It should be a minimum barrel of 500mm/2.8 (proportional), so still very big :D
BTW, '58s came in yesterday, but I wasn't home (came in usps express which did deliver on Columbus, but wans't there to sign for it). Got it this morning (after they turned the post office upside down looking for it.... took than 25 minutes, sheesh :eek:). Took like 3 pictures this morning, it's such a cool flash! I've never used such a flash before, but I love it! It's so fast, flexible, and just provides so many creative uses with that clever pivoting head AND wireless is sweet!
Will make a thread tonight or tomorrow.
cool can't wait to see some images.
Purchased an A900, so am looking to acquire some A-mount glass. A 70-200/2.8 would obviously be a cornerstone lens to get.
I hope that the A-mount Tamron does not have the same AF motor as seen in the Nikon F-mount version, as it's extremely slow. Seems to be very little discussion of the AF speed of the Tamron, so I guess that's a good sign, but I have to wonder if they did an emergency revision after people were unhappy with the initial production version.
I tried several 70-200/2.8's on a D300 at B&H last w/e (incl. the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM and the Nikon 80-200/2.8) and found that the Tamron was extremely slow at focusing... as in unacceptably slow for any kind of action. Slow enough that I would not consider buying this lens at all even though it is, by most accounts, optically top-notch in its class and the cheapest 70-200/2.8 on the market.
Welcome, and welcome to the Sony side! An A900, wow! You're the first person here! :) with one lol.
Originally Posted by e_dawg
If you're in decent/good lighting it's plenty fast. If it's less than dim (dark), it'll be slow. It's really hard to say without having tried it. If you did need a really fast focus, the SSM G Sony lens may be you're best bet, but it's also very expensive.
As it seems with the Tamron glass, the IQ is very nice for the price, a true plus when shopping. The AF speed is also "nice for the price" while thats not a negative in my book it well isn't a plus for shopping. I shoot lots of high school sports for fun, this lens is plenty fast and accurate for my needs in all but the worst lighting conditions. For under $900.00 U.S. this is a VERY good lens.
Thank you for the kind welcome, dr4gon.
I am leaning against the Tamron because I would probably be using it in a variety of lighting conditions, including indoors and in less than optimal light.
The Sony/Minolta 70-200/2.8 SSM G looks nice, but very expensive for what you get. Nikon's (who isn't exactly known for making reasonably priced lenses either) 70-200/2.8 VR is cheaper and it has the SWM AF motor and VR stabilization to boot (which undoubtedly adds cost and complexity to the lens compared to an unstabilized lens like the Sony).
What happened to in-body IS resulting in cheaper lenses because you don't have to buy IS/VR in each lens? I mean, I can understand somewhat if it's a Zeiss lens, but it's a Sony lens, and it's not like they could say they have to recoup their development costs on the lens, because it is originally a Minolta design...
Minolta "G" glass has never been ... cheap? It rivals just about anything else on the market ... but SONY did seem to tack on another 25%, in my estimation. Was there a reason for this? Sure, they want to make serious money on this venture. Minolta did a very good job of obtaining and holding market share, up until 1995. Then, for some reason ... things went financially downhill on a bobsled.
In 2005, they surrendered the Camera Division to SONY, a monolithic monster with the flexibility of concrete. But, important to note, SONY had the wisdom to leave the Camera Division pretty much as they purchased it ... and the success in design continues. Unfortunately, SONY lost a crapload of money with their PlayStation PS3 sales ... and 3 billion dollars were effectively and wholly lost on that system. They want that money back. Guess where from?
We can only hope the economy slide can put some reasonability back into this pricing equation. The overall costs of development are what they are. With improved sales from product, when they reduce the prices back to something that a market is willing to pay ... well, things should straighten themselves out.
The best idea would be for them to spin-off the camera division, again, and eliminate the high costs of supporting the overtaxed elements of SONY. If this DSLR is to survive without SONY propping it up, the divison needs to be allowed to explore digital photography without corporate hang ups on profitability.
SONY's "super secret" ideas have been poorly marketed ... and as such, the competition is rallying to keep their own market share. It is pretty obvious that SONY took far too long to get the A900 to market ... they finally introduce it ... and the market is so far in the toilet that the Tidy-Bowl man can't even find it. In the meantime, other camera manufacturers have currently stuffed limited video capability in some DSLRs, saying it is such a boon for photographers.
I'm here to tell you that is complete crap! If you want a camera with that capability, let there be one ... but, as a typical purist, I just want an improving still camera that provides stable, noise-free images and allows me to render them the way I want to. That's the product I and many others want. It's pretty simple. :)
Older Minolta glass has been pretty much picked off and is being used, at appreciable savings to its owner. It was a cheap start, but now people will have to pay the piper, because we've run out of older glass. It was bound to happen, so you will have to be satisfied with what is currently available and the prices they want for it.
I'm a bit skeptical of G lenses rivaling anything else in the market, especially with respect to production consistency and quality control.
In fact, I recall reading about someone's series of problems with the 70-200/2.8 G (or some other expensive Sony lens) and Sony's mediocre service / repairs on this forum a while back.
Sure, there will always be people complaining about problems with their lenses on discussion forums, but it just seems like there's a fair number of complaints from Sony users relative to the small user base.
That might be fine if the lenses were cheap like Sigma and Tamron, but half of Sony's lens lineup is priced near the top of each lenses' class.
I recently did some side by sides at f/2.8 between the SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO and the recently "corrected" SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO @ 75mm
The 70-200 is the sharper image ... by quite a bit, although the 28-75mm and the 17-50mm are exceptionally close to one another. Therefore ... when it comes to getting that crystal clear image ... it's going to be with the 70-200, everytime.
It's a real toss up between the 17-50 & 28-75, as it should be. They are basically identical in design ... except for focal length and the final element before the camera sensor.
If you want sharper, at that focal range ... the SONY CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 is the name of that game. It is also nearly twice as much, but combines the 17-50 & 28-75 with a slight loss of overall light. Is it worth it? Man, I really hate that question, because I can live with the shots the 17-50 or the 28-75 produce, but others will disagree. If you haven't bought your lenses yet ... I probably would suggest jumping to the SONY CZ 16-80, if you can afford it ... but, if you have the cheaper TAMRON lens ... it's not worth the effort, in my opinion. I'd suggest saving up for the CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 instead.
Harking back to an earlier part of this thread, I use these.