Sony DSLR "Picture of the day"

[SONYNUT]

this was a bit of a pickle to get

[Peekayoh]

Thanks Peekayoh, that chart will come in very handy! as for the teleconverter, I'm disappointed they drop the image quality, but I guess it just means I'll have to start saving for the SAL70400G ...............

I don't mean to put you off Teles completely, you just need to appreciate their deficiencies.
The x1.4 is pretty much always OK and will give good results; the loss of contrast can easily be pulled back in post.
see HERE and HERE

The x2 tele is problematic unless you have a really good lens but again contrast can be pulled back in post.
See HERE

The lens is crucial and IMO you need a good prime to make them worthwhile.

Sony teleconverters are compatible with the following lenses.
Minolta - AF 200 F2.8 G
Sony/Minolta 300mm F2.8 (SAL-300F28G)
Sony 135mm F2.8 [T4.5] STF (SAL135F28)
Minolta - AF 400 F4.5 APO G
Minolta - AF 600 F4 APO G

Sony 70-200mm F2.8G (SAL-70200G)
Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM (SAL-70400G)

They may work with other third party lenses, I can't say.

[sparkie1263]

Pete, I got some good results from my Tamron 2xTC and my Tamron 70-300 lens even though I had to use MF. I would have never went and bought one a friend gave me this one. In a pinch it can come in handy. All my test images were hand held and MF. With a tripod I think you can get some good results. Here is the link to my test shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2208324...7625350319226/

Frank

[Peekayoh]

Frank, honestly no offense but the Tamron is so bad that I'm not that surprised you wouldn't notice degradation, particularly at the long end.

There's no free lunch in this world, you tend to get what you pay for. It's no surprise that a lens as cheap as the Tamron 70-300mm doesn't perform as well as those costing three or four times as much, that's life.

[sparkie1263]

Frank, honestly no offense but the Tamron is so bad that I'm not that surprised you wouldn't notice degradation, particularly at the long end.

There's no free lunch in this world, you tend to get what you pay for. It's no surprise that a lens as cheap as the Tamron 70-300mm doesn't perform as well as those costing three or four times as much, that's life.

I know it isn't a great lens. I do think it does good in the right conditions. You do get what you pay for but you don't always have to pay top dollar to get a good image.

Frank

[Peekayoh]

No Frank, you're right to say that a good lens doesn't guarantee a good image and you might argue that anything is better than nothing.
You say it "does good in the right conditions" and I wont argue that with you, if you can find those conditions of course.
At the long end you need to be at f/11 to get a reasonable sharpness across the frame so you need pretty ideal conditions.
With your x2 tele that results in f/22 so you really need "very good conditions".
If the corners don't matter, maybe you're going to crop, then you can get away with f/8, that's still f/16 with your x2.
The lens is probably more usable over there than over here.

I'm at a stage in life where I'm lucky enough to have some good glass even if some of it is old glass but I've been where you are and been through the mangle with poor glass. I know you've been saving for a new camera; my advice buy a really good lens instead.

[sparkie1263]

I know glass is the way I should go but I don't know how much more life my A100 has left. I am looking to get a new lens just don't know which way I should go. If I had the new body I could compensate with raising the ISO so I could adjust my aperture to where I want it. Every lens has is limitations. It is up to the shooter to know what they are and how to get the best results out of it. I have been getting good results with it can't wait to see what a good combo would do.



Frank

[SONYNUT]

..............................

[sparkie1263]

Creepy looking

Frank

[SONYNUT]

luckily it is only 2 mm tall