Ah, you got the memo, eh?
Originally Posted by Aryajaide
Yes ... SONY-Mount, it should be. There has only been on version of the 17-50 f/2.8 that I am aware of. :D
Originally Posted by Aryajaide
Anyway ... if you can trust the reseller and believe that if the lens is defective in any way, it can be returned without litigation ... then why not? But, if there is any funny crap ... RUN!
My biggest complaint is people who are NOW trying to relive the Minolta experience through SONY's DSLRs. Some lenses are fine ... others are so dated it becomes increasingly hard to turn out a good image. They were designed for FILM ... not a digital sensor ... and it shows. Di-II or DI lenses were not just for sales purposes. There are legitimate concerns that you experience using a DSLR ... that simply did not exist using a 35mm-film SLR. Also, there are ADI aspects to new lenses that are not enjoyed using older glass. You can miss a lot using your flash by not having the ADI feature. I have demonstrated this earlier and it can be and is a real problem. Anyway ... the list continues and I do not want to relive this again and again.
My advice: use good, modern lenses when you can ... and love the results.
I think they're both a bit overpriced, at least for US standards.... Would 900 AUD work? :D
Originally Posted by Aryajaide
Don is saying to avoid the older Minolta lenses if there is a viable alternative because in general, they aren't worth the hassle and the newer lenses come with warranty, ADI flash support (8-pin), and digital coatings (which help a LOT).
And Don, my acknowledgment of why he parted ways with Sony are legitimate issues that need to be fixed (high iso and lens availability). But those issues are a Sony problem (growing pains perhaps), and you're right, doesn't pertain to this particular discussion, but we got OT a lot anyway.
I thought the 17-50 one was a bit overpriced, anyway....compared to a new one from the blueflymobile link for $516. Not sure whether they have this in their Australian warehouse but will have to inquire about it.
If they have, then I'll prolly take the new one plus it would be under warranty.
Thanks for the advise, guys. I know I stumbled on to a great dedicated Sony SLR site the moment my first post was answered quickly! Cheers
We try... :)
Originally Posted by Aryajaide
You might also like Dyxum (dyxum.com). It's a dedicated Sony forum!
Don, I can't help but feel like you didn't really read my whole post. I cautiously suggested the beercan because it is one of the best alpha mount telephoto zooms under $600. I mentioned the problem with being older. But I am speaking from experience. I owned one, and it was one of the best lenses I have ever had.
Then I suggested AGAINST the 35-70, and tried to tell the whole story of the 24-105.
What I did suggest was the Tamron 17-50 and 11-18. Both DT only, and lenses only produced in the last few years.
I try to be pretty even. If anything I try to lean people towards Sony in this forum, because I think it is inappropriate to come into the Sony forum and try to convince people to shoot Nikon or Canon, and vice-versa. I have often told people that there are good points to all the systems, but the important thing is that they are tools. Save the brand loyalty. I went to a high school where people went to the hospital when they got in Ford-GM fights. It's dumb.
I've said it before and I guess I will say it again. For the stuff you shoot, Don, IS is more important. In addition to other general stuff, I like to shoot candid portraits of people, and IS doesn't help stop the subject from moving. I don't think you are wrong to stick with Sony because IS is valuable to you. But I don't think it is wrong for me to go with Canon or Nikon because I'd rather be able to shoot at a higher ISO.
You are correct that I would have been happier with Sony if I spent more up front, but it wasn't an option. I bought what I could to get going until I could afford to spend $400-600 on a lens. I came to a point a few months ago where I decided to take photography more seriously, and basically gave up my guitar hobby of the last 15 years to gather another few hundred bucks. At that point I realized I could stick to Sony, or move to Canon or Nikon. I decided for a few reasons to go with Canon. All of them take great pictures, but it comes down to what you do and don't like about a system. The local availability, high-ISO, and lens lineup made it Canon for me. If I had a Calmut or Sony Style near by that might have been enough to keep me on Sony. If Sony would have delivered more at PMA I might have stuck with Sony.
I still haven't questioned my switch much. I was pretty disappointed the first time I heard that Tamron motor. I had wanted that lens since I started shooting an SLR based mostly on the recommendations here. The lens is still killer on Canon, but so much better on Sony because of the screw-drive AF and body IS. But outside of that the only thing I really miss is the beercan. I have been very happy with Canon. With the amount of money I now have invested in the craft, I think I would be happy with either of the three systems mentioned above. I would probably be fine with 4/3 or Pentax, but I don't know their offerings well enough to say for sure.
I spend more time in this forum than I do in the Canon. It is not to spew Canon marketing or to harass people. It also isn't because I question my decision to switch. It is because I have gotten to know and enjoy the company of the group here (including you Don) and because I have spent much more time pouring over reviews and spec sheets for Sony gear than I have for Canon gear. I feel like I can pass on some of that knowledge.
Looking back, I think I would rather have gotten the beercan actually rather than the Tamron 70-300mm. After 200mm the Tamron 70-300mm was quite soft and it was very slow at F/5.6. Constant F/4 would be very nice, especially on a small compact lens such as the beercan. The beercan has internal zoom and is a quality built lens. The Tamron 70-300mm also has a lot of CA, new or old as Don tested and probably has just about as much CA as the beercan, if not a good bit more. I probably would have even retained the beercan.
Originally Posted by laydros
I agree with Don that for the most part film lenses can go to the scrapheap. Especially zooms. I think Minolta kept around the 28 and 50 primes because they were good lenses, but the ADI and coatings might make the new ones worth it.
But in my experience and most of the reviews on places like dyxum, the Minolta 70-210 f/4 shines. However, compact is not a word I would use to describe it. It does carry a 55mm filter so it isn't huge around, but it is longer and heavier than my Sony 75-300 or Canon 70-210 USM by a long shot.
Now I'm really confused?
I guess in the end, it's really what I can afford. But I don't really want to have too many lens that I'll end up with unwanted lens down the track. But I would also like to take good, clear pics.....I dunno.
I know that I'll be purchasing the 17-50 first, which it would be my walk-around lens (only had two other lenses - the Minolta 100-300 and Sigma 50mm f/1.7 - apart from the two Kit lens which I plan not to use once I buy the 'other' lens).
So I guess, the 70-300 is next on my list. And now, I had to think which one to get, whether the beercan or Tammy.
I'm just relying on everyone's input and experiences here. As a newbie to this hobby, I take all suggestions, recommendations, etc very seriously. And I do appreciate everyone's input.
PS: I've already learnt so much from this forum - and it's only 4 weeks! I knew nothing about camera/lenses/techo-speak, etc. So keep 'em coming! Thanks again.
If you are ok with the 100-300, save up for one of the 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. The good versions of the 100-300 (typically older) are similar to the beercan. The beercan is f/4 through the whole range, which is faster, but your money is better spent on a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, IMHO.
On Photographic "Tackle"
'Aryajaide' - Any "older" lens is going to be a crap shoot ... so test it out, thoroughly. Problem is ... with some manufacturers ... there are occasional QC (quality control) issues and you get a misaligned lens out-of-the-box. You have to send it back for a 'warranty' correction and then, more than not, the problem is gone. It usually takes around three weeks.
Barring the OOTB failure ... a new lens is often your best bet, because many of the older Minolta lenses are no longer capable of being repaired for a lack of parts.. That means exactly what it implies ... the lens is dead if it breaks. With the purchase of a recent lens ... especially from TAMRON (the US warranty is 6-years) and you have some reasonable expectation of a long and happy lens life.
The biggest asset of the 70-300 is that it is a cheap solution ($150 USD), when you take into account the issues you face with it. It suffers from CA (chromatic aberration), which are color shifts (red one way/blue the other) around high contrast edges (edges of, say, a branch against the sunny sky). If you purchased a more expensive 70-200 telephoto lens, the chances are that this problem would be reduced almost to not even being there. In effect, you pay for better imaging.
As Jason and Ryan have alluded to, the 70-200's Image Quality lens is tack sharp, when the 70-300 tend to get rather fuzzy at the longer focal lengths. We all have done a lot of testing in this regard ... and it has been borne out many times.
Another difference between the two lenses is that the 70-300 is basically an "outdoor" lens, requiring a lot of light and at least 5-feet between you and your subject. The 70-200 requires only 39-inches to the subject and can provide reasonable imaging indoors with ambient light throughout its focal length.
Here the current B&H pricing for these two lenses. I usually recommend purchasing the 70-200 (for the sake of better Photography), if you are seriously going to grow your photography, because you are going to have to get one anyway. If you are unsure, go with the 70-300 and save the dough. The closet will take care of the camera and other stuff, later, after the frustration and disappointment.
TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO
TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO
As many P&S users know ... if your viewership has no idea what they are looking for in an image ... you can get away with a heck of a lot. The bar for the standard is set kind of low. But, if you have people that enjoy imagining for the sake of imaging and turning out incredible work ... then, you are in it for a much different reason. Having the best equipment you can reasonably afford will be key to your production.
BTW: Just to tackle the opinion differences and stances in this forum ... we are all pretty confident in each other's ability to render a damn good looking shot. People have spent a lot of hours pushing their respective cameras to the brink ... and even spending excessive amounts on improvements. What we all can take back for this experience is that you are going to get "honest" opinions. No one, I know of, has a sales agenda ... so it should purely be altruistic or, in other words, for "love of the game." When you ask .. if we know, you will get the experience. Personally, that sounds like a positively outstanding idea to me. :D
Remember: It is YOUR money and YOUR Photography at stake. Choose wisely.