Sonly Alpha Lens Line Up

D

Dave W

Messages
161
Edit My Images
No
Can I just ask why there seems to be such an ingrained consensus that you can't get lenses for the Alphas?

I've had my a100 for well over a year and have never thought "I wish they did that lens for the alphas".

I've got lengths between 17 and 210mm with a macro and prime thrown in there, fair enough, 3 of those lenses are second hand but to get the equivalent line up on a canon or nikon body I would have had to spend at least double what I have for the Alpha.

It just makes me wonder because I see a lot of people asking about the alpha series and you can virtually guarantee that someone will post that it's better to go canon or nikon because of the lens line up. Maybe it's just because I don't need a 7mm fish eye or an f8 1200mm but I've really never seen the basis for the argument.

Any opinions?
 
I bought the Sony A200 on the basis that Minolta Lenses fit and therefore gives me plenty of options to add lens if I so wish. I've just purchased an extra lens TAMRON AF 55_200mm MACRO LD DI MKII in perfect condition for a fraction of what I would have had to pay for similair in the Nikon/Canon range, so I'm with you on this one ;)
 
Yeh I'm perfectly happy with my 17-70 and 70-300

All bases covered :thumbs:

Just waiting for Sigma to come up with a 300-700 f2.8 and that'll be me done, I think ;)
 
It can be very frustrating to hear those claims. In fairness though, Canon and Nikon do have bigger ranges of lenses than Sony and there are still a number of third party lenses that are yet to be produced in Sony/Minolta fit, but there is still plenty out there to keep a keen Sony amateur happy. You also have to bear in mind that Sony have been at this less than 3 years in comparison to the decades that Canon and Nikon have been doing it.

The A200 is currently the fastest selling DSLR in its class and the A700 was a phenominal success as well. The A900 is being very well received amongst pros and that will increase demand.
 
MarkydeSad said:
Really? I didn't know that

I like my A200 (even though I'd quite like the 700) - it just feels right. Know what I mean?
Click to expand...

I do know what you mean, well as far as the A700 is concerned. I was looking to buy another body as I didn't really feel my old A100 was up to the back up role and, even though they are due to bring out a replacement soon, I have just ordered another A700. I feel so comfortable with the camera and at the current price, the decision was easy. :thumbs:
 
Where they suffer is in the second hand market. Yes, there are plenty of s/h Minolta bits and pieces but as yet there isn't the range of choice that Canon and Nikon have.

I've been VERY close to buying an A700 on a number of occasions, but I like to buy lenses s/h and have never been all that impressed with the selection around.

Cheers,
James
 
fabs said:
I do know what you mean, well as far as the A700 is concerned. I was looking to buy another body as I didn't really feel my old A100 was up to the back up role and, even though they are due to bring out a replacement soon, I have just ordered another A700. I feel so comfortable with the camera and at the current price, the decision was easy. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'm not a perv (as such) but I definitely think these Alphas are female. Alpha female? Surely not! They're just asking to be held and caressed :love:

I'll get me coat........
 
Moos3h said:
Where they suffer is in the second hand market. Yes, there are plenty of s/h Minolta bits and pieces but as yet there isn't the range of choice that Canon and Nikon have.

I've been VERY close to buying an A700 on a number of occasions, but I like to buy lenses s/h and have never been all that impressed with the selection around.

Cheers,
James
Click to expand...

Very true. But as I said, Sony have only been producing DSLRs for three years so it is going to take time for the second hand market to pick up, but I'm sure it will in the next couple of years. Of course, it could also be taken as a sign that Sony users are so happy with their lenses that they don't want to part with them. ;)
 
Educate me, what are the 'must haves' from Sony/Minolta in terms of lenses?

If I were looking for something wide-ish, an all-rounder and then a reasonable zoom (all as fast as possible) - what should I seek?

Is it me, or is there a lack of f2.8 compared to the stuff available for Canon/Nikon?

Cheers!
James
 
Moos3h said:
Educate me, what are the 'must haves' from Sony/Minolta in terms of lenses?

If I were looking for something wide-ish, an all-rounder and then a reasonable zoom (all as fast as possible) - what should I seek?

Is it me, or is there a lack of f2.8 compared to the stuff available for Canon/Nikon?

Cheers!
James
Click to expand...

The ultimate in a standard zoom would probably be the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 with a 70-200 f2.8 G lens as a telephoto zoom. I have the latter, but I have the Sigma version of the 24-70 as it is an excellent lens at a third of the price of the Sony (Have never used the Sony so can't really compare). There are also f2.8 standard zooms from Tamron and Sigma that are very highly regarded.
 
im the same, i hate nikon and canon users saying you should of got x camera because its got more lens choice and i think how many lenses am i going to need i worked out the most people should have is 4 because:
wide angle lens
standard lens
telephoto lens
macro lens

but i haven't included primes.
 
I might have pointed this out once (or twice) before. Apart from the kit lens, I paid about £160 for all of the other lenses in my signature.
The 3 metal bodied lenses seem to stay on my camera for about 95% of the time. I only tend to use the kit lens when I need to go as wide as possible.
 
MarkydeSad said:
Really? I didn't know that

I like my A200, it just feels right. Know what I mean?
Click to expand...

I agree! I sold my a100 a while ago, and when it came to replacing it, I went in my local camera shop to "handle" all the DSLR bodies in my price range from all makes and the a200 just felt right, and it was the cheapest!!:D
 
leaky5 said:
I might have pointed this out once (or twice) before. Apart from the kit lens, I paid about £160 for all of the other lenses in my signature.
The 3 metal bodied lenses seem to stay on my camera for about 95% of the time. I only tend to use the kit lens when I need to go as wide as possible.
Click to expand...

And I agree with this too, my metal body 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 stays on my a200 pretty much all the time until I need something wider for landscapes, which is when the kit lens comes out to play!
 
There are more Canon and Nikon fit lenses available than Alpha. No denying it. High street retailers, online retailers and eBay. It doesn't bother me in the slightest and I love having Image Stabilisation on every single lens but I can totally understand how people would go for the bigger name and better lens availability.
 
Moos3h said:
Where they suffer is in the second hand market. Yes, there are plenty of s/h Minolta bits and pieces but as yet there isn't the range of choice that Canon and Nikon have.
Click to expand...
interesting opinion as many people would say that the s/h market is a pro for MAF/Alpha fit in that (at least up until recently when some prices have jumped markedly) you could pick up good glass for less than equivalent CaNikon prices.
I'm still kicking myself for not picking up a 400/4.5 last year when they were averaging ~£900.

There is no perfect system - there are lenses that are either missing or not highly regarded in CaNikon land too.
There are fewer lenses available for Nikon D40/D40X/D60 than for Alphas.

What is important that the lens(es) that you need are available which is why pros will sometimes run multiple systems even if they only use 1 particular lens on 1 system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top