Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Yeah, I would stay away from the 28-300mm, very soft. You pretty much get what you pay for.

    The only positive is it's FF ready, but that brings up the question with why you would want to put such a thing on an A900 in the first place.

    Best to get an 18-250mm for now for an APS-C sensor if you are wanting that 1-lens vacation/zoom lens.
    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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    It has an impressive performance in the light of day, there is no doubt ... as you examine these shots. Even Minolta felt it was a true winner ... but then again, most MFDs were around 5 feet back then. Anything close, zoom-wise, was remarkable. That is way primes were so popular. They offered great MFD and low light performance, for slower film speed.

    Peter, it looks to be a great lens for outdoor use.

    Personally, I like not having to back up over a couch to take a flash image. As always, it depends on what you are shooting. If you only grab the camera for outdoor stuff, your selection of lenses opens up enormously.
    Yes, I've used the 28-135mm mainly as a "walkaround" lens and it's been perfect on my film cameras.
    Since the A700 arrived, the lens has morphed into a 42-202mm which means I'll have to carry the 17-35mm as well, which is a real PITA. The rumoured 24-105mm G SSM will be also be handicapped on APS-C with an equivelent 36-157mm and in any case, I'll be surprised if it can significantly surpass the 28-135mm.
    As for the MFD indoors, I haven't found that to be the issue, rather it's the f4.5 aperture above 45mm that sees (saw) me reaching for the 85mm f2. The recently acquired F58AM will help in this regard although I'm not an avid user of flash.
    At the end of the day, every lens is a compromise, strong in one area and weaker somewhere else; you just have to decide what's important to you in a lens and then learn to work around the shortcomings.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Cool Up to my @$$ in glass!

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    At the end of the day, every lens is a compromise, strong in one area and weaker somewhere else; you just have to decide what's important to you in a lens and then learn to work around the shortcomings.
    Personally, I have a nominally wide array of glass to address that kind of approach ... making good use of the camera's lens interchangeability.

    The Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 (model I) and the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD are a good case in point. The 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 is, in my estimation, a great "nature" lens. It is lightweight (33 oz), small and relatively quick. The 200-500mm is sharp, has a hell of a reach on it, and has a wide enough zoom range to be practical in the grandstands. I pitted the two of them against one another at the airshow. Far and away, the TAMRON was the winner, providing me with sharp and distant reach for those little birds, as they soar skyward. Own BOTH has really made life a lot easier ... because, as you say, each has its strengths over the other.

    If I didn't already have the Tokina AT-X 840 ... I would be seriously considering acquiring the new SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens. Although it is significantly heavier, it does provide a "G" shot ... and that is impressive. Some things are worth the WEIGHT (pun intended).
    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. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    85
    No doubt the DI II glass is a step up from the XR Di series, and the price reflects it, on all the lenses in the respective series. If the economy improves, it is a logical step.

    As far as testing the lenses, don't I wish I could! Problem is there is no local lens store. In this area, ANY of these lenses are a mail order sight unseen proposition, and then hope you don't have to ship it back.

    Which is why I follow (and greatly appreciate) all the discussions on here!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Well, I am glad to be of service. It really disappoints me that the lens maker's Quality Assurance is so bad, under such circumstances. I believe the customer has a right to a properly working and standards-observing product when you plunk down the cash. I often wonder how much money these mail-order houses lose just swapping lens back and forth, that just do not comply. What a waste ... both in time and effort, when one bozo, back at the factory, just DOING THEIR JOB, could save it all.
    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. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Check this out for some side by sides

    http://www.dcresource.com/forums/sho...d.php?p=327428
    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. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Somethings been niggling me since we talked about the MFD of the Minolta 28-135mm and I think it's because of "Depth Of Field.

    From a distance of 3 ft. I think you'll be using a focal length of about 42mm and 60mm for a three quarter shot and head shot respectively. That results in a DOF the other side of the focus point of only 0.78" for the head shot which is "notalot". If the head is tilted you may have one good eye and one fuzzy. At the 5 ft. MFD it improves to 0.97" but that hardly improves the situation. If you're on a Full Frame camera it's much better with 3.48" at 60mm but still tight and I think I'd step back or stop down and use flash.

    I included some calcs for the 50mm f1.7 prime for comparison.

    I hope I got this right or I'm gonna have a red face. Can someone check it out?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Nice work peek, printed that out and put in my bog book of photo stuff i need to know.
    I voice a second voice of support for the tokina 80-400 ATX. just make sure you get the A-TX model. I really like the color I get out of mine.
    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/

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I want to make something clear, for those who might care, I waited a full year to finally locate an AT-X 840 for the Minolta-mount. It shot better than any 70-300 class lens that I had mounted, short of the recent SONY 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM (Besides, that new lens was not even available, back then). I wound up buying it from a guy in Japan and have never regretted acquiring it. I only paid $330 for it and it initially sold new for $589.

    Overall, it was the best "used" lens purchase I had ever made, except for the KM AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" lens, last year. If you can get one of these AT-X 840s at around $400 ... it is far and away, a terrific value. If you have the $1500 for the SONY 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM .. then I would recommend that you put that in your bag, because it will probably be a heck of a lot easier to locate one of them, than the Tokina. Believe me, I know If there is one drawback to the lens, it is the 8.1-ft M.F.D. -- but, hey, the TAMRON 200-500mm f/5-6.3 is out to 10-ft!



    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-27-2009 at 08:15 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

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    I was again lucky, and glad of the DCRP after reading here and talking with Don I only trolled ebay for like 2 months, i got mine for $336.00 including shipping, with a case for it. near mint cond. Thanks again Don!
    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
  •