PDA

View Full Version : A whole new bag suggestion



DonSchap
10-22-2006, 11:23 PM
Let's say you opted for the SONY A100 (10.2 MP) with its body-level sensor stabilization "Super SteadyShot" over the Canon 30D (8.2 MP), a Nikon D80 (10.2 MP) and even the Olympus E-volt 500 4/3 DSLR.

What lenses would you slap on the front of this camera to make it a quality bag?

My suggestion:

UWA (optional): SONY DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 ($600)
or
WA-prime (optional): SONY DT 28mm f/2.8 ($249) w/ 0.45x UWA Add-on lens: Phoenix 0.45x lens ($69)

Normal: TAmROn SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF) (SONY/Minolta-mount) ($449)

Prime (optional): SONY DT 50mm f/1.4 ($319)

Telephoto: Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 ATX (SONY/Minolta-mount) ($649)

Even if you only got the TAmROn 17-50 f/2.8 and the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, this would be quite the system with Image Stability thrown in for free. The total cost for the Camera, and the two lenses... $1900!

The Canon EOS 30D equivalent system (30D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, & 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM) would be $3700... almost double!!

Consider SONY... it's money in the bank... or... a few more lenses. :D

Even if you thought you hadn't made up your mind about which system has the "bang for the buck", you should have now. :cool:

ktixx
10-23-2006, 06:25 AM
Let's say you opted for the SONY A100 (10.2 MP) with its body-level sensor stabilization "Super SteadyShot" over the Canon 30D (8.2 MP), a Nikon D80 (10.2 MP) and even the Olympus E-volt 500 4/3 DSLR.

What lenses would you slap on the front of this camera to make it a quality bag?

My suggestion:

UWA (optional): SONY DT 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 ($600)
or
WA-prime (optional): SONY DT 28mm f/2.8 ($249) w/ 0.45x UWA Add-on lens: Phoenix 0.45x lens ($69)

Normal: TAmROn SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF) (SONY/Minolta-mount) ($449)

Prime (optional): SONY DT 50mm f/1.4 ($319)

Telephoto: Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 ATX (SONY/Minolta-mount) ($649)

Even if you only got the TAmROn 17-50 f/2.8 and the Tokina 80-200 f/2.8, this would be quite the system with Image Stability thrown in for free. The total cost for the Camera, and the two lenses... $1900!

The Canon EOS 30D equivalent system (30D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, & 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM) would be $3700... almost double!!

Consider SONY... it's money in the bank... or... a few more lenses. :D

Even if you thought you hadn't made up your mind about which system has the "bang for the buck", you should have now. :cool:

I don't know if it is that easy Don. You are comparing 2 completely different types of equipment.
1) As far as bodies are concerned, I think you should be comparing the Sony A100 to the Rebel XT or XTI, but even then I think Canon has a better name for themselves.
2) You are comparing L or near L glass (Still 1st party) to a lesser 3rd party name. There is a reason why you pay a premium for L glass and also a reason why you pay a premium for 1st party glass.
3) It is well known that in body IS does not provide as many stops as "In Lens" IS. I have read articles that say the Sony only provides 2 stops (even though they claim 3.5), whereas the 17-55 offers 3 and the 70-200 offers 4.

You aren't comparing apples to oranges, but there are major differences between your comparison of the Sony system and Canon system. I agree that an amateur photographer could start off with a great kit on a budget, but for me, I would rather go with the top of the pile (IE: Canon or even Nikon), start out with less, and slowly build up my lens lineup.
Ken

DonSchap
11-13-2006, 10:40 AM
This is the SONY forum... and specifically is catering to the SONY camera issues. I brought up the "SONY-bag" as a way to simplify purchases to that end.

Personally, for the "average" (whatever that means) photographer, the SONY has most of the tricks covered, plus throws in the Super SteadyShot for all your lensing. It would be hard to go wrong with this set up... and if a photographer did have a notion for Full Frame, then a Canon-investment would be in order. Get out a good sized wallet, though, as Canon IS-equipped lensing is serious extra cash... :eek: that you simply would NOT have to spend using the SONY. :p

SanD
11-21-2006, 06:24 PM
So Don,

what would you suggest for an upgraded lens for this camera? I just actually won a sonyA100 dslr. I am super excited about it and I used it last night for a few moments , I dont know a lot about cameras but I normally use a canon digital camera and a Nikon F65 slr.

I take lots of horse photos, so there is a fair bit of action, I would like a lens that goes to 300mm. the current zoom lens is an 18-70mm,

I phoned Sony store and the price for the lens that goes from 18mm to 300mm was 650.00, and the one from 75mm-300mm was 349.00, I would assume thats a sony brand lens.

when I called London drugs their price on a 75mm -300mm was only 199.00 so I need to learn about the lens, and any advice you can send my way would be so appreciated.


Can we use different brands of lenses on these cameras, or are they designed specifically for digital camers.

I am sorry for so many questions, but it looks like you may have a lot of knowledge.

thanks

sandy

RichNY
11-21-2006, 08:05 PM
Don, a more accurate price comparison would use the same lenses on both the Sony and Canon were possible. The price gap would drop considerably.

DonSchap
11-22-2006, 06:13 PM
So Don,

what would you suggest for an upgraded lens for this camera? I just actually won a sonyA100 dslr. I am super excited about it and I used it last night for a few moments , I dont know a lot about cameras but I normally use a canon digital camera and a Nikon F65 slr.

I take lots of horse photos, so there is a fair bit of action, I would like a lens that goes to 300mm. the current zoom lens is an 18-70mm,

Well, the unfortunate part of that 18-70mm kit lens, that came with it is that it is NOT very good. So bad, in fact, it is the FIRST lens I would swap out. My personal advice is to give this lens away to someone who has nothing at all... because you really do not want to be tempted to use it ever again. I gave it a good testing... and it is almost a waste of glass. When I bought it with the camera, I had my fingers crossed... but was seriously disappointed in the test results.

The lens you want is the TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF). It will tap on you for about $449, but it is a fantastic lens for the price. Sharp, Low-light, good focal length (effectively 26-75mm on the SONY, with its 1.5x DCF). Chances are you will not ever have to replace this lens. It has a 6-year warranty, is lightweight, and has already made a "lens of the year" list.

The other lens you want is the TAmROn AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2. This is another good performer at a superior price ($149).

EDIT: I do own one, now. I'm not thrilled by the focus speed, but like other 70-300mm, none of them are dramatically fast in that regard. For the price though, I felt needed the experience of using it. It pops a little longer than the 70-210mm ... but not nearly as quick.

(I don't own one because) I already had a Ozunon 70-210mm f/4.5 lens in my bag. That may change, though, as I have found one I am considering. Just waiting for my price. It is great outdoors, but once inside... like almost any other 70-300mm... you need a flash.


I phoned Sony store and the price for the lens that goes from 18mm to 300mm was 650.00, and the one from 75mm-300mm was 349.00, I would assume thats a sony brand lens.

when I called London drugs their price on a 75mm -300mm was only 199.00 so I need to learn about the lens, and any advice you can send my way would be so appreciated.


Can we use different brands of lenses on these cameras, or are they designed specifically for digital camers.

I am sorry for so many questions, but it looks like you may have a lot of knowledge.

thanks

sandy

These lenses have to have the Minolta A-mount or SONY-mounts to work on the SONY A100 Alpha. The assortment of other Minolta AF lenses all work on the SONY also, so there is a lot of glass to choose from, out there.

For a little extra reach... consider looking at the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f4-5.6. This lens really is an all-in-one solution to outdoor telephoto, if you can get one. It weighs and costs quite a bit more than the 70-300mm, but returns an excellent shot... and if you are running around like you say, coupled with the SONY's built-in Super-SteadyShot (Image Stability)... you would be good to go and not need much more in lenses.

Good Luck and I hope you at least take a look at the glass I have suggested. I really do not feel you will be disappointed.

DonSchap
11-22-2006, 06:31 PM
Don, a more accurate price comparison would use the same lenses on both the Sony and Canon were possible. The price gap would drop considerably.


Rich... you have to take into consideration that the SONY has Image Stability already built into its little body... so any Canon lens you would directly compare would have to have this feature, too... hence, tack on $300 to $600... or maybe even $1000 (depending on the lens) for that little stability add on. SONY gives it to you for... nothing more, so just about any manufacturer's lens you place on it gets a STABLE home, even a 500mm f/8 Reflex lens! :D

Can you imagine... 500mm stable focusing with a $100 T-mount lens? I swear, sometimes this stuff is scary. :eek:

SanD
11-22-2006, 10:49 PM
Don,

For a little extra reach... consider looking at the Tokina ATX 80-400mm f4-5.6. This lens really is an all-in-one solution to outdoor telephoto, if you can get one. It weighs and cost quite a bit more than the 70-300mm, but returns an excellent shot... and if you are running around like you say, coupled with the SONY's built-in Super-SteadyShot (Image Stability)... you would be good to go and not need much more in lenses.

Would this be a lens I can carry around and take photos with , without a tripod? do you have any idea how much it would run,

Is there any good websites to purchase lenses or is it to dangerous to ship them.

I love the idea of having a 400mm lens

thanks again,


sandy

DonSchap
11-23-2006, 02:53 AM
Sandy,

Here is a link to give you a feel for what the lens is capable of...

CLICK ON THIS (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/reviews/tokina80400.htm)

It's tough to get... because I believe it may have been discontinued, recently.

Here's a link to begin the search with...

SEARCH HERE (http://www3.shopping.com/xPC-Tokina-Zoom-Telephoto-AF-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-AT-X-840AF-Autofocus-Lens-with-Tripod-Collar-for-Minolta-Maxxum)

Sorry I can't be more helpful... but, I believe this is the one to get, to be sure... if you can. :D

Another option maybe to get a Sigma/Tokina combination... which I cannot attest to. SIGMA has a 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG APO SO(M)/AF lens (2.7 lbs)

17538

but, at this focal range, you are definitely going to need something to cover in between the 50mm and the 135mm. Right now, that really can be a crap shoot.

Tokina is releasing a new f/2.8 which, unbelievably, is right in that range. It probably will not be available until March 2007. Use this link (http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/pie2006/) for a peek at it. Here's all I have...

17539

Unfortunately, there is no guaranty that they are planning it to have a SONY/Minolta Mount, so this is hardly something I would be waiting on.

The best bet is to hang out on ebay and pray someone puts their Tokina AT-X 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Minolta Mount up for sale. You never know.

For long range glass, TAmROn does currently make their SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (2.4 lbs) super-zoom for the SONY/Minolta mount.

17540

I, personally, have this lens for my Canon (wish I had one for the SONY, too)... and it is sharp and fast. You may want to just take a look at it, if you are out and about. With the SONY's internal stabilization, it would give this lens real competitive capability.

Yeah... that business interruption between Minolta and SONY really sent a rip~ple through the availability of third party lenses with compatible mounts. The businesses apparently weren't willing to bet on SONY's determination of producing the A100. I suspect, though, after next year... the SONY/Minolta mounts will be back. SONY has warehouses full of Minolta's regular and high-end G-glass that needs to be rebranded, repackaged and reshipped to the distributors. This would be a killer time for the third-parties to get a foothold on supplying the void.

I mean, take a look at this serious looking 70-200mm f/2.8...

17541

This is a lens for the ages.

Or this 300mm f/2.8...

17542

The SONY re-wrap is coming... soon.

DonSchap
01-16-2007, 04:02 PM
Obviously, with a new crop of SONY users, this thread should get more play.

Can we make it a sticky?

pagnamenta
01-16-2007, 04:54 PM
Yes but Don, the Sony A100 is not a professional dslr. I think it's more comparable to the XTi. Besides, many will point out the image stabalization of a Sony isn't as good as lens IS. Such things as composing a shot are different with in-camera stabalization.

For the prosumer market, your advice is great. The Sony A100 with it's IS is better than no IS but I feel it's useless to compare it to a Canon IS setup. Sony hasn't yet made a camera with in-body IS that is comparable to a pro camera. Until they do, professionals will choose Canon (or Nikon).

DonSchap
01-16-2007, 08:31 PM
Hey, I'm in complete agreement with you on this point. My proposal of the "A99" was an attempt to point this out. Based on the proposed Minolta 9D-prototype, the "A99" would compete toe-to-toe with the likes of the Canon EOS 1Ds MkII or EOS 1D MkII.

Will SONY deliver on the Minolta-promise? Gosh, I would hope so ... otherwise sell the prototype to someone who will. We're all waiting. :cool:

EDIT: (3/1/2007) The SONY "Flagship" is currently in the works and will be a pro-level model, perhaps even full-frame. Canon collectively gasps.

Take a look!


25044

rengstrom
02-22-2007, 10:00 AM
This topic has been very helpful for me. I'm curious if someone has any thoughts/suggestions on these two lenses. I have had them since my Minolta Maxxum XTsi days (so they have some age), but I bought the Sony since they would work with it, and at a very minimum, get me started.

The two lenses are:

Tamron AF 28-105mm 1:4-5.6
Tamron AF LD 70-300mm tele-macro(1:3.9) 1:4-5.6

Any thoughts/info would be greatly appreciated. This has all helped already.

DonSchap
02-22-2007, 10:57 AM
This topic has been very helpful for me. I'm curious if someone has any thoughts/suggestions on these two lenses. I have had them since my Minolta Maxxum XTsi days (so they have some age), but I bought the Sony since they would work with it, and at a very minimum, get me started.

The two lenses are:

Tamron AF 28-105mm 1:4-5.6
Tamron AF LD 70-300mm tele-macro(1:3.9) 1:4-5.6

Any thoughts/info would be greatly appreciated. This has all helped already.

While these AF lenses will work with the SONY, I believe you will note that they are rather slow in autofocus. Your image clarity may also suffer, because digital lenses and film lenses are a little different, in the way the image is presented to the two different media (Sensor vs film). As a "starting point", they may be fine, but you get shooting, will soon notice (as others have) that you will want more out of the lenses or they are simply not performing to your ... expectations.

Comparison: The best idea I've been able to come up with concerning the quality difference between digital lenses and film lenses is to simply see it for yourself. This does two things:

You can reset your expectations of your existing lensing for future photographs
You get a great chance to explore methods of improving your shots through upgrading your glass ... or if a glass-upgrade is even warranted. (You may be happy with what you are getting :rolleyes: )


If you can get to the camera store, that carries TAMRON lenses, take your older lenses in and do a side-by-side shoot with comparible lenses.

The TAMRON AF28-105 f/4-5.6 might be best replaced by the TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF). With the SONY's 1.5x digital cropping factor (DCF), the 17-50mm becomes effectively 28-75mm. That's usually plenty for walking around. You still get your wide angle and good range.

The TAMRON AF70-300 f/4-5.6 LD might best be replaced by the new TAMRON SP AF70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) due out this year. It's not quite ready for distribution, yet ... so in the meantime, you may want to consider the SIGMA APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM. Once again, with the SONY 1.5x DCF, your lens effectively becomes 105-300mm.

The first thing you'll notice with the new glass is the speed of focal lock you will enjoy. The second is the much sharper overall image you'll have. Finally, with f/2.8 lenses on your camera, your low-light capability with the in-body IS will be rather impressive.

Noteworthy: f/4-5.6 zooms tend to suffer indoors, without an external flash or more (studio lighting, etc), due to shutter-speed constraints. The in-body IS of the A100 will forgive some of this, if you steady-up a bit, but f/2.8 is the real solution - or at the very least, a tripod.

The costs involved in the upgrade-glass is quite nominal (almost 1/2 the cost) compared to what it would cost to do it with Canon-glass.

rengstrom
02-24-2007, 05:54 AM
Thanks for the help! I've noticed some slow AF speeds with the lenses, so you're spot on with that. I'll probably drop by the local camera shop with the old lenses and use them as credit towards a new set.

Thanks again, I appreciate the feedback!

Rob

DonSchap
02-24-2007, 05:08 PM
If you are looking to trade into a reasonable one-lens-solution, check out the TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Ashperical (IF). It is a good overall lens, that will reduce your need to lens swap and provide reasonably wide aperture up to about 60mm. After that, you will probably require flash, for indoor use.

The speed of focus is pretty good and it covers the widest focal range of any lens out there. It may just be the best "utility" lens out there.

Here's some information on it (Click here->) 18-250mm (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18250_diII.asp)
or if you have Adobe Reader, click on this PDF (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/assets/pdfs/spec_sheets/18-250mm.pdf)

DonSchap
05-30-2007, 04:09 PM
Well, in the recent year, I have been busily putting together a system that should provide "the basics." And while this doesn't include every lens you can imagine, it does cover a number of bases.

To be realistic, though, a lot of people start off with one major lens and then eventually pick up a "better" lens later on. It was what I personally did with my Canon EOS 20D system.

When considering the SONY, I had no idea that SONY would be so highly-priced with their glass. I had hoped for some reasonable level, but as long as people will pay these ghastly prices, we are stuck with them. Third-party glass seems even more reasonable than before and hopefully, as the demand increases ... the prices might drop in order for the SONY lenses in order to sell the "rebadged" goodies they got from Minolta. The lenses are already two-years old and they are not getting any younger.

Guess the wait begins. :rolleyes: C'mon SONY, let's sell some glass!

EDIT: Well, prayers eventually get answered, I guess. The SONY 70-200mm f/2.8 G dropped in price by $400 and B&H Photo has it for $1899. Still not great, but definitely moving in the correct direction.

cgl88
06-02-2007, 06:25 PM
That's a great travel lens that covers all ranges. It would simply replace my kit lens (17-80), beer can (70-210) but at the expense of some quality.

One thing I want to explore more of is indoor photography and 'bokeh.' As such, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 looks appealing. I have no idea what other lens might be recommended at that wide-angle/aperture. Additional thoughts?

DonSchap
06-02-2007, 06:45 PM
That's a great travel lens that covers all ranges. It would simply replace my kit lens (17-80), beer can (70-210) but at the expense of some quality.

One thing I want to explore more of is indoor photography and 'bokeh.' As such, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 looks appealing. I have no idea what other lens might be recommended at that wide-angle/aperture. Additional thoughts?

Well, I'm not big on SIGMA, but their new AF 18-50mm f/2.8 MACRO has some merit to it. If you can find one, give 'er a look-see. For some reason, Tokina and SONY are NOT linking up. The Tokina AT-X 165 PRO DX 16-50mm f/2.8 and AT-X 535 PRO DX AF 50-135mm f/2.8 are only being made with the Canon-EOS or Nikon-D mounts. :(

cgl88
06-03-2007, 12:11 PM
Well, I'm not big on SIGMA, but their new AF 18-50mm f/2.8 MACRO has some merit to it. If you can find one, give 'er a look-see. For some reason, Tokina and SONY are NOT linking up. The Tokina AFX 16-50mm f/2.8 is only being made with the Canon or Nikon mount. :(

dpreview has a good discussion on minolta lenses:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=23450992&q=flash&qf=m

I don't like Tokina. I had bad experience with one of their zoom lenses (70-210). I'll look into the sigma, though.

I don't want to spend more than $500 cdn for an f/2.8 lens.

DonSchap
10-08-2007, 01:03 PM
For a little extra reach... consider looking at the[/COLOR] Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f4-5.6. This lens really is an all-in-one solution to outdoor telephoto, if you can get one. It weighs and costs quite a bit more than the 70-300mm, but returns an excellent shot... and if you are running around like you say, coupled with the SONY's built-in Super-SteadyShot (Image Stability)... you would be good to go and not need much more in lenses.

Good Luck and I hope you at least take a look at the glass I have suggested. I really do not feel you will be disappointed.

Well, I finally was able to get a hold of an older Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4-5.6 (not the II-model, Tokina will not make it for the SONY-mount *there is something just weird about that* ) for my own lens bag. This lightweight has some reach on it (effectively a 120-600mm zoom).

Anyway, it is on the way from Japan and I fully intend to see if it is up to par with other lenses in that class. I don't expect it to be as razor-sharp as the TAMRON 200-500mm f/6.9, but it should be on par with the TAMRON 70-300 f/4-5.6 LD.

Should be here by week's end, I hope. ;)

With all the new camera's available ... perhaps we need to revisit the WHOLE NEW BAG idea?



******************************************

Let's see ... best camera ... in the bag ... hmmm, yeah ... SONY A700.

Lenses to have ...

Utility/Walkaround lens -> TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF)

Wide-Angle Zoom -> SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (D) EX DC

Short zoom -> TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD Aspherical (IF)

Long zoom -> SONY 70-200 f/2.8 G (why fight the best?)

Super zoom -> TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)


**************************************

DonSchap
11-25-2007, 05:29 PM
I'm a little miffed by the result I got out of my latest lens ... the SAL 70-200mm f/2.8 G. It was defective, out of the box, in a way I would have never expected. The aperture failed to work. As such, until SONY can safely assure there are no more of these defective lenses floating around ... I simply cannot and will not recommend putting people through what I have gone through ... and, besides, I still don't have my lens back, 14 days after (today, 11/26/2007) the SONY Repair Center received it (on 11/12/2007). It was supposed to be a simple replacement and take no more than 5-10 days. It seems to be becoming far more than the simple replacement I was told of. :mad:

For the time being, I, personally, have no recommendation for a 70-200mm f/2.8 for the SONY/Minolta mount. I suppose if you could get your hands on a 2005 Minolta "original", you might be luckier than I was. After the "rebadging" of these lenses, my worst fear was realized when I received a defective one, possibly "compromised" in the rebuild (rebadging process).

Going forward, I suppose a SIGMA might be worth a look ... or you could hold out until TAMRON steps up with the one they announced back in March, 2007.

I had a feeling I was taking a chance with this purchase ... but not having heard too much negative about this particular lens, I figured it was worth a go, even after the "rebadging process." Sadly, I figured wrong. QC (Quality Control) obviously didn't catch this very expensive optic, as it was boxed and sealed, under the SONY label.

31022

Seal Intact!
31023

Stingr
11-26-2007, 06:49 PM
Don,

I am new to the DSLR arena, but am a long time user of an antique Canon AE1:D.

I just purchased the new Sony A700 with the 3.5-6.3/18-200 lens kit. Love the camera and the lens!!!

I am currently taking indoor action photos of ice hockey games that my daughter is participating in. I need to get into the rink corners when I am positioned mid ice as a spectator just above glass height.... I was going to purchase the SAL 70-200 f2.8 that you are speaking of and add the SAL 2.0 Tele-converter lens.
I am concerned about the issue you had with yours and did Sony have any reply as to their QC on these lenses.

any suggestions would be great!.


Thanks in advance, I have enjoyed reading your threads.
Bob

DonSchap
11-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Well ... it's a heck of an investment in glass, to be quite honest. Not one person took any credit for the QC-angle to the entire affair. As far as I can tell, the lens is on its way to Japan for refurb or something ... but then again, no one is quite explaining the process.

I just received the "replacement" lens, this afternoon. It looks to have been drop-shipped from a local warehouse. I wish they would have done this a week ago, before the holidays, but here it is. Its going back to the vendor I bought it from, unopened. Until I can get a solid "we're looking into these" from SONY ... I won't be too interested in taking another chance on it.

"Once burned, twice shy."

I feel someone really needs to get their return policy straight, without all this needless delay, before I go through this again ... and they know who they are. I'm out $50 and a lot of holiday shots. They can keep the lens for now. Had they returned my shipping for returning THEIR out-of-the-box defective, we may have been talking about another try ... but, I won't do it again. Not at $2000 a pop.

As far as your desire for the lens, have at it. I can only tell of my own experience, first hand. I've been treated better for a heck of a lot less invested.

Go TAMRON! Third-party with first-rate service. They have yet to spoil my party. :D

e_dawg
11-30-2007, 10:58 PM
That sucks, but why refuse a new replacement lens? Isn't it better to be happy and start shooting with your new lens than to go without to boycott Sony, who was never obligated to pay for your shipping or cross-ship you a replacement lens within a guaranteed short timeframe?

That's fairly typical of most companies -- you have a defective product, you ship it to them on your dime, they send you a replacement unit within a couple weeks. It's not like you're an important commercial account worth x Millions and have signed Service Level Agreements or purchase support subscriptions for x amount per year where you're guaranteed a on-site service and a replacement unit within 24 hours.

Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain and am not trying to be insensitive here... I simply feel your expectations with respect to the service you deserve from a camera company are a little high for what's typical in this market.

DonSchap
12-01-2007, 07:31 AM
That sucks, but why refuse a new replacement lens? Isn't it better to be happy and start shooting with your new lens than to go without to boycott Sony, who was never obligated to pay for your shipping or cross-ship you a replacement lens within a guaranteed short timeframe?

That's fairly typical of most companies -- you have a defective product, you ship it to them on your dime, they send you a replacement unit within a couple weeks. It's not like you're an important commercial account worth x Millions and have signed Service Level Agreements or purchase support subscriptions for x amount per year where you're guaranteed a on-site service and a replacement unit within 24 hours.

Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain and am not trying to be insensitive here... I simply feel your expectations with respect to the service you deserve from a camera company are a little high for what's typical in this market.

Nah ... while I appreciate your sensitivity .. it's my $2000. As a part on my annual income, that's a reasonably large bite. And while I may not be a multi-million dollar company, I expect to be treated with the respect that this kind of expense represents. I merely opened that box to find a defective part. It was SENT to me, from the retailer and fully sealed by the manufacturer. As directed by the black label with white lettering, clearly pasted to the bottom of the box lid, I notified the manufacturer directly of the problem, we tested it together for proper operation and when it was deemed inoperative ... they said, "Send it to us."

It was their call. If they wanted me to return it to a local SONY retailer, I could have ... and it would have been at significantly less cost. THEY wanted it sent directly to their repair facility. I can tell you this, after further discussion with several stores, this will not happen, again. It gets swapped, immediately ... no manufacturer nonsense.

No matter what I'm told in this regard, it's going back to the retailer.

I am sharing this experience to have other people avoid this kind of financial loss. It can be mitigated. One of the problems I was looking at with the retailer I bought it from was, at the time this all happened, they no longer had any more of these in stock ... I checked ("Not in stock") ... I had purchased their last one ... and with the history of this particular lens ... it is a rare find ... so I was kind of stuck ... no lens. Turkey-Day was rapidly approaching and I had some shots I wanted to take with it. Sure, maybe its a situational issue, but then again, aren't they all?

Anyway, I was unclear as to SONY's intent, because of the extraordinary time it was taking to receive my lens back. It appeared they actually might be stalling to try and repair it. I had been promised a replacement within five-days. Five-days wound up being 14-days, with an overnight shipment in the end. Turkey Day had passed and I'm sorry, but my trust in this deal had been compromised. There is an ethics-issue involved in this. I was promised a rapid replacement (5-7 days), I was counting on it and it did not happen. In fact, several calls for shipping status were placed to the repair facility, over the following week, only to be apparently ignored. I simply will not tolerate it. Woe be unto those who will. A line must be drawn for the customer. Let it begin here.

I do know, as I actually work in manufacturing, if you do not keep your customer happy with just the normal expectation (nothing extraordinary, I'm not unreasonable), they will find someone who can ... and you will lose their business and perhaps much more (people know people ... and they share stories of distrust and betrayal). As a fledgling company, if you do not quickly learn from your mistakes and tune things up, accordingly, those customers (and potential customers) are gone ... never to return. Any employee of that company, who looks the other way, simply does not seriously have the "health and welfare" of the business at heart ... and should be remediated and/or even terminated. Standards should be maintained, especially if you have INCONVENIENCED the customer through the company's your own fault.

I know I worked exceptionally hard to carefully pack and return this lens to them, making certain it was tracked all the way in and received. It was then I began to carefully follow and request the return staus and tracking number of the "replacement", to avoid any look of impropriety on their part. Still, no matter how hard I tried, they still made it look exceptionally suspicious with the unnecessary delay in the lens' return.

Regardless. if you want to pay return shipping charges for defective product, step right up. These larger lenses cost a flippin' fortune to insure and ship ($50 in this case) ... and it's only getting worse with the advancing price of petrol.

Enjoy your art ... and hopefully this has been a valuable lesson BEFORE you get stung. They can keep their lens. For what I paid, it should have worked right out of the box. That's my expectation and that is precisely what QC (Quality Control: the forgotten art of problem detection) is all about. Having a working aperture is pretty damn basic to lens' operation. It wasn't just chipped paint or something silly. I can't take the chance of going through this ... again. :( Not for my $2000! How about we do it with ... YOURS? :D ;)

I sincerely hope this explains why I passed it back. No more blind purchases from SONY ... of this magnitude.

I know this sounds like a rant, but it really isn't. I went through all of this and careful measured the pressure points with this "return." Painful as it has been, I realize there are no guarantees even with "the best." We have to be especially careful, when circumstances get beyond your control. The Internet is a wild place to conduct business. We'd like to think it is being managed by people intent on doing "good business", but it really is full of unknowns or ... in a darker mindset, carefully hiddens. Even the most reputible vendors can have issues, they may not even realize. I feel it is incumbant upon all of us to ferret these issues out and bring them to light.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. :p

e_dawg
12-02-2007, 07:43 PM
And while I may not be a multi-million dollar company, I expect to be treated with the respect that this kind of expense represents.

A reasonable expectation, one would assume, but the market doesn't always work like that, especially when you're dealing directly with a mfr.


As directed by the black label with white lettering, clearly pasted to the bottom of the box lid, I notified the manufacturer directly of the problem, we tested it together for proper operation and when it was deemed inoperative ... they said, "Send it to us." [...] No matter what I'm told in this regard, it's going back to the retailer.

And I would do the same. IMO, that's the bulk of the problem right there. For any product that is defective upon opening up the box, the usual practice is to send or bring it back to the retailer and say "this is defective; I would like to exchange it for a new one". The mfr is rarely equipped to handle these kinds of customer service issues quickly and efficiently.

But as you said, if they explicitly stated to send it back to them, they had better be equipped to deal with it effectively. They didn't, and shame on them.


There is an ethics-issue involved in this. I was promised a rapid replacement (5-7 days), I was counting on it and it did not happen.

In my experience, these types of rapid replacement promises are made all the time and rarely delivered on. You can either be upset by them letting you down, or you can figure that 5-7 usually means 10-14 and plan accordingly. That's just the way it is.

Not that it makes it right, though...


I know this sounds like a rant, but it really isn't.

Nah, it's a rant ;) But you are fully entitled to one! And again, I am not trying to begrudge you your frustrations... just trying to help by suggesting that you adjust your expectations a bit -- you'll be a lot less unhappy and disappointed in the future.

DonSchap
12-02-2007, 08:03 PM
e-dawg ... I simply want you to pony up $2000 for a defective lens and have at it. That really is where the rubber meets the road, as far as I am concerned. If you are buying their "best" professional wares ... how about superior or professional support and service to reflect it.

I suspect "Pros" can't be waiting half a month for this kind of thing. I'm just "Joe Blow" user ... not under the gun, like many of these other photographers. But my money is just as good as theirs and if you, Mr. Manufacturer, want to see more of it ... get in line.

Anyway ... I'm the wiser for it. Sadder, but wiser. :rolleyes:

e_dawg
12-02-2007, 09:26 PM
Certainly, I would not be happy if I had to deal with the mfr directly. The fact that it cost $2,000 doesn't change things for me. I'd probably be more pissed wasting my time with a $200 lens than a $2,000 lens. It matters to you because you have tied your level of expectations to the amount of money spent, and are doubly pissed as a result. You're only hurting yourself, unfortunately.

It's easy to say now, but I would not have expected such great service... you don't get it with a $2,000 computer where mfr's are better equipped to deal with such CS issues; I wouldn't expect it with a $2,000 lens where mfr's rarely handle such CS issues... especially someone like Sony. They're a massive conglomerate that sells mass market camcorders, TVs and home theatre, point and shoot cameras, Playstations, and computers to big electronics chains, often on a hundred million dollar account basis (not to individual customers) and run music and video labels. They don't do pro photography, and they don't deal with individual customers on a regular basis.

Pros? Well most would buy locally from their pro shop and expect good CS from them. If they wanted to save money or get something they couldn't find locally, they would shop online from somewhere like B&H and expect lower, but decent CS from them. I doubt pros would ever bother to deal with a mfr directly. And I doubt pros would shop at a retailer who forced them to send items back to the mfr and not handle it themselves.

B&H Returns policy

At B&H our goal is to ensure you are completely satisfied with your purchase. If for whatever reason you are dissatisfied with your purchase, you can return it to B&H within 15 days of receiving the item(s) (Subject to the rules and policies set forth below), at which time we'll gladly exchange it for another item or give you a refund for the full amount of the original purchase price (excluding shipping charges), whichever you prefer.

Please inspect your purchase carefully. Claims for damaged / missing items must be received within two (2) business days of receipt of merchandise.