Sony Alpha lens Question

K

kopite

Messages
182
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Hey everyone,

I got my camera on christmas day (sony a200) and love it :D I got the 18/70mm Kit lens with it and have started looking at getting a 70-300 lens to go with it (I have money to burn atm which from what i`ve read around here seems to be a bad thing with Stan the man around :D)
I dont want to spend more than 200 quid on the lens and the better the bargain the happier i`ll be :D I was looking at the
Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Lens SAL-75300

but noticed that there is also a similar lens called

Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 DT Lens

Whats the difference between these 2? They both look pretty similar in spec to me only difference being the SAL and DT parts.

I`ve read about Sigma and Tamron lenses. Are they better quality than the sony ones mentioned? I read the Sigma is supposed to have plastic gears which can cause issues but which lens will give the best picture quality?

Thanks :D
 
You're looking at the same lens. SAL-75300 is the model number and DT means it's for APS sized sensor cameras only (yours for instance) doesn't cover full-frame (a900). It's a kit lens and is often sold with the 18-70mm lens you already have as a twin lens kit with one of the camera bodies.

You might be better to save some more money and get the 70-300mm SSM G lens ... far better (and dearer) but would start you off getting some first rate glass for Sony cameras. Lenses are more important than bodies.
 
i had the SAL-75300,and it's a pretty good lens for the money....i would say get the best you can afford,especially if you're serious about your photography.it may be worth you getting either of the cheaper lens to start with,and see where you want to go with photography....but if you have a bucket load of cash floating around...get the 70-200 G (y)

oh,and don't believe all you hear about me ;) :LOL:
 
I bought the A100 2 years ago as a twin lens kit with the 18-70 and 75-300. Got great service out of both lenses, don't think you'll do any better for the money but the Sigma equivalents also get very good reports.

Stan, lay of the poor boy, we can talk him into the G lens later! :D
 
lol ATM I was thinking of less than 200 quid.

I`m a complete beginner so want to make sure i`m gonna enjoy taking photos first.

The G lens does look really nice but the price range is slightly too much for a new hobby(My missus and family think I spend too much more anyway)
 
Reading numerous threads on this forum and also other forums I see a lot of *** have 50mm lenses with 1.4-1.7 stop. What are those lenses used for?

Is there like a guide as to what lenses are used for what situations out there?
 
kopite said:
Reading numerous threads on this forum and also other forums I see a lot of *** have 50mm lenses with 1.4-1.7 stop. What are those lenses used for?

Is there like a guide as to what lenses are used for what situations out there?
Click to expand...

the minolta 50mm F/1.7 prime lens is a little cracker,and can be bought for very little money(around the £60-£80 mark).these wide aperture lens are great in low light situations as in churches,gigs etc...with their only obvious failing being no zoom facility,so you have to position yourself by moving back and forth to get the framing you require...the 50mm also makes a great portrait lens...

i'm no expert,but as a general guide...wide angle lens(like the sigma 10-20) are good for landscape type photography,lens like the sigma 17-70 are a great general/walkabout lens that cover a good range of photography situations...landscape/street photography/portrait etc...telephoto zoom lens like the 70-300 are great for wildlife and motorsports etc..where you require "reach" to get the shot you want,as you will be unable to get close enough to get the shot otherwise...lens with wide aperture(F/1.2,F/1.7,F/2.8 etc..)are far better in low light,tend to focus quicker etc,but also cost a damn site more then your standard lens....but you will see a big difference in the quality of your shots...:naughty:
 
I'm starting to think that for now i`ll hold off buying the 70-300 mm lens until I get a better idea of if i`m going to enjoy taking pictures. then if I do I might save up for the G series one.

I might have a look around for a prime lens like the 50 mm or maybe smaller. That would make my bag look a little fuller and should give me an idea of what the differences in quality :D
 
stan the man said:
the minolta 50mm F/1.7 prime lens is a little cracker,and can be bought for very little money(around the £60-£80 mark).these wide aperture lens are great in low light situations as in churches,gigs etc...with their only obvious failing being no zoom facility,so you have to position yourself by moving back and forth to get the framing you require...the 50mm also makes a great portrait lens...

People have now realised how good these lens are and are fetching around the £100 mark on Ebay at present
Click to expand...
 
i got the sony 18-200, cracking lens, but thinking of selling ;-)
 
I see it selling for 120 dollars in the US and even with weak pound it seems to be bit over priced!!

May be since we get less sunshine here on this side of the pond making Minolta 1.7 pricier:)

I for one am waiting for Sony 1.4- 50mm prices to tumble!!!

cheers

Ajex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top