wow, LOL, I think we've come to the same conclusion. :eek: Right now I'm just wanting the absolute best IQ.
Originally Posted by Peekayoh
A few things to point out:
The Sony 70-200 F/2.8 and a 1.4TC is sharper than the 70-300mm (but heavier and more expensive, but gives more options for low light)
There was also another review which had a picture on the street to compare and I can't find it.... damnt it was really good. It was on some forum where he extensively compared the two and came to the same conclusion.
You mean 16-35mm CZ ;)
I've heard good things about the 50mm macro, I would keep it for the time being, unless you want the 100mm macro. It's a specialty lens and you won't have something to replace it with.
As for the 50mm F1.7, it's a pretty decent lens, but just not that sharp (comparing it with even the 17-50mm Tamron). I'm looking at probably getting the 50mm F1.4 for low light.
If you look at Don's lineup, he suggests:
A the UWA - covered one day by the 16-35mm
walk around - 24-70mm or 17-50mm
Zoom - 70-200mm F2.8 (Sony or Tamron)
Ultra Zoom - I'm thinking the 70-400mm
and the low light - sony 50mm F1.4 or 1.7
That would be my ideal lineup in bold, and then a couple primes (135/1.8, 85/1.4) :D
You guys know a lot more than I do, but from spending many hours reading lately, and looking at what kit people tend to carry (things like the whats in my camera bag pool on flickr) I'd say you are heading in the right direction.
Originally Posted by Peekayoh
When you look at the kits Canon people with good stuff carry, you often see the 24-70 2.8 L. Then they carry a UWA (the 17-40 L seems common) and a 70-200 2.8.
Like you said, the problem with that 70-200 is the size and weight.
As for the primes, dr4gon makes a good point. You should probably keep the 50mm macro, there isn't much to replace it, and most people seem to say it is sharp. The 50mm 1.7 can really be replicated by many other lenses, except for in low light. But if you are shooting the CZ 2.8, its probably reasonable to pick up the 50mm 1.4.
As for my next steps with lenses, I think I have pretty well settled on picking up either the Minolta 24-105 3.5-4.5 or the 24-85 3.5-4.5 as my new walk around. I have seen the 24-105 around $200-250, and keh.com sells the 24-85 for $100. Starting at 24 seems like a very usable walk around range, the reviews on dyxum put both of these in the mid 4's for sharpness, and they are dirt cheap. It leaves a bit of a hole on the wide end... and one that probably can't be filled for less than $450, but I can use my kit lens for now. I don't think I use that wide very often, and I think I would be better getting a UWA for the effect that brings.
Then maybe start working on some primes for lower light, and swap out my Sony 75-300 for the Tamron 70-300.
It stinks that the Tamron FF capable mid zoom is 28-75, and not 24-70. I'd say that CZ 24-70 is the ultimate Sony standard zoom, but it would be nice to have something to serve as sorta a junior version of the CZ...
The Tammys seem to be the choice right now, but like Don said earlier in this thread, it kinda stinks to have to spend ~$800 and then have to switch out between the 17-50 and the 28-75.
Edit: I forgot about the Sigma. Any thoughts on that one?
Sigma's quality and horror stories are enough for me to stay away. I'm sure they have some good lenses, but nothing that isn't already available elsewhere. They do not work closely with Sony and have to reverse engineer their mounts to fit them to Sony.
Originally Posted by laydros
Tamron on the other hand has a nice warranty, work very closely with Sony (many Sony lenses are Tamrons), and have better quality control (overall).
I hadn't seen that review on the teleconverter, interesting stuff!
The faster glass would be really useful but I kinda ruled out the 70-200 f2.8 purely on weight. Just thought I might find it unmanageable at 3lbs (3lb 6oz with the 1.4x), although I've never used anything that heavy. I'm guessing the 70-400mm f5-4-5.6 G will be similar weightwise. Also the 70-300G also seems like pretty good value as the loss in quality from the f2.8G isn't that big (from what I've picked up). It will be a bit short, though when I upgrade to the 900.
It would be nice to replace the Minolta 17-35mm with the 16-35mm CZ but that may be a step too far as I don't use the UWA that much.
Yeh, I'll probably keep the 50mm Macro but the others can go. To be honest, I think I'm looking forward to having less choice in my bag, less hassle maybe.
The only thing I may regret is the 28-135mm. That has been my first choice for many, many years.
Ah ok the Minolta 17-35mm. Reviews look pretty good on dyxum. ~4.8ish averaged.
Looks aside, I'm excited to see how the 70-400mm performs in relation to the 70-200 and 70-300 next month.
Like I said; Movin' the goalposts