Yeah, I would stay away from the 28-300mm, very soft. You pretty much get what you pay for.
The only positive is it's FF ready, but that brings up the question with why you would want to put such a thing on an A900 in the first place.
Best to get an 18-250mm for now for an APS-C sensor if you are wanting that 1-lens vacation/zoom lens.
Yes, I've used the 28-135mm mainly as a "walkaround" lens and it's been perfect on my film cameras.
Originally Posted by DonSchap
Since the A700 arrived, the lens has morphed into a 42-202mm which means I'll have to carry the 17-35mm as well, which is a real PITA. The rumoured 24-105mm G SSM will be also be handicapped on APS-C with an equivelent 36-157mm and in any case, I'll be surprised if it can significantly surpass the 28-135mm.
As for the MFD indoors, I haven't found that to be the issue, rather it's the f4.5 aperture above 45mm that sees (saw) me reaching for the 85mm f2. The recently acquired F58AM will help in this regard although I'm not an avid user of flash.
At the end of the day, every lens is a compromise, strong in one area and weaker somewhere else; you just have to decide what's important to you in a lens and then learn to work around the shortcomings.
Up to my @$$ in glass!
Personally, I have a nominally wide array of glass to address that kind of approach ... making good use of the camera's lens interchangeability.
Originally Posted by Peekayoh
The Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 (model I) and the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD are a good case in point. The 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 is, in my estimation, a great "nature" lens. It is lightweight (33 oz), small and relatively quick. The 200-500mm is sharp, has a hell of a reach on it, and has a wide enough zoom range to be practical in the grandstands. I pitted the two of them against one another at the airshow. Far and away, the TAMRON was the winner, providing me with sharp and distant reach for those little birds, as they soar skyward. Own BOTH has really made life a lot easier ... because, as you say, each has its strengths over the other.
If I didn't already have the Tokina AT-X 840 ... I would be seriously considering acquiring the new SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens. Although it is significantly heavier, it does provide a "G" shot ... and that is impressive. Some things are worth the WEIGHT (pun intended). :D
No doubt the DI II glass is a step up from the XR Di series, and the price reflects it, on all the lenses in the respective series. If the economy improves, it is a logical step.
As far as testing the lenses, don't I wish I could! Problem is there is no local lens store. In this area, ANY of these lenses are a mail order sight unseen proposition, and then hope you don't have to ship it back.
Which is why I follow (and greatly appreciate) all the discussions on here!
Well, I am glad to be of service. It really disappoints me that the lens maker's Quality Assurance is so bad, under such circumstances. I believe the customer has a right to a properly working and standards-observing product when you plunk down the cash. I often wonder how much money these mail-order houses lose just swapping lens back and forth, that just do not comply. What a waste ... both in time and effort, when one bozo, back at the factory, just DOING THEIR JOB, could save it all. :mad:
Somethings been niggling me since we talked about the MFD of the Minolta 28-135mm and I think it's because of "Depth Of Field.
From a distance of 3 ft. I think you'll be using a focal length of about 42mm and 60mm for a three quarter shot and head shot respectively. That results in a DOF the other side of the focus point of only 0.78" for the head shot which is "notalot". If the head is tilted you may have one good eye and one fuzzy. At the 5 ft. MFD it improves to 0.97" but that hardly improves the situation. If you're on a Full Frame camera it's much better with 3.48" at 60mm but still tight and I think I'd step back or stop down and use flash.
I included some calcs for the 50mm f1.7 prime for comparison.
I hope I got this right or I'm gonna have a red face. Can someone check it out?
Nice work peek, printed that out and put in my bog book of photo stuff i need to know.
I voice a second voice of support for the tokina 80-400 ATX. just make sure you get the A-TX model. I really like the color I get out of mine.
I want to make something clear, for those who might care, I waited a full year to finally locate an AT-X 840 for the Minolta-mount. It shot better than any 70-300 class lens that I had mounted, short of the recent SONY 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM (Besides, that new lens was not even available, back then). I wound up buying it from a guy in Japan and have never regretted acquiring it. I only paid $330 for it and it initially sold new for $589.
Overall, it was the best "used" lens purchase I had ever made, except for the KM AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" lens, last year. If you can get one of these AT-X 840s at around $400 ... it is far and away, a terrific value. If you have the $1500 for the SONY 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM .. then I would recommend that you put that in your bag, because it will probably be a heck of a lot easier to locate one of them, than the Tokina. Believe me, I know :rolleyes: If there is one drawback to the lens, it is the 8.1-ft M.F.D. -- but, hey, the TAMRON 200-500mm f/5-6.3 is out to 10-ft!
I was again lucky, and glad of the DCRP after reading here and talking with Don I only trolled ebay for like 2 months, i got mine for $336.00 including shipping, with a case for it. near mint cond. Thanks again Don!