Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: a350

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    176
    is the sony good for low light situations or not is that the reason for having 2 lenses it looks like the 1 tamron is 499 and the other is 189 i think im on the right track that i don not want the kit lenses that come with them they are not very good is that correct

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by millz View Post
    is the sony good for low light situations or not is that the reason for having 2 lenses it looks like the 1 tamron is 499 and the other is 189 i think im on the right track that i don not want the kit lenses that come with them they are not very good is that correct
    That's partially the reason for having two lenses. Also the Tamron 17-50mm will give you the best image quality out of the named lenses (much better than the kit 18-70mm lens).

    As I said, the 18-250mm is a compromise lens. It's probably equal in IQ to the 70-300mm roughly, but I've never compared them).
    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
    Dr4gon ... the 18-250 is a lot sharper than the 70-300. You can look at the links I referred to, earlier in this thread, and get a pretty good idea of what the image quality difference between them is. Just takes a little review.

    If you don't have to buy a 70-300, I wouldn't. The 18-250 might cost more, but it delivers "better performance" overall, too. A far more useful lens ... going to infinity.

    The 17-50mm f/2.8 & the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 make a lot more sense, together, as a twin lens combo ... because, you can use the 18-250 a lot more effectively outdoors, for close-up situations, without having to swap glass.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-09-2008 at 07:51 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
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Dr4gon ... the 18-250 is a lot sharper than the 70-300. You can look at the links I referred to, earlier in this thread, and get a pretty good idea of what the image quality difference between them is. Just takes a little review.

    If you don't have to buy a 70-300, I wouldn't. The 18-250 might cost more, but it delivers "better performance" overall, too. A far more useful lens ... going to infinity.
    So would it be better for me to get the 2 lenses or get just the 1 and is this lense a good lense DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Wide-Range Zoom Lens SAL-16105 sony has a special right now the camera and this lense for 999 i thought that was a good price. Thats not all im interested in though just a good price i want the right equipment
    Last edited by millz; 11-09-2008 at 07:50 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I would start with the 18-250 first, then go for the 17-50 NEXT! I, honestly, believe it will work better for you and the shot quality, overall will be better.
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Dr4gon ... the 18-250 is a lot sharper than the 70-300. You can look at the links I referred to, earlier in this thread, and get a pretty good idea of what the image quality difference between them is. Just takes a little review.

    If you don't have to buy a 70-300, I wouldn't. The 18-250 might cost more, but it delivers "better performance" overall, too. A far more useful lens ... going to infinity.

    The 17-50mm f/2.8 & the 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 make a lot more sense, together, as a twin lens combo ... because, you can use the 18-250 a lot more effectively outdoors, for close-up situations, without having to swap glass.
    Ah ok, lol I was asking you about that a while back and you kept saying well they're different, but I'm kinda all about IQ lol. I figured this might be true. That's great news though.... hehe

    Anyways yeah, as for zoom, I'm very happy with the 70-200 .....anyways....

    yeah. What don said, the master, get the 18-250 first and then you'll see its shortcomings and will likely need the 17-50mm to supplement.
    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
    Posts
    176
    don did you see my edit

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Well, the 17-50 is a super indoor lens. That is its strength. But, he is saying he's looking for outdoor stuuf, too ... and the 18-250 does that, very well.

    I have to say, the 70-300 is from another school of thought ... early glass. You can get these cheap, if you want them ... but, still, changing glass can be an issue when you are running around with kids. The 18-250 is the "mom" lens, for this reason. Low maintenance, easy use of the camera. The "utility" or one-lens-does-all solution.
    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
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    176
    is this lense a good lense DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Wide-Range Zoom Lens SAL-16105 sony has a special right now the camera and this lense for 999 i thought that was a good price. Thats not all im interested in though just a good price i want the right equipment

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The 16-105 is a "kit lens" and although it is better than the 18-70 "kit lens" ... it is not on par with the 18-250. The 18-250 is such a flexible lens, I keep it on my backup camera (A100) 95% of the time.

    The 105mm is not long enough to do any real outdoor telephoto stuff, so if you are shooting "lil' Johnny" catching the football ... you'll get lil' Johnny, but miss whatever it is that he is catching! Unless there is something else you are not mentioning, buy an 18-250 (<- click link for ad hoc lens reviews) and just try it out for a week. If it fails to deliver ... return it. I was just hoping to get you "fast-tracked" into Turkey-Day & Christmas!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-09-2008 at 08:28 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

Posting Permissions

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