Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152

    :o or a different song

    I agree; you get what you pay for.
    I agree; the "free" kit lenses are dire.
    I agree; Premium glass offers the opportunity for the best result.
    I agree: "old" glass without digital coatings may suffer from CA and flare.
    I agree: some "old" glass is as bad as the current kit lens.

    but there is good "old" glass out there to be had and
    With the right "old" glass I still expect terrific results. I may be proven wrong but I remain an optimist.

    When I got the A700 I couldn't wait to try it out (obviously) so I took some shots in the garden to try out my new toy.
    The attached picture (iso 100, f5.6, 1/250th, 100% crop, no post processing, heavily (7) compressed for posting)
    was taken with a 20+ year old Minolta 35-70mm f4 zoom available on eBay for ú35 ($50)

    My Rose Bush is looking a bit worse for wear (amazing it's still got blooms in November) but
    I believe (IMO) it's sharp within the DOF, the colour's great and the Bokeh reasonable. The Bokeh has suffered from the compression and looks much better on the original.

    Now I'm not offering it up as a masterpiece, just saying that, considering the lens and
    that not a lot of thought went into the shot, it stands up quite well. My 28-135mm f4/4.5 should be better.

    I'm certain a "G" lens or Zeiss optic will give better results when I can afford it
    but in the meantime I'm far from unhappy and if I have to work a bit harder to get a keeper, thats no bad thing.
    Working with a less than perfect optic, understanding and allowing for it's shortcomings can only make for a better photographer.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Same Old Crap, same old style

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    What I am saying is you get what you get with what you have. Don't expect terrific results out of an old film lens on a digital. I just doing this for fun and have no agenda.
    I had decided to refrain from dispensing any kind of information on this forum anymore, but I can't stand by and listen to this line of BS again.

    Good old lenses are still good lenses on digital equipment. If it was a bad lens on film, it'll be a bad lens on digital. In a lot of cases I would prefer some previous models, they are sharper, and less expensive(in Sony land an example would be the "beer can" or the 50mm f/1.7. The "digital" lens is a lot of hype designed to sell new lenses and keep you from the old lenses.

    I have a FF and crop body and not a single "digital" lens. My favorite lens is 16 years old, it's sharp, contrasty, and has excellent color and bokeh. I only have one lens that was designed in the digital age. Yet I get excellent, sharp, contrasty, results, every one of my lenses was a good lens on film too. I would be careful what you purchase, but don't be afraid at all of buying old glass that was good on film, it will be good on digital too.

    Don, you are just plain wrong on this and dispensing this kind of information is irresponsible...unless you happen to work for....say Tamron or something. You constantly contradict yourself by saying one of the advantages of a Sony is being able to use your old Minolta lenses on it, then you go and say an old lens isn't any good on a digital camera. That may be true for a lot of Tamron lenses, but that is because they were horrible on film cameras too.

    Peek, it's really annoying when a member posts a photo as large as the one above, it stretches out the forum and makes it really hard to read a post, as well as making it hard to see the posted photo. 800 pixels on the long side is plenty big to view a photo on the web, and if there is a detail you are trying to show, then a crop with the same 800 pixel dimension works well.
    Last edited by TenD; 11-29-2008 at 09:23 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    A foine, foine man ya are, "TenD" ... and I appreciate the counter-challenge to the proof
    I can provide to my ajudications. Just be a little patient, as I set this up ... I am a little
    busy attending to Christmas decorations and all. Have to keep the neighborhood looking
    merry and bright, despite the political season.

    Thanks, again.
    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. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Have to keep the neighborhood looking
    merry and bright, despite the political season. .
    whats the political season ?
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post

    Peek, it's really annoying when a member posts a photo as large as the one above, it stretches out the forum and makes it really hard to read a post, as well as making it hard to see the posted photo. 800 pixels on the long side is plenty big to view a photo on the web, and if there is a detail you are trying to show, then a crop with the same 800 pixel dimension works well.
    Gotcha TenD.
    I was trying to include enough to show what was in focus and out of focus; but point taken.
    Peter

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Charleston, S.C.
    Posts
    58
    Here are some old MTF Data on Minolta from old photodo.com. Not every lens was tested.

    http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
    A.J.

    Hey this looks dangerous.......You go first!

    If at first you don't succeed, Skydiving is not for you!

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Thumbs up ... and the beat goes on.

    As school has progressed, the business of photography course that I am currently enrolled in provided us with an imaginary budget of $35,000 and they said, "go forth and ... augment."

    Well, this caused me to sit down and review the current round-up of glass that I am using and I wanted to take a moment and re-evaluate how I see these lenses and how they rank in my use (YMMV, of course ):
    1. 135mm f/1.8 SONY AF SAL-135F18Z - Carl Zeiss« Sonnar« T* (SONY) (°77mm filter) (MFD=2.4-ft) {Jul 2008} (Japan)
    2. 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS Minolta AF (°72mm-filter) (MFD=5-ft) {Aug 2009} (Japan)
    3. 24~70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM SIGMA AF (SONY) (°82mm-filter) (May 2010)
    4. 70~400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM (IF) SONY (Minolta/SONY) (°77mm-filter) {July 2010} (Japan)
    5. 70~200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (77mm-filter) (MFD=38in) (September 2008 ) (Japan)
    6. 200~500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (°86mm-filter) (MFD=10-ft) {July 2008} (Japan)
    7. 12~24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL SIGMA AF (SONY) (May 2010)
    8. 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical (IF) Rectilinear TAmROn SP AF (Minolta AF) (filter N/A - uses rear gel holder) (MFD=7-in.) {Jun 2009} (Japan)
    9. 28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) TAmROn SP AF (SONY) (°67mm-filter) (MFD=1.1-ft){July 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
    10. 17~35mm f/2.8-4 (D) Konica-Minolta AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (°77mm-filter) (MFD=1.0-ft){July 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
    11. 50mm f/1.4 SONY AF SAL-50F14 (SONY) (°55mm filter) (MFD=1.5-ft) {Nov 2007} (China)
    12. 180mm f/3.5 Di LD (IF) MACRO 1:1 TAmROn SP AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (°72mm-filter) (MFD=10-in.) {Sept 2007} (Japan)
    13. 20mm f/1.8 (D) EX Aspherical DG DF RF SIGMA AF (°82mm-filter) {May 2009} (Japan)
    14. 90mm f/2.8 Di MACRO 1:1 TAmROn SP AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (°55mm-filter) (MFD=1-in.) {Oct 2007} (Japan)
    15. 85mm f/2.8 DT SONY AF SAL-85F28 (°67mm-filter) (MFD=2-ft.) {Sept 2010}
    16. 28mm f/2.8 Minolta AF (°49mm-filter) {Oct 1985} (Japan)
    17. 24mmf/2.8 Minolta AF (°55mm-filter) {Aug 2008} (Japan) - will reduce
    18. 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AT-X 840 Tokina AF (SONY/Minolta AF) (°72mm-filter) (Japan) - will reduce


    Then, I had to consider new ideas for growth ... and came up with this list of refined glass improvement ...

    Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF
    Sony Distagon T* 24mm f/2 SSM Wide Angle
    Sony SAL-35F14G Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4G
    Sony CZ 85mm f/1.4

    Which represents about $7000.

    The thing is ... these replace a few lenses in the existing list, so there are some subtractions to be made, eventually. I have noted the reduction, but then again ... I cannot rent most things, because SONY still is not that popular around here. Then again, I was once told: "It's all about acquisition."
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-26-2011 at 02:44 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
  •