The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

New tamron 28-200mm aperture ratings:
"Additionally, maximum apertures at intermediate zoom ranges are F3.5 at 50mm, F4.5 at 100mm, and F5.6 at 150mm through 200mm."

That caught my attention. If it matches the sharpness of my 24-105 or close to it within the overlapping ranges I might be interested!
 
New tamron 28-200mm aperture ratings:
"Additionally, maximum apertures at intermediate zoom ranges are F3.5 at 50mm, F4.5 at 100mm, and F5.6 at 150mm through 200mm."

That caught my attention. If it matches the sharpness of my 24-105 or close to it within the overlapping ranges I might be interested!

One thing I don’t like about those lenses is how they drop value. In 10 years your 24-105 will probably still be worth £400. In 10 years that lens will be worth £100.

..maybe not but it represents the point.
 
One thing I don’t like about those lenses is how they drop value. In 10 years your 24-105 will probably still be worth £400. In 10 years that lens will be worth £100.

..maybe not but it represents the point.

Well if the Sony 24-240 is anything to go by it seems to have maintained its value not too badly over half that time period. I think older superzooms were pretty bad and hence lost a lot of value over time just like old zooms were pretty bad and also lost a lot of value.
It's not a lens I'll jumping head over heels to get my hands on unless it's something really special with tack results across the frame, end to end at all apertures which I seriously doubt lol.

But it's something I'd consider getting at a good price down the line if it's performance gets close to 24-105 at overlapping focus range and apertures which I also doubt will be the case. But I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Older superzooms were very variable in quality, with some very usable and some utter garbage - not always reflected by the badge on the lens. I've had a few and still have some, but won't buy more for now.
 
I've had sigma 18-250mm HSM (was my first non-kit lens) and the Sony 24-240mm.
Sigma wasn't very good tbh and Sony was bad at 24mm and 240mm lol. It was ok 28-100mm.
Got rid of both very quickly since I didn't really get along very well with them.

For me tamron 70-180mm is a real winner because it means I can get up to 180mm reach without cropping and with f2.8 aperture. I'd almost never carry other options with me. I have considered getting Voigtlander 180mm f4 so many times but that things costs an arm and a leg.
 
I've had sigma 18-250mm HSM (was my first non-kit lens) and the Sony 24-240mm.
Sigma wasn't very good tbh and Sony was bad at 24mm and 240mm lol. It was ok 28-100mm.
Got rid of both very quickly since I didn't really get along very well with them.

For me tamron 70-180mm is a real winner because it means I can get up to 180mm reach without cropping and with f2.8 aperture. I'd almost never carry other options with me. I have considered getting Voigtlander 180mm f4 so many times but that things costs an arm and a leg.
The 70-180mm is a winner in a lot of ways, but I'm still pretty gutted (and frustrated) there's no option for a collar :( In an ideal world it would have an internal zoom as well, but at 815g vs 1480g of the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 and a £700 price difference (currently with the Sony CB) it's hard to see past the Tamron.
 
Last edited:
The 70-180mm is a winner in a lot of ways, but I'm still pretty gutted (and frustrated) there's no option for a collar :( In an ideal world it would have an internal zoom as well, but at 815g vs 1480g and a £700 price difference (currently with the Sony CB) it's hard to see past the Tamron.

I don't really understand the fascination with having large internal zooms. It'd take compactness over internal zoom. Imagine how big your 100-400mm will be with internal zoom. Would you be so happy with if that were the case ;)
Beside tamron 70-180mm doesn't extend all that much.
 
The first lens I bought to use on my Canon 300D was a Sigma 28-300mm which I thought would be a good day out and holiday lens and it was. However as I knew nothing about digital I couldn't understand why 28mm didn't seem wide. Of course I know now that was because I was using it on a Canon 300D which was an APS-C camera, there were no FF DSLR's at the time. I really should have done some research but I don't know if the internet even existed then.

I remember asking in a shop if they had anything wider than 28mm and the reply was "Not really, you're into fisheye then." Obviously they didn't know about the 18-55mm kit lens :D Happy Daze :D That old Sigma was crap by modern standards but for whole pictures in good light it did a good enough job and I would think about having something like that again.
 
I don't really understand the fascination with having large internal zooms. It'd take compactness over internal zoom. Imagine how big your 100-400mm will be with internal zoom. Would you be so happy with if that were the case ;)
Beside tamron 70-180mm doesn't extend all that much.
I did say "in an ideal world" ;) Obviously I prefer the size and weight savings, but the main reasons that I prefer internal zoom are that it doesn't alter the balance of the lens, and in my mind there's less chance if it pumping dust into the lens.
 
I did say "in an ideal world" ;) Obviously I prefer the size and weight savings, but the main reasons that I prefer internal zoom are that it doesn't alter the balance of the lens, and in my mind there's less chance if it pumping dust into the lens.

I don't know if dust is a much of a problem these days, I have dust in my prime lenses and they don't zoom lol. Actually my 24-105mm which zooms and my most used lens outdoors has less dust in it than my some of my primes.

Well you'll like the 200-600mm then, huge internal zoom lens ;)
 
but both the sony 16-35mm lenses irks me because they extend when you zoom out to 16mm i.e. not only do they zoom the "wrong way" their resting position is at 35mm instead of 16mm. Who ever thought of this design.
 
but both the sony 16-35mm lenses irks me because they extend when you zoom out to 16mm i.e. not only do they zoom the "wrong way" their resting position is at 35mm instead of 16mm. Who ever thought of this design.

Same as the Canon 24-70mk1 isn't it?
 
I don't know if dust is a much of a problem these days, I have dust in my prime lenses and they don't zoom lol. Actually my 24-105mm which zooms and my most used lens outdoors has less dust in it than my some of my primes.

Well you'll like the 200-600mm then, huge internal zoom lens ;)

Tamron lenses are especially bad for this, always have been. Would expect the 70-180 to be particularly bad as even their recent 70-200 f/2.8's are quite bad and they are internal zoom.
 
but both the sony 16-35mm lenses irks me because they extend when you zoom out to 16mm i.e. not only do they zoom the "wrong way" their resting position is at 35mm instead of 16mm. Who ever thought of this design.
I have a couple of lenses that have that behaviour - not a problem.

In 2014 I bought an 18-250 sigma for a trip to Canada, but ended up using the kit lens because it was better. [emoji14]

Some of the 28-200s are good, but I also bought a used Nikon 28-200 that was every bit as bad as the original Vivitar superzoom from the mid 80s.
 
Tamron lenses are especially bad for this, always have been. Would expect the 70-180 to be particularly bad as even their recent 70-200 f/2.8's are quite bad and they are internal zoom.
Kinda makes my point in someways. Internal zooming or not zooming i.e. primes can get more dust in them than properly sealed extending zooms.
 
Kinda makes my point in someways. Internal zooming or not zooming i.e. primes can get more dust in them than properly sealed extending zooms.

That hasn't been my experience at all, and while I have zoom lenses pretty much 95% of the time use prime lenses.

In my experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use.

Not that is a huge issue usually as it's not that often that it has any impact on images and to be fair I haven't had any issues with that on the more recent e-mount Tamron lenses although they haven't had a huge amount of use.

I actually can't think of any prime lens I have owned that has had any issues but I am very anal about keeping my gear clean, so am sure that helps.
 
Last edited:
That hasn't been my experience at all, and while I have zoom lenses pretty much 95% of the time use prime lenses.

In my experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use.

Not that is a huge issue usually as it's not that often that it has any impact on images and to be fair I haven't had any issues with that on the more recent e-mount Tamron lenses although they haven't had a huge amount of use.

I actually can't think of any prime lens I have owned that has had any issues but I am very anal about keeping my gear clean, so am sure that helps.

You can keep you gear clean but can't keep your environment dust free ;)
All my lenses especially ones that go outdoor has some dust in them.
In fact ALL lens will have dust in them, if you can't see it you just need a more powerful torch :D
 
You can keep you gear clean but can't keep your environment dust free ;)
All my lenses especially ones that go outdoor has some dust in them.
In fact ALL lens will have dust in them, if you can't see it you just need a more powerful torch :D

Keeping equipment clean means less chance of dust. I didn't say that it couldn't happen, also because I have a few bodies as well I probably change lenses less often than you would. Just an example my 24mm hasn't come off the camera I connected it to since I bought it.

Yes, of course all lenses have internal dust but we are talking here about larger clumps that are visible with the naked eye. I haven't yet owned a prime lens were this has been an issue, and I have had quite a few over the last 20 years or so. I can only think of hand of 2 prime lenses I have owned that has had visible dust a Sigma 85 f/1.4 which had one speck when I bought it used and a Samyang 45mm which I returned. I have never had a brand new prime lens collect any visable dust while I have owned them and I would imagine that I probably use my equipment more than most.

As I said before in me experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use. The Tamron 24-70vc, 70-200vc and 70-200 G2 I owned had obvious dust you could see with the naked eye within a few months of owning them.
 
Last edited:
Keeping equipment clean means less chance of dust. I didn't say that it couldn't happen, also because I have a few bodies as well I probably change lenses less often than you would. Just an example my 24mm hasn't come off the camera I connected it to since I bought it.

Yes, of course all lenses have internal dust but we are talking here about larger clumps that are visible with the naked eye. I haven't yet owned a prime lens were this has been an issue, and I have had quite a few over the last 20 years or so. I can only think of hand of 2 prime lenses I have owned that has had visible dust a Sigma 85 f/1.4 which had one speck when I bought it used and a Samyang 45mm which I returned.

As I said before in me experience zoom lenses are absolutely more prone to internal dust, zoom lenses that are not internal zoom for me have definitely been worse and Tamron lenses in particular I have found to be particularly likely to get dust after short term use. The Tamron 24-70vc, 70-200vc and 70-200 G2 I owned had obvious dust you could see with the naked eye within a few months of owning them.

For me changing lenses is inevitable with only one body. I haven't got any lenses where huge amounts is visible but with a torch light I can definitely see the odd specs in some of them.
At the start it used annoy me a little when I found them but I have kind of given in to the fact that it's inevitable at least for me for lenses I use a lot.
For me personally primes have been more annoying for dust. Baffles me but that's how it's been.
 
For me changing lenses is inevitable with only one body. I haven't got any lenses where huge amounts is visible but with a torch light I can definitely see the odd specs in some of them.
At the start it used annoy me a little when I found them but I have kind of given in to the fact that it's inevitable at least for me for lenses I use a lot.
For me personally primes have been more annoying for dust. Baffles me but that's how it's been.

Maybe you need to be a bit more careful when changing lenses, I give all my stuff a good clean after every use.

If you are going to go looking with a torch though every lens even brand new will show some dust.

Way back in the day if I was going to look at a used lens I would bring a little torch with me so I could use internal dust as a bargaining tool. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Maybe you need to be a bit more careful when changing lenses, I give all my stuff a good clean after every use.

If you are going to go looking with a torch though every lens even brand new will show some dust.

Way back in the day if I was going to look at a used lens I would bring a little torch with me so I could use internal dust as a bargaining tool. :ROFLMAO:

Yep the torch really flares up my OCD lol.
I clean them on a monthly basis.
 
I don't know if dust is a much of a problem these days, I have dust in my prime lenses and they don't zoom lol. Actually my 24-105mm which zooms and my most used lens outdoors has less dust in it than my some of my primes.

Well you'll like the 200-600mm then, huge internal zoom lens ;)
Once bitten twice shy and all that, the 150-600mm was a major dust pump, you could actually hear it 'ferociously' sucking air in :eek: It was such an issue you could send it back to Tamron to be cleaned free of charge (y)
 
Once bitten twice shy and all that, the 150-600mm was a major dust pump, you could actually hear it 'ferociously' sucking air in :eek: It was such an issue you could send it back to Tamron to be cleaned free of charge (y)

hopefully they fixed that in G2 version? or may be they didn't.
I guess amount of dust these things can suck in varies from lenses to lenses.
 
Anyone seen any good deals on USB hard drives? I need another (someone recommended me a great deal last time asked in here, can't remember who it was but thanks again). 2/4TB required, sorry for going off topic, but you know how this thread rolls :ROFLMAO:
 
Anyone seen any good deals on USB hard drives? I need another (someone recommended me a great deal last time asked in here, can't remember who it was but thanks again). 2/4TB required, sorry for going off topic, but you know how this thread rolls :ROFLMAO:
Assuming you mean portable HDD's I always find seagate good for the money. Currently £85 for 4TB ones, I'm not sure if you call that a great deal but I used to pay that for 1TB some years ago :eek:
 
Assuming you mean portable HDD's I always find seagate good for the money. Currently £85 for 4TB ones, I'm not sure if you call that a great deal but I used to pay that for 1TB some years ago :eek:

Yes sorry, USB powered portable variety.

I paid £45 for my recent WD 2TB so £85 seems ok. Is that direct from Seagate?
 
Yes sorry, USB powered portable variety.

I paid £45 for my recent WD 2TB so £85 seems ok. Is that direct from Seagate?
Good old amazon ;)
 
Last edited:
seems promising if true. I would liked to have seen what sigma has in store for the 70-200mm f2.8 though.
 
Back
Top