Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Unfortunately, my experience with at least three 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses has been that they tend to front focus, just like the SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 does. I, personally, have had two repaired, as I sit here. 4-6 weeks lost, on each. The third one I mentioned was returned to vendor, by the purchasing photographer, without replacement. As such and with the necessary repair involved, I will NOT recommend that particular lens to people. It's a great range, but basically unreliable out-of-the-box.



    It is great AFTER the repair, though. You just need to buffer your use with a 4-6 week unusable period, while the manufacturer runs it back through adjustment and calibration.

    I have yet to hear or experience the same problem out of the 17-50mm f/2.8 lens ... so it gets my vote. I have had two and they have been great.
    I was just trying to see if I could throw in a FF ready lens in there

    What's your take on the $1800 Zeiss version?

    When you say front focus problems, does it focus too far beyond the point you intend to focus? Either direction, I'm sure it just has focusing issues period.

    As for lenses. Take the 70-200 F2.8 lens. That's not something you can photoshop in terms of its aperture in addition to its superior quality. You just can't make a tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 perform the same way for high speed in low light (sports photography or whatever). Even with PP, you can only reduce noise up to a certain point. It is true an expert photographer can take good pictures with even a cell phone camera, but us amateurs get a leg up by sometimes getting "the equipment" to get us started. Anyways.... just my take on the lens debate.

    It took me a while to realize this too. But hey, kit lens is still good in some situations (after all, it's covered under my warranty, so that's why I took it to the lake with me).
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    I was just trying to see if I could throw in a FF ready lens in there

    What's your take on the $1800 Zeiss version?

    When you say front focus problems, does it focus too far beyond the point you intend to focus? Either direction, I'm sure it just has focusing issues period.

    As for lenses. Take the 70-200 F2.8 lens. That's not something you can photoshop in terms of its aperture in addition to its superior quality. You just can't make a tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 perform the same way for high speed in low light (sports photography or whatever). Even with PP, you can only reduce noise up to a certain point. It is true an expert photographer can take good pictures with even a cell phone camera, but us amateurs get a leg up by sometimes getting "the equipment" to get us started. Anyways.... just my take on the lens debate.

    It took me a while to realize this too. But hey, kit lens is still good in some situations (after all, it's covered under my warranty, so that's why I took it to the lake with me).
    Nevermind, it's a different class of lens/glass I'm guessing since it's 24-70mm

    http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=438
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Yes, f/2.8s like the 24-70 class (17 elements in 13 groups, including two aspheric and 2 extra-low dispersion elements - 9 blades) are built differently than the TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8 (16 elements in 14 groups - 7 blades) (Click the links for the reviews)

    Here's the TAMRON ...

    SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR DI LD internal design
    Name:  28-75mm design.jpg
Views: 227
Size:  149.4 KB


    Aside for SONY, one can see similar designs in Nikon and Canon ... all of them closely priced for a quick average sale price of around $1300-$1800. The metal construction of these high-end lenses offer continuous use durability for the professional ... and that may be the biggest difference.

    Scary, huh? When the TAMRON 28-75 f/2.8 is selling for around $375 and produces award-level images! Just don't bang it around or drop it
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-28-2008 at 06:43 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    and pray you get a good one

    The tamron one though can't be that poorly built. They're lenses are a pretty quality product. They also have that 6 year warranty too!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    They just aren't professionally tough. If you are shooting every day ... and it is your job, then you need pro-grade lenses. For folks like us hobbiests ... they are fine and well worth the coin. Buying a pro-grade lens is probably overkill for most people, unless you just have too much money on you, since pulling out of the stock market back in August ... like I didn't

    I can't believe the loss! Entirely without touching a dime! I could have bought the A900 system, twice over ... at full price!

    Anyway ... TAMRON is a terrific lens manufacture. I have a bunch.

    The question really is ... how much durability are you looking for?
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-29-2008 at 06:48 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    +10% today . If we have another like 2 weeks of today, then we'll be great! lol.... wishfull thinking
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    I've just joined this forum and can't agree with some of what I've read in this thread.

    DonSchap is absolutely correct; THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GOOD GLASS (sorry for shouting). Photoshop certainly has a role to play but if your photo starts out as an "Ugly Duckling" it'll never be a Swan (no matter how good you are in PS).

    The fact that we are prepared to go down the DSLR route means we crave better pics so why would we cripple our aspirations with a rotten lens. Better go out and buy a Fuji S9600 bridge camera which will give you the same result for a lot less money (I'm sure others as well but I only have experience of S7000 and A9600).

    I'm far from insensitive to the issue of limited budget (I'm in the same boat) but unless you know the bundled lens is a "cracker" avoid it like the plague.

    I should say that these comments are not flippant but are drawn from a lifetime of experience (non professional) often learned the hard way.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I do try to offer a "biased" opinion, because I simply deplore having to be "forced" to buy this horrible excuse for a lens, when you go for a new body. I know everyone has to learn ... but, there are better ways.

    How about this one: SONY throws in an α200 camera body if you buy a CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 or a 70-400mm f/4.-5.6 G SSM lens, when they are released in January 2009? Now, that's marketing!


    Anyway, here's someone's comparison work and then this snippet!

    Here's another review ... and it basically says the same thing ... quit using it.

    Then there is this, from "epinions", referring to the "kit lens" on a brand new SONY A350:

    "Sony 18-70mm f/3.5 - 5.6 lens

    Up until now, you were probably getting excited about this camera, which you should - it's a great camera. Unfortunately, you might not know that if you're shooting with the 18-70mm lens that Sony includes in this kit (hence the term, "kit lens"). Amongst advanced amateur and professional photographers, kit lenses are known to be the laughing stock of the photographic world. Poor build quality, poor image quality, and slow operation are the rule. The only exception to this has been the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5 - 4.5 AF-S, which has proven to be one of the best quality standard zoom lenses ever made. Sony did not follow Nikon's lead here.

    My first problem with this Sony lens is the large minimum aperture near the long end of the zoom. Why f/5.6 instead of f/4.5? I guess it's cheaper to make, and the image quality suffers for it. Although this lens can be sharp in the center of the image at moderate apertures, I think just about every lens is so it's not winning any praise from me here. The real test of sharpness for a lens is how it performs near the edges and at large apertures. Not surprisingly, this lens is quite soft at the edges at nearly all apertures, and even a little in the center at large apertures. From 60-70mm, sharpness decreases even more. Color rendition is not great either. Under mid-day conditions, many of photos felt washed out compared to those of my Minolta lenses. Bokeh is fairly ugly, as is to be expected from a lens with such large minimum apertures. On the A350, I also noticed a fair number of chromatic aberrations with this lens, which was unexpected. In this digital world, most camera manufacturers have figured out how to deal with this issue, so this is a disappointment.

    Even with the amazing autofocus capabilities of the A350, this lens has some serious focusing issues. First, the autofocus is slow. If you're planning to shoot a lot of action, you're probably out of luck here as this lens is unlikely to keep up. Second, autofocus accuracy is poor in low light conditions. I find that this lens "hunts" a lot under these conditions, which is frustrating because my 20-year old Minolta lenses don't. Third, the focus motor is fairly noisy, which of course doesn't affect image quality but can be annoying for some shooters (where are the silent wave motors?)

    Build quality might be the worst aspect of this lens though. With its plastic mount (gulp) and plastic body, it doesn't feel like this lens could take much more than a light bump and survive. Nor am I convinced it can survive a lot of use without the bumps.

    What's good about this lens? First it's light, which will help reduce the strain on your body. However, it can also mean a less stable shooting platform. Second, it's compact, so you won't need a large camera bag and the lens does a nice job of remaining fairly discrete. Third, it's cheap. With a street price of less than $200 in Spring 2008, this one definitely won't break the bank.

    So, what's your alternative? Buy the Sony A350 body only, then get a used Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom. Yes, you'll lose some wide angle, but you'll also gain some telephoto. Otherwise, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (for a bit more expense) will blow away this Sony."
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-26-2009 at 12:03 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool The sow's ear!

    Let's face it ... using the SONY DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 is tantamount to...

    trying to put lipstick(your fine camera body) on a pig.

    Name:  kit-lens-a100.jpg
Views: 128
Size:  297.1 KB
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5

    Need Help on "Used Lens" and Camera Purchase

    Hi all,

    It's nice to be back here. I just need help. I've contacted a person who's selling a used camera and a set of lens for about $288.00. I was just wondering if the set is really worth the moolah.

    What's in his package:
    1. Minolta 101si Alpha Film SLR
    2. MD Zoom 75-200mm 1:4.5
    3. MD Rokkor f=50mm 1:1.4
    4. MD 85mm 1:2
    5. MINOLTA AF 24-50mm 1:4(22) - according to ebay this is a rare lens, and has good review in dyxum as well
    6. Akai TV zoom lens
    7. Philips Flash 31ct
    8. MD to AF adapter
    9. Eyepiece extender

    Two questions:

    - Is this set worth it?

    -Is it worth to use MD lenses on a Sony Alpha body?
    I tested out the A200, and I found out that it can still take pictures without lenses on Manual Mode so it works, but is it really worth it?

    Your help would be greatly appreciated.

    Your fellow Alphamaniac,
    Totus

    ________________________

    Sony Alpha 200
    Minolta Dynax 300si
    Sony SAL1870 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 "Kit Lens"
    Minolta AF 35-70mm f/3.5-5.6
    Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 "Big Beercan"
    Quantaray 70-300mm f/4-5.6
    Vivitar V2400W Tripod
    ________________________

    totusphotography.blopgspot.com
    www.flickr.com/totusjoyce14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •