Views On Sony

M

m18nye

Messages
643
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so I have a Sony A700, really like the camera and really like the whole Sony Alpha range, my question is is it worth staying with Sony if I start buying faster glass e.g 70-200mm 2.8? 90mm 2.8? I already have a 18-50mm 2.8. Or would it be better selling the equipment I have now and going down the canon or Nikon route.

Please don't say Canon or Nikon just because you have one so it brand loyalty, I want opionion on image quality ect, cost of fast glass, extra equipment ect.
 
I'm jealous of anyone with a Sony. That in body IS would be great with primes that just aren't available with IS. If I hadn't been brought up to look after the pennies I'd ditch my Canon and all of my lenses and replace them with Sony / Sigma.

In your place I'd think long and hard about the benefits of switching.
 
Not so much of having to change for faster lens, its more of faster lenses cost alot more +£1000 so my question is more of is it worth investing in these lenses with a Sony or would it bemore beneficial in the long run to sell up the Sony and buy Nikon/Canon and there fast lenses?

Thanks

And yes the in body stabliser is a big + for me saves loads on weight of the lenses too.
 
m18nye said:
Not so much of having to change for faster lens, its more of faster lenses cost alot more +£1000 so my question is more of is it worth investing in these lenses with a Sony or would it bemore beneficial in the long run to sell up the Sony and buy Nikon/Canon and there fast lenses?

Thanks

And yes the in body stabliser is a big + for me saves loads on weight of the lenses too.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on why you think you may swap over at a later date. If it's because you want to eventually go pro and feel that Canon/Nikon are the best brands for that (which at the moment they are) then that is a valid consideration.
 
you would be able to get the sony 70-200 2.8 G lens for around the £1200 mark,and the equivalent lens from canon is over £2,000 with image stabilisation..and nikons equivalent around the £1600 mark,it wouldn't seem to be good sense to change systems unless you intend to start looking to get into large telephoto lens' like a 500 F/4 etc..
 
I wouldnt switch myself... I'm a sony user, and not an A900, but the in body Steadyshot and the availability of Carl Zeiss Optics really means you dont have to switch brands to get good quality lenses.

If you are happy with the Sony, stick with it. The are constantly bringing out new lenses and other manufacturers are also releasing more for the Sony mount.

Plus, as more people start to use Sony and market share increases, more pro level lenses and even cameras will be made available.
 
One bonus that sony has is the steadyshot... the other bonus is that due to this the lenses are cheaper.

tamron have a 18-50 2.8 i blieve thats quite cheap, the 50mm 1.8 is cheap and there are quite a few primes that wont break the bank... this like the 70-200 are a better buy as with nikon you pay extra for the vr.

Plus sony is slowly releasing more glass, and you have the bonus of being able to use older minolta lenses.

The main restriction i have found is sonys ability in low light.
They dont seem to have any body's that are particularly good compared to the other brands.
 
Doesnt look like it though... so far all releases the past year or so have been about live views and bigger mp counts... no low light perfroamance upgrades.

With the 700 and 900 i would expect to see even higher mp count and introduction of video.

They dont seem to have a serious contender for people that are serious about making money from photography...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top