Considering some lens possibilities
So I'm thinking of a shuffle.
I normally use 2 places for pricematching and 1 just hiked it's prices a little. And I'm sure the other will catch on soon as well.
So here's what I am considering:
Sony 70-300mm G SSM
Sony ZA 16-80mm
Sony 50mm F1.4
The prime is not of a priority at the moment cause it is fairly cheap as it is but I can get the G for less than $800 CDN and the Zeiss for less than $700 CDN at the moment as long as they don't catch up with the SonyStyle prices soon.
I was also thinking of the Tamron and Sigma possibilities.
Tamron has to be sent to the U.S. for servicing which sucks. The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro I want is not available in my city so I'll have to go to Toronto to buy it. But the only place there that carries it will have to order it in.
Any recommendations are appreciated!
Just for the sake of argument ...
If the lens is "GOOD" out-of-the-box ... it is exceptionally rare that TAMRONs go bad. If you take care of your gear (lens case for each and every lens), I doubt the warranty will see ANY use at all. Still, it is a marvelous fall back if something does go wrong.
As you are probably aware, I have had all my lenses inspected and "adjusted" when needed, within a week of when I purchased them (except for that darn SIGMA 10-20 ... that took me almost a year to send off to have it done. I needed the ultra-wide range many times over the past year and sure would have been a lot happier having it "GOOD" → O-O-T-B. I had no alternative lens options ... so I just tolerated it until I could reasonably afford the time off <over Christmas> to let it go.) There is no point in shooting through bad glass, especially after you finally ponied up the money and bought the darn thing. Make sure it works. Hey, it is your investment in your craft. ;) Just be prepared for a 3-week turnaround delay with the manufacturer's repair depot, should it come to that.
I still, after all this time of being able to afford the CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 DT, do not feel it would offer me that much of a benefit over the TAMRON 17-50 f/2.8 or 28-75 f/2.8. I have shot them all, side-by-side and I probably will never buy one, especially since it is limited to being a "DT" lens. I would rather use that money to buy the real upgrade of the CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 and CZ 24-70mm f/2.8, as directly usable on the A900, when that time should come. Personally ... that looks a little distant at this time.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM is always a good choice for outdoor use. I would have little to no use for it, indoors. It is significantly lighter than lugging around its big brother, the 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM. If you don't mind the weight, though .. the 70-400 might be the better idea. That extra 100mm of reach is really nice to have. Just ask Sean.
The 50mm f/1.4 ... always a winner in everyone's bag o' glass! :D It instantly can put you in better shape, indoors, when the lighting is dicey. No zoom can give you such aperture.
Like I said ... it's an arguable point of view ... based on some exercise and experience.