Minolta Lens for Sony A300

Hi again

Found these lens which are for sale. http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=519213 I don't know much about lenses, infact, very "green" with "what lens are good for something".....

So, questions are:

** How much would you willing to pay for the Tamron 17-50?
** Which one/s are worth keeping and how much for?
** Would it be a wise decision to buy these for a starter or should I rather save up and buy a newie?

Cheers

I don't know the conversion rates off the top of my head and I'm lazy, so I'll give you some USD numbers, and ideas on those lenses. I owned the beercan & 35-70 when I shot Minolta, I currently own a Canon mount of the Tamron 17-50, and I have shot the Minolta 24-105 and researched it quite a bit.

The beercan is great. I loved mine, and miss it on Canon. There isn't a better telephoto for less than $600. I wouldn't pay much more than $225 for it though.

The Minolta 35-70 is a good lens but not worth getting on a crop camera because of range, unless you find it for cheap.

The Minolta 24-105 is typically well regarded. I always wanted to get one, but never found a good enough deal when I had the cash. Don had one that was broken, and Sony didn't offer the parts to repair it, so he and most other people around here will advise against it. I personally don't have enough experience to agree one way or another, but a lot of people at dynaxdigital love it.

The Tamron 17-50 is one of the best lenses available for Sony alpha. It holds it's value well, and used $350 is a decent price.

The Tamron 11-18 I haven't used, but it has a good reputation. It is the same as Sony's 11-18 lens, which is the only ultra wide angle option from Sony for crop. Sony is a part owner of Tamron, and several of the Sony lenses are Tamrons with a Sony badge. However the Sigma (I think Don has it) might be a better option. There is also a newer Tamron 10-24. Better range, and I think it is a little faster. The reviews for it on Sony mount have been mostly positive, however on Canon people don't like it.

I think the beercan + Tamron 17-50 would make a great basic kit to get going. Great image quality, and very good speed for a low price. Then you can add other stuff (UWA, macro, portrait prime, etc) as you need it. If you like the range of the Minolta 24-105 (I shoot a lot of pictures of people, and that range is perfect for that) then it might be a good buy. You can't get parts to fix it anymore, but that is the case for many if not most Minolta lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laydros

I don't know the conversion rates off the top of my head and I'm lazy, so I'll give you some USD numbers, and ideas on those lenses. I owned the beercan & 35-70 when I shot Minolta, I currently own a Canon mount of the Tamron 17-50, and I have shot the Minolta 24-105 and researched it quite a bit.

The beercan is great. I loved mine, and miss it on Canon. There isn't a better telephoto for less than $600. I wouldn't pay much more than $225 for it though.

The Minolta 35-70 is a good lens but not worth getting on a crop camera because of range, unless you find it for cheap.

The Minolta 24-105 is typically well regarded. I always wanted to get one, but never found a good enough deal when I had the cash. Don had one that was broken, and Sony didn't offer the parts to repair it, so he and most other people around here will advise against it. I personally don't have enough experience to agree one way or another, but a lot of people at dynaxdigital love it.

The Tamron 17-50 is one of the best lenses available for Sony alpha. It holds it's value well, and used $350 is a decent price.

The Tamron 11-18 I haven't used, but it has a good reputation. It is the same as Sony's 11-18 lens, which is the only ultra wide angle option from Sony for crop. Sony is a part owner of Tamron, and several of the Sony lenses are Tamrons with a Sony badge. However the Sigma (I think Don has it) might be a better option. There is also a newer Tamron 10-24. Better range, and I think it is a little faster. The reviews for it on Sony mount have been mostly positive, however on Canon people don't like it.

I think the beercan + Tamron 17-50 would make a great basic kit to get going. Great image quality, and very good speed for a low price. Then you can add other stuff (UWA, macro, portrait prime, etc) as you need it. If you like the range of the Minolta 24-105 (I shoot a lot of pictures of people, and that range is perfect for that) then it might be a good buy. You can't get parts to fix it anymore, but that is the case for many if not most Minolta lenses.

---

Well said!

Thanks, laydros. Will have a further look at it tonight and weigh out my options. Thank you for your feedback.

Should I purchase a second hand lens or should I wait and invest on a new lens?

What's everyone's experience/s when starting out on this hobby? I have read that few people fall into a trap of buying too many lenses and then find themselves basically wasting their money on a lens where they could have invested on a 'better' and new lens-, "I should have bought a new lens to start with".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aryajaide

Thanks, laydros. Will have a further look at it tonight and weigh out my options. Thank you for your feedback.

Should I purchase a second hand lens or should I wait and invest on a new lens?

What's everyone's experience/s when starting out on this hobby? I have read that few people fall into a trap of buying too many lenses and then find themselves basically wasting their money on a lens where they could have invested on a 'better' and new lens-, "I should have bought a new lens to start with".

---

Up to whatever your budget will allow.

I started out with the Tamron 70-300mm as a telephoto zoom and then a 17-50mm F/2.8 as a kit and fast lens replacement. Third lens was a 50mm F/1.7 Minolta, but sold it soon after, replacing it now with the F/1.4 version. As you can see I've also moved from the 70-300mm to the 70-200mm F/2.8. Quality is like day and night. If you get a Tamron 17-50mm (new or used, but get a good one!), it'll last you a while and you'll be set for a great start!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aryajaide

I have read that few people fall into a trap of buying too many lenses and then find themselves basically wasting their money on a lens where they could have invested on a 'better' and new lens-, "I should have bought a new lens to start with".

---

Thats buying the kit 18-70 and the 75-300 and the 35-70 (good, but not very useful) and the old 28-80 kit and other junky lenses. Unless you are spending a lot more money, there isn't much to beat the Tamron 17-50. The only lens similar to it is the Sony 16-80. Both are great, the Tamron is faster, the Sony has a bigger range. The Sony costs around USD$700. The next thing up in that range is going to be the $1500 Sony 24-70, which is kinda an odd focal range on crop. Buying some of the stuff like the two Tamrons you are looking at are the good lenses that people end up buying after buying crappy ones. The beercan is middle of the road. It is a well built lens with good image quality, especially if you get a good copy. The downside is the age, but there isn't really a good quality alternative without going to the Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for $600, or the Sony version for $1600.

I don't worry too much about buying used. I did at one point buy a bad lens on ebay. The seller wasn't a photog and didn't realize the lens was busted. It had all kinds of fungus, rattled, and the zoom and focus stuck. It was so nasty I didn't ever even mount it. But the guy took it back. The only other problem used lens I bought was the Minolta 50mm f/1.7. I bought it along with a 28-85 and a film body for $60. When I bought it I knew the aperture was stuck, but also knew it was possible to fix. Since I wanted the 28-85 anyway and it was worth it even if the 50 didn't work I bought it. Luckily it was only a $40 repair at a local shop.

The 28-85 was perfect, my 35-70 off ebay was prefect, and my beercan came from a local camera shop, and was also perfect. With Canon I bought a Rebel XS with a kit lens used (although almost brand new) and had no problems. I also bought my 70-210USM from KEH. None of these lenses have had any trouble.

If a piece of camera gear is worth owning, it is well made. If the prior owner didn't abuse it, you are typically ok to buy used. If you know what to look for you can buy from people that don't know what they have (maybe inherited from a relative) and get some great gear for next to nothing.

Jason ... you seem to keep wishing in one hand and ... well, not looking in the other. Every experience is different when buying "seconds" ... uh, "thirds" ... whatever.

Consider the idea of just buying a bag of competent lenses right off the bat. I call it "investing in your craft", because no matter how you try to do it ... shooting through crappy glass DEFEATS the entire purpose of using the camera in the first place. No matter how good the camera body is that you have on the other end ... it cannot make up for poor lenses. Also, there is that outlay of good money ... for JUNK! You (generally speaking, not personally) cannot sell a bad lens to someone. What's wrong with people? That's cheating, wrong and your parents must have taught you better.

So ... my advice is to go to the first thread in this SONY DSLR forum (it is a "sticky", so it is ALWAYS first ... and read the list. It was not written for amusement ... it is a guidelist to keep you doing what you want to do. People have experienced and thought this through.

1, 2, 3, 4 ... it is all set up for you. Ignore the old stuff people are dumping (those days are, for all practical purposes, expired) and get started taking reliable images and not look back. If you consider the price (because you are still trying to be CHEAP ... you will just miss a lot of good possible images. Experience has shown this to me ... and it has shown it to you, Jason. Just tell them that and quit with the "get a good beercan-nonsense."

You did it incorrectly, in the first place, even though you were counseled on how to do it properly. Whose fault is that? Then, you abandoned your SONY experience. Why keep repeating the same mistake? You learn nothing that way ... and people often point to that as just looking a little odd. I suggest we make an agreement that we will counsel people to buy modern, good glass and let the chips fall where they may, instead of the CHEAP glass and having unsuspecting novices fall PREY to sharks on EBAY! :mad:

A more ETHICAL approach ... because the truth may not always be ... CHEAP!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Jason ... you seem to keep wishing in one hand and ... well, not looking in the other. Every experience is differenet when buying "seconds" ... uh, "thirds" ... whatever.

Consider the idea of just buying a bag of competent lenses right off the bat. I call it "investing in your craft", because no matter how you try to do it ... shooting through crappy glass DEFEATS the entire purpose of using the camera in the first place. No matter how good the camera body is that you have on the other end ... it cannot make up for poor lenses.

So ... my advice is to go to the first thread in this SONY DSLR forum (it is a "sticky", so it is ALWAYS first ... and read the list.

1, 2, 3, 4 ... it is all set up for you. Ignore the old stuff people are dumping (those days are, for all practical purposes, expired) and get started taking reliable images and not look back. If you consider the price (because you are still trying to be CHEAP ... you will just miss a lot of good possible images. Experience has shown this to me ... and it has shown it to you, Jason. Just tell them that and quit with the "get a good beercan-nonsense."

You did it incorrectly, in the first place, even though you were counseled on how to do it properly. Whose fault is that? Then, you abandoned your SONY experience. Why keep repeating the same mistake? You learn nothing that way ... and people often point to that as just looking a little odd. I suggest we make an agreement that we will counsel people to buy modern, good glass and let the chips fall where they may, instead of the CHEAP glass and having unsuspecting novices fall PREY to sharks on EBAY! :mad:

A more ETHICAL approach ... because the truth may not always be ... CHEAP!

---

I don't really think Jason did anything wrong starting off. He didn't switch mainly on bad lenses. In fact he acknowledges plenty of good Sony system lenses (Zeiss Alpha lenses). He's main issue was high-iso and local availability. Plus not everyone can afford to make a one time initial investment. Getting a camera and one or two lenses is quite an investment in of itself, at least it was for me last year and I've been slowly adding to it since then.

Okay .. then don't listen ... there is too much research involved to be that dismissive. Constantly having the Canon comparison is doing nothing for the SONY discussion. They have nothing in common. Believe me, I've shot both. You want to sell the Canon idea ... they have a whole forum filled with folks just salivating at the idea.

Good "Old lenses" are just too hard to to acquire ... and have a variety of drawbacks to them on various bodies. If you are just starting with the SONY brand ... you really are better staying with the newer lenses, overall, for consistency and reliability. Older photographers, who migrated from Minolta's film SLRs to digital SLR cameras can often appreciate the differences and accommodate them. I am finding that new shooters ... get buried in the details. Let's keep it simple ... :)

As far as Jason and good lenses ... come on, a good percentage of the membership recognizes that is is difficult to go bad with dynamite glass on your camera. Using the highest grade glass is almost a no-brainer. Now ... getting similar results form the mid-grade glass takes a little more talent. But getting results from low-grade glass is something only1% of all shooters can achieve. Why tolerate such an uphill battle? Meet it halfway and start off with a decent lens. Doesn't have to be perfect ... but, the closer that better.;)

Don...are you suggesting to stay away from second hand?

I have read the 'sticky' and that to be honest, my future lenses will be based on what is suggested. That's why I 'll be buying the 17-50. I assume that it the same - the 'sticky' and this one for sale.

I bought a Minolta 100-300mm from him before and from what I can see, the lens was very well looked after. I since have a few communications with him ever since. His wife is a photographer by trade and he is just trying to be a 'photographer' as well....I think?

He offered me AU$1000 for the two Tammys'.

I guess, is it worth me getting these second hand lenses or invest on a new lens.

Here's a link on a new buy: http://www.blueflymobile.com.au/search-result (AU$516).