Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    15

    Another Lens Thread; or Torn Between 2 Sigmas (and a Tamron)

    Ok, a couple months back I sprung for the Sony 70-300mm G. LOVE it! I have a few wider lenses I've been trying (older beercan - not impressed, 35-105mm Minolta that I just picked up and another one on the way I got cheap with a Maxxum 3XI package...jury's still out on those of course), but I'm looking for a solid performer/go-to lens to round things out (can't afford any G glass at the moment).

    I'm considering the highly (Dyxum) rated Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG, the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO, the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II, or possibly the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di.

    Eventually I'd like to round things out with a super wide Sigma 10-20mm/Tamron 11-18mm, or the Sigma 12-24mm (pretty pricey, tho' full-frame) and the oft' discussed Tamron 90mm Macro. (I wonder why Sigma doesn't make a 15-30mm for Sony?)

    Can anyone, <ahem> Don, shed some light on my choices?

    Much appreciated,
    Kerry

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    Kerry, on the Super-Wide ... or Ultra Wide-Angle (UWA), the TAMRON 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD promises to be the widest focal range, brightest and best-priced lens of them all (UWAs that is). That's the choice, when the SONY mount is released soon. (a month or two)

    My feeling on an all-around for what you have specified would be the SONY CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ... instead of the T17-50 or T28-75 ... this way you get the overall focal range of both lenses and an slightly better IQ (image quality) to boot. It costs a bit more, but since you do not have any lenses like this ... believe me, you will be happy with it.

    BTW: the SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX is a little bit soft. I have one and right out of the box, it's got to be adjusted for sharpness. That's annoying.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-28-2008 at 05:41 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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    72
    I've been playing a similar game, trying to align my zoom FLs - although not so wide as you're planning. After lots of thought and research, I'm dumping most of my lenses for the Tamron 18-250! Nobody hates it, few even dislike aspects of it, and my FL dilemnas are solved - at the expense of slightly faster glass (still have my 50/1.7 but I might regret offing the Tamron 17-35 Di, it's a great lens).
    As for your issue, the 17-50 won't go full frame (probably not 17-70 either?), if you foresee that path in your future. I've heard good things about all your options. And I have the 35-105N and consider it my best lens (for now!).
    JimR - gear list changes daily
    http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    15
    Hmm, the 10-24mm Tamron sounds very promising. Perhaps it would give me enough coverage to make the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 - which is FF (don't have immediate plans to pickup an a900, but might as well be prepared) - a good choice. As far as the CZ 16-80mm, which is not FF, I just find it interesting that Dyxum has it rated at 4.51, and the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 at 4.66.

    JimR, what is the "N" designation on your 35-105 lens, and how can I tell exactly which version I have? Mine has the Macro switch. You're right btw, neither the Tamron 17-50 nor the Sigma 17-70 are FF.

    Edit: ...Just saw that Sigma has a new 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM coming out soon as well...
    Last edited by Birchblaze; 11-28-2008 at 11:49 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    I'm not that keen on investing in FF glass unless you really are going to pop the $3000 to get started with an A900. I could live with saving $1000 ... and not having to jump on the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8. I'm not real big on SIGMA glass. Been the recipient of some bad ones ... and my bag is still smoldering. But, then again, to each their own.

    Good luck ...
    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. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    15
    I can understand your reservations, and I've seen a fair amount Sigma 'bad copy' chatter on Flickr.

    I def. plan to wait for an a900 price drop, and I'm not ruling out APS lenses, but wouldn't it make sense to try for FF lenses even if the acquisition of a FF cam is down the road?

    k

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    Red face FF first ... big ticket

    Quote Originally Posted by Birchblaze View Post
    I can understand your reservations, and I've seen a fair amount Sigma 'bad copy' chatter on Flickr.

    I def. plan to wait for an a900 price drop, and I'm not ruling out APS lenses, but wouldn't it make sense to try for FF lenses even if the acquisition of a FF cam is down the road?
    I suppose, but a lot of that is mitigated by the fact that the α900 CAN use all your lenses in "CROP" mode and you need not be pressured into purchasing FF lenses (and their higher costs) until you are ready.

    I am just saying ...

    I went ahead, personally, and added three FF lenses to my inventory ... and although they are relatively good lenses, they aren't the higher end of the spectrum. They will allow use of the α900's 24.2 MP sensor. Still, had I known before I bought them that the α900 was going to be able to use APS-C sensor lenses, I may have had a change of heart. It wasn't an outrageous out lay of cash, but around a $1000 that I might have been able to use in other ways. Like I said ... I assumed that FF meant only Full Frame lenses, like it does with Canon. SONY outfoxed them and me, for being presumptuous. EVERY LENS (FF or APS-C) gets stabilization and USED on the new cameras.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-29-2008 at 08:56 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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Yeah, I'm wrestling with this problem right now.
    I can't afford an A900 (only just got the A700) but I'm so pleased with the 700 that I will upgrade but not until there's a price drop; may take a year or two but Heh!
    I've got a bunch of fine old Minolta lenses but no G's or Zeiss and I would like at least one really top notch lens in my bag and I'd like not to have to replace it when I upgrade.

Posting Permissions

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