Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    176

    suggestions please

    based on the glass i have what would be my next purchase what would you guys think would be the best fit. i love the 50 mm f1.4 great lens the only issue i have in using it is how far back you have to get to take family photos.

    im all ears and addicted to buying so lay it on me so i can research it and buy
    Sony A350
    Sony 18-250mm Lens
    Sony 50mm f1.4
    F42AM flash

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Well, if you are concerned about light and needing a shorter indoor lens ... the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) is always a good choice. You would have about all the zoom you would need for those indoor shots (minus the real wide stuff). Remember, there are no zooms faster than f/2.8.

    I have to admit, that was the way I pretty much started with my own lens selection ... when I went digital with Canon (back in 2005-2006) {chronological order of acquisition}:
    (after the Canon 18-55 & 75-300 kit lenses)
    Canon-mount lenses
    TAMRON 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 (this was prior to the release of the 18-250)
    TAMRON 11-18 f/4.5-4.6
    TAMRON 28-105 f/2.8 (older genre film lens .. had focusing issues that needed upgrading for digital use - rather heavy lens)
    Canon 50 f/1.8
    Canon 28 f/2.8
    TAMRON 28-75 f/2.8 (light and quite useful)
    TAMRON 17-50 f/2.8 (release delay -> came out in Apr 2006)
    Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (Probably one of the best and most useful lenses Canon ever designed - heavy lens though)
    TAMRON 200-500 f/5-6.3 (redesign of the original 200-500m f/6.9 optic ... half the weight)
    Canon 35 f/2

    Then, I sold all that and went with SONY ... bought the TAMRON 18-250 (first lens in the bag) to replace the SONY 18-70 "kit lens". I already had a Minolta 50 f/1.7, 28 f/2.8, and a broken 50 f/1.4 (which has been rebuilt and put back in service), then filled the bag w/:
    SONY-Mount lenses
    TAMRON 17-50 f/2.8 -> sharper and faster (indoor walkaround)
    SONY 50 f/1.4 -> way faster
    TAMRON 90 f/2.8 MACRO -> portrait and 1:1 MACRO
    TAMRON 180 f/3.5 MACRO -> long tele and 1:1 MACRO
    SIGMA 10-20 f/4-5.6 -> UWA
    TAMRON 200-500 f/5-6.3 -> super telephoto (airshow lens)
    SONY CZ 135 f/1.8 -> w/o peer lens - action lens (at night under the lights)
    TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8 -> Outdoor walkaround (evening)
    TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 (release delay) Midrange telephoto

    I had to wait on the 70-200 f/2.8 until its release (last September, otherwise it would have been chronologically right next to the 17-50mm f/2.8, in the above list).

    All the SONY-mount lenses in my list are above average Image Quality ... with the exception of the SIGMA 10-20, which has been returned to the manufacturer under warranty repair for adjustment (so that it is above average!)

    I have to admit that I am very hesitant about dropping a $1000 for the SONY 35mm f/1.4 G lens ... or the SONY CZ 85mm f/1.4 lens ... basically, because I can get that coverage out of the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 MACRO or the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 and I would only be buying it for the aperture and speed to focus. It is a prime and, obviously, two-stops faster. Again, it's just the money calling on this one ... otherwise, it would be in the bag. The 35mm f/1.4 G is a little different story and makes for a nice indoor, "natural lighting" & quick focusing lens. That's hard to get out of much else. Still ... $1000! You better have some nice stuff you need to shoot .. otherwise ... you set to longer shutter and use the TAMRON 17-50 f/2.8 ... telling your subjects to "hold still!"


    EDIT: Reflecting on suggestions ... you might do yourself a favor to limit your choices by saying: "Gang ... I want to shoot jets going 700 mph at about 200 feet off the deck" or "I want to shoot midget-league basset-ball, in a dimly lit court behind my house" or, even "Hi guys, I am interested in shooting soft portraiture, highlighting the female form devoid of annoying apparel." This makes suggesting lenses and other equipment a whole lot more appropriate.

    Millz ... what do you want to shoot?

    Just something to think about, as we go forward. (End of EDIT)
    Last edited by DonSchap; 12-27-2008 at 09:56 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
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    You have the normal range well covered with the 18-250. I think you have to answer a few questions for yourself to determine what will benefit you the most next. The first is if you need any extra range on either end. If you find your self wishing to get in a wider shot or a longer shot, then go for the UWA or a longer telephoto. Don and someone else here (I think Sean) have been pretty happy with the Tamron 200-500.

    The next is if you need better speed. If the 18-250 seems to be limiting you in low light, you might want to pick up one of the Tamron (or Sony for more money) f/2.8 zooms. The 17-50, 28-75, and 70-200 are the ranges I am familiar with for Tamron, and people here and at dyxum think all three are pretty stellar.

    Finally you could look into more primes. Some people pretty much only use prime lenses. This blog post by Thomas Hawk is interesting. He is one of my favorite photographers I follow on flickr, and he doesn't carry a single zoom lens with him. The nice things about prime lenses is that you can get excellent image quality, often at more reasonable prices, but the down side is swapping lenses all the time. I'm still trying to decide what route I am going to take in those regards.

    As for fun, fairly cheap lenses to look into, check for stuff on ebay, I often just do searches on "minolta af" and then compare stuff at dyxum. I found a beercan at a local shop yesterday for $100, and it is highly praised (probably over-hyped) lens that can be found for cheap, and I have enjoyed mine. I also recently found the 35-70, which has the same constant f/4 aperture, and great IQ and color, and spent less than $40 for it, shipped.

    Hope this helps.
    Last edited by laydros; 12-27-2008 at 06:18 PM.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Millz the Tamron 17-50 would be a very nice lens to accompany what you have. Again so much depends on what things, places, lighting conditions, etc.you are shooting in. The Tamron 70-300 is still a nice 'cheap' but very handy lens, a good knock about lens. It served me very well getting started out, I have to admit i haven't used it since I got the 70 - 200, but if it's a bit misty on the soccer field or in the crowd at a rock show the 70-300 will likely get the call.
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

Posting Permissions

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