comparing it to Sony primes will be about as helpful. It would be more instructive to compare a Sony 50mm rpime to the Nikkor 55mm or a Sony 135mm prime to the Nikkor 135 (or Minolta equivalents of the Sony lenses if you want s/h).

Sigma and Tamron lenses are going to be Sigma and Tamron quality (which can be anything from excellent to awful) irrespective of the mount they are supplied with, so are no measure of anything when considering changing systems.

People don't usually complain about the quality of lenses available in a-mount, not when there are things like the ZA 135/1.8 about. Usually the complaint is lack of choice (no 400/2.8, no 200/2, no 800/5.6 etc).
 
You may also be able to get an adapter which will allow you to mount your Nikkors on a Canon body if you go that direction. MF only.
 
"I am not convinced by the quality of the Sony lenses which I have, but I do like the quality of the Nikkor lenses (could I use them as manual only on a Nikon DSLR?)."

I think I'm turning into a stick in the mud... but are Sony lenses that far behind Nikon? I don't know but I'd doubt that there's any really significant difference. I think that most lenses are at least good enough these days unless you push things to extremes of pixel peeping or printing and anyway, aren't Zeiss lenses pretty good?

I'd stick with Sony, enjoy the in body IS (God I'd love in body IS) and maybe get some new lenses if I felt that I just had to spend my money.
 
Agree with the above posters...try the cameras first. However, unless you don't like the look / price of the Sony lineup, and don't like the bodies, then there's no real reason to change anyway. The lenses you have, to be honest, are not good. The kit lens is OK but very poor at the wide setting (I tried to use it for a wedding shoot once...big mistake...lucky I had my Canon setup as well!).

As for the Tamron, if it's the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD Di Macro, then I don't rate it at all. It's soft at the 300mm end and provides buckets full of CA. If it's the older LD macro, then it's better but there's still way too much CA. The Sigma must be an old lens too, and whilst the new Sigmas are generally very good, the older ones weren't so much!

If you stay with Sony you will get IS with all your lenses, but there are less lenses about (unless you count all the old Minolta lenses...but of course these are old designs now). I have a Minolta 50/1.7 and 70-210/4 beercan which are streets ahead of the current lenses you own IMO.
 
andy700 said:
I have at the moment a Sony Alpha 700, with kit 18 - 70 lens, and a couple of other lenses, Sigma 35 - 80 (what is the point for this one?!) and a Tamron 70 - 300. I have no other accessories.
I also have a couple of 35mm cameras.
Canon EOS 30V with 28 105 F4 - 5.6
Nikkormat FTn with Sigma 70 - 210, Nikkor 55 F2, Nikkor 135 F3.5.

If I change system, would I be better off staying with Sony, or changing to either Canon or Nikon? The reason for asking, is that I am not convinced by the quality of the Sony lenses which I have, but I do like the quality of the Nikkor lenses (could I use them as manual only on a Nikon DSLR?).
I am confusing myself, should I stay or should I go?
Andy
Click to expand...

Well, these lenses are merely intended to prevent dust getting to your sensor. Get 2.8 zooms or nice primes for your sony and then compare it.

The only reason to move away from sony is their intention to transition to pelicle mirror systems. I wouldn't be happy with it, but your mileage may vary.

You may find that Canon 18-55mm is just as awful, and you may need to spend a bit more before you see better returns.
 
Get (or borrow/rent first) a couple of much better lenses for your Sony and keep plugging away ... Yours is reputed to be (for some) the best non-fullframe sony DSLR...
I had an alpha-450 for a while and found the Sony kit 18-55 a bit less than I was expecting. A bag of minolta cheap zooms were also underwhelming with tons of CA. the minolta50mmF1.7 was brilliant though!
In the meantime buy a cheap Olympus body (important:e-410,420,510,520=cheap and decent ) and an adapter and shoot with your Nikkormat lenses, manual focus : fun and cheap.
 
i have a couple old m42 primes i use with adaptors and they give better results than the old tamron 30-90mm and the 18-55mm kit lens. yes they are manual focus only but they are a lot of fun.
i'm looking to switch to canon next year because the route sony are going down doesn't fit with what i want for the future. i do like my a390, especially the in-body stability, and i'll be keeping it either for myself or my girlfriend. i'm going to pick up either a 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8 before the end of the year, it'll always come in handy in the future i'm sure.

if i were you i'd be looking at nikon if you want to keep using the lenses you already have.
 
Thanks for all the suggestions. I may well look out for a few M42 lenses, and then get an adaptor. I guess that I will also have to save up for a decent Zeiss lens to make the most of the camera.
 
Rather than M42, you could get some of the cheap but good old Minolta lenses -

35-70/4, really cheap at under £50 and an improvement on the kit lens
50/1.7, no more than £80
70-210/4 (beercan), CAs a bit but a far better lens than the £100-120 price it commands would suggest as there are so many of them around.
28-135 f/4-4.5

These are all full frame lenses from the pre-digital days. Minolta were really big on colour consistency across the range of lenses back then.

The Zeiss lenses are something else quality wise of course, but you could buy all of those I listed above for less than half the cost of one FF Zeiss lens.
 
There are a few 50 1.7 Minoltas at just under the £80 mark, which could tempt me. I cannot see any of the "beercan" lenses at the moment (looking on EBay). The 35 - 70 F4 looks good, is that the macro lens?
 
andy700 said:
There are a few 50 1.7 Minoltas at just under the £80 mark, which could tempt me. I cannot see any of the "beercan" lenses at the moment (looking on EBay). The 35 - 70 F4 looks good, is that the macro lens?
Click to expand...

The Minolta 35-70 f4 has a macro switch on it, but this only allows closer focusing (it ends up as a 1:4 'macro') and also switches to MF (unless the lens has been re-chipped).

The copy I have is a lovely sharp little lens which I should use more, but I also have the CZ16-80, so it has to try to compete with the much greater range.
 
That is one of the problems with the old 35mm lenses Jonathan, they become "portrait zooms" with a crop camera, and you very often lose the wide angle view. I was also thinking of buying adaptors and getting some Rokkor lenses, because I believe the quality was really good. The only problem, is that they use the optical glass in the adaptor which may compromise quality.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Rather than M42, you could get some of the cheap but good old Minolta lenses -

35-70/4, really cheap at under £50 and an improvement on the kit lens
50/1.7, no more than £80
70-210/4 (beercan), CAs a bit but a far better lens than the £100-120 price it commands would suggest as there are so many of them around.
28-135 f/4-4.5

These are all full frame lenses from the pre-digital days. Minolta were really big on colour consistency across the range of lenses back then.

The Zeiss lenses are something else quality wise of course, but you could buy all of those I listed above for less than half the cost of one FF Zeiss lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this advice Mark. I have been on a site called "Dyxxum", which seems to contain a wealth of information on the Minolta fit lenses.
Following this, I have now picked up a 35 - 70 F4 Macro for the target price, and it is a little revelation! It is definitely the sharpest lens in my Sony collection, and the colours are great. I think the "Beercan" and then a 1.7 will be next on the list, and of course a way of justifying the purchases to the other half.;)
 
andy700 said:
I have been on a site called "Dyxxum", which seems to contain a wealth of information on the Minolta fit lenses.
Click to expand...

Some of us Sony users already post on dyxum ;). A number of my lenses were bought in the sales forum there and it's where I sell stuff if I'm looking to change as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top