In preparation for the Full Frame

On the issue of the 200-500mm lens and some ... particulars.

Concerning EXIF reporting from the A700 w/ the 200-500 mounted.

I took and positioned the lens at various zoom ranges, as indicated by the painted numbers on the zoom ring. The second column is the reported zoom (somebody might note this irregularity).

Indicated . . . . . Reported EXIF
200 . . . . . . . . . . 200
250 . . . . . . . . . . 250
300 . . . . . . . . . . 300
350 . . . . . . . . . . 360
400 . . . . . . . . . . 420
450 . . . . . . . . . . 420
500 . . . . . . . . . . 500

That's not a mistake, EXIF specifies 420 @ 400 & 450 indicated.

Hey, it kind of did the same thing on the Canon EOS, too, so no big deal, but you should remember your zoom should you be above 350mm and not yet at 500mm.

that's odd regarding the exif.

perhaps tamron is coming out with a replacement for these lenses (maybe you already discussed this possibility?). but they might be more expensive too, but likely in the same price range. but I think you did conclude that sony was branding them as their own to sell exclusively at a higher price tag. I find it hard to believe tamron would discontinue several of their popular top notch lenses (sellers) and not have a replacement under their name to have a nice catalog of lenses.

My sense is that SONY has taken away the SONY-mount from all but a few of the lenses ... ones they already have duplicated in the line-up, like the 18-200, 18-250, 11-18, 70-300, and 70-200.

They want their money ... having lost roughly 2 billion on PS3

It's just going to be rough drilling into the profit margin for any kind of bargain.

Speaking of lenses, maybe I should make a new thread....

Is the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD better glass than my current Tamron 70-300mm? F/4-5.6? Judging by the price, it seems that way.

I'd like something more versatile and it seems like it would make an OK indoor lens and a decent outdoor lens to cover wider shots over the 70-300mm. Although at 300mm (if I'm understanding the numbers correctly), it's going to be f/6.3 which is a lot "slower" than my current F/5.6. What is your opinion on these two? I will primarily be using the 300mm end for outdoor shots (like a trip to the zoo and animals) and for some astrophotography (moon and planets and such).

Or maybe I should opt for an 18-200 or 18-250 (18-250 is better built? i know you own it). But I would be selling my current and replacing it with one of these three, maybe.

You need to understand the mission of the lens you have named. The 28-300mm and the 18-200(250) have basically the same mission on two different cameras. That being one of a single, utilitarian lens. A vacation lens, if you will. It offers minimum fuss by reducing the number of glass you have to heave with you ... but then again, you do not have the luxury of low light aperture, except at the widest range.

The 28-300 was designed for use on 35mm-film and Full Frame cameras, but can also be used on the APS-C sensor digitals.

The 18-200(250) was designed ONLY to work on the APS-C sensor cameras ... effectively reproducing the same shot you would get on a full frame with the 28-300mm.

If you were to go this route, I would split the difference and toss a 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.4 into the vacation bag, for those "just in case" moments, when light just sucks. Also, (and this is really important) get an external flash (HVL-F36AM or F56AM), because the pop-up just will not have enough "pop" to do it for the focal range of these kind of lenses. It will offer you a much greater use of the lens.

They are designed, primarily for outdoor use, when you are touring or for "Mom-stuff", when you are imaging the kiddies.

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is primarily an outdoor lens, also ... but, its mission is a bit different. It will provide less distortion sweep from maximum to minimum focal range. Sunlight is its best friend. It is definitely cheaper ($179) and usually delivers a nice shot. But, the down side is that you need something to fill in the bottom range. This usually comes in the form of a 17-50mm f/2.8 for indoor use. That lens is around $420, but well worth it. It delivers extraordinary sharpness and low light needs.

I hope this explains it. ;)

BTW: I'm with you on this idea. I have decided to take advantage of TAMRON's $50 rebate on the AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens, which ends this month (7/31). This lens should cover a lot of bases with the upcoming A900 and for $329 (after rebate), not such a bad deal. I mean if you simply DO NOT want to carry three tons of glassware around in your valise ... this lens does it. Yes, there are compromises ... but, if they are of serious concern, go get a handcart and approach the problem differently.

Wow, that certainly gives me a ton to think about. I'm not planning on going on any out of state/region vacations within the next year or two, but certainly after that when I get more time. But for a grab and go 1 size sorta fits all lens it is tempting.

And maybe you forgot or was writing this more generally, I do have the 17-50mm Tamron DI-II and am looking for a replacement for the 70-300mm. For fear of dust and having to carry extra lenses, I was looking for something that would cover both wider and narrower shots because sometimes (a lot of the time), 50mm just isn't enough, especially outdoors. And when outdoors, 70mm can be too much. I wish the Tamron 17-50 was actually like the Sony DT and be 17-70. Then I doubt I would be looking for something. :\

Another concern is if I get a 28-300, i'll get lazy and ignore my nice 17-50mm lol... I just hate spending money on something I can't (don't want to) use.

I'm also dealing with the transition of using a point and shoot digital camera that's small and "handy" and now lugging (carrying) an SLR (a300, slightly smaller than your a700).

There is nothing "slightly" about the difference between a full fledged A700 (w/ VG) and an A300. The A700 is a definite handful of camera. It fit's my big ol' paw so naturally, I can only hope the A900 does likewise.

Obviously, SONY is betting that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the lens people will clamor to. A lot of professionals shoot this range in the Canon and Nikon. So the transition is still natural.

If TAMRON actually offered this range, there would be hell to pay. Especially in light of what has been quietly going on with the SONY-mount Di lenses and their selective discontinuation.

Future third-party support of the SONY line seems pretty much doomed in my estimation. It'll be SONY bodies and SONY lenses, whatever the cost. Personally, I am trying to get ahead of that demolition, with my current Di-lens purchases. I am certain some people think I may be willy-nilly about this, but when that A900 finally hits the street, just watch the outcry for lenses. I have filled in the focal range gaps with third-party lenses ... in an effort to keep shooting with the new camera.

I fell a little short on the Ultra-Wide, though. I'll have to be content with 17mm, distorted (to be straightened out in Photoshop).

Let's face it, does it not seem to be rather pointless to have a fantastic camera body with absolutely no glass to go on it? Be the glass mediocre or whatever ... nothing is still nothing. I honestly do not have the extra $10,000 to fill in the gaps with SONY glass. The 135mm f/1.8 was a visionary purchase, providing for a gap in my PRIMES, but there will be no 85mm f/1.4 to go along with it. Between those two lenses, alone ... we're looking at roughly $2,700. A hobby, huh?

Not to be boring, but then add your zooms ... SONY SAL 24-70mm f/2.8Z ($1749.99) and the SAL 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM ($1799.99) ... total those two = $3549.98! Bet you didn't consider that when you went out lens shopping!

I see myself upgrading to a full frame maybe in 3-4 years down the line as I'm still getting acquainted with my camera now. I would really love to stick with SONY and hope the community continues to grow to a size like Canon or Nikon. A thriving, popular, 3rd brand.

I think I'll sleep on a new lens for a little while at least and see how the 70-300mm gets along. I'll be going to this place called fossil rim which is like an African safari you get to drive through but not quite as far in a couple of weeks. Maybe the 70-300mm will be good enough, although the animals do poke their heads in the car on occasion, something the 70-300mm can't deal with.

@ dr4gon: One lens, I have not discussed and have little familarity ... which you should really look at is the SONY SAL 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5. It may just solve the issues you address ... and it really is not that expensive, comparitively ($469.99). Wide and semi-long ... for walk around. It is NOT a "DT" lens, so it will work on the A900. It will more than likely be the "kit" lens. If it is, I will purchase my A900 with it.

I also took a peek at a review on the lens and it seems to be pretty good, overall. Guess the proof is in the shooting, but at least it is not a complaint. LOL

I made arrangements to have the SONY 24-105 lens brought in to the local store for evaluation, in about a week. I am curious to see how it shoots against the "tuned-up" TAMRON 28-75mm Di f/2.8, TAMRON 18-250mm Di-II and the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 Di. A good side-by-side, indoor and outdoor, should reveal much.

The AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO (Model 061M) just arrived, today, a few minutes ago. It was still hot off the UPS truck. In fact, here's the opened box taken by the lens. Just like Christmas in July ...

Attachment 38380
A700 w/ 28-300 f/3.5-5.6
@ 55mm - f/8 - 1/60 sec - ISO-400 M - Pop-up flash

Looks good and in focus. I'll do a closer examination, later on.

The "all-in-one" for the A900 ... check'd off.