Should serious photographers forget APS-C cameras?

[Peekayoh]

Go get em, dr4gon!

[faisal]

Full frame is for Noobs...Medium format is where the seriousness is.....

[DonSchap]

Since this forty-year "noob" is sticking with 35mm, I suppose you are correct.

My goodness this is a pretty big "noob-blanket" you brought with you, 'faisal'. It covers just about ... the ... whole ... DCRP. Thanks for bringing it along.

[dr4gon]

Then you're obviously clueless. Sony may not have as many lenses as Canon or Nikon but they have only started manufacturing DSLRs since 2006.
apart from the kit-lenses, all the rest are quality lenses.
such as the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 70-300, 70-400, 35, 85, and 135mm are all top notch.
the only reason most of us opt for Minolta glass is because there are about 16 million Minolta AF lenses out there and they used to be cheap until Sony started pumping out bodies!

lol I just realized that I missed an entire page and elisha hit all the same lenses I pointed out for price/quality (sans the 35mm F/1.4)! ahahah

[DonSchap]

Ryan, great minds think alike, right?

[jekostas]

lol I just realized that I missed an entire page and elisha hit all the same lenses I pointed out for price/quality (sans the 35mm F/1.4)! ahahah

You should probably look up reviews of the lenses you just talked about.

Alright, fine - let me put it differently then.

Your two standard zooms aren't Sony.

DWessel's standard zooms aren't Sony.

Elisha doesn't shoot Sony for her standard zoom.

Don's standard zooms aren't Sony (at least according to his "weekend pictures" thread).

Why?

[dr4gon]

You should probably look up reviews of the lenses you just talked about.

Alright, fine - let me put it differently then.

Your two standard zooms aren't Sony.

DWessel's standard zooms aren't Sony.

Elisha doesn't shoot Sony for her standard zoom.

Don's standard zooms aren't Sony (at least according to his "weekend pictures" thread).

Why?

Sony and Zeiss have unique partnership together for their Zeiss Alpha (ZA) line that's been going , what's your point? They're Sony's.... and they're optically excellent.

As for our lenses, (why?)... and I really can't speak for the others, except it comes down to price. Read: Not price/performance, as in the 70-200mm VRII may be optically 200% better than the previous making it a good value, but it's just flat out expensive.

My standard zooms (is a 70-200mm a standard zoom?) are Tamron yes, and Don will argue how closely Tamron and Sony/Minolta work together, but that's another story, but that is because for my budget at the time, they were the best lens/price/quality I could afford. I still think optically the Tamron 70-200mm is one of the best 70-200mms out there. No one disagrees with how sharp it is. The gripe (which I gripe about too) is how slow the auto focus is in comparison with other lenses with super sonic motors.

[faisal]

Since this forty-year "noob" is sticking with 35mm, I suppose you are correct.

My goodness this is a pretty big "noob-blanket" you brought with you, 'faisal'. It covers just about ... the ... whole ... DCRP. Thanks for bringing it along.

I just made your APS-C blanket bigger...

[jekostas]

As for our lenses, (why?)... and I really can't speak for the others, except it comes down to price. Read: Not price/performance, as in the 70-200mm VRII may be optically 200% better than the previous making it a good value, but it's just flat out expensive.

Uh, okay, so price is or isn't a factor? I'm wondering what your argument is here. There is no "price/performance" metric without "price".

Okay, I'll give an example from my neck of the woods:

At the step-up standard zoom category, Olympus users have a choice of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54 F2.8-3.5, or the slightly cheaper Sigma 18-50 F2.8, which has been universally lauded as an excellent lens (and is a full stop faster at the longest zoom setting).

Yet probably 90%+ users choose the Zuiko. Why? It's a better quality lens, in the same range, for much the same price.

[Elisha]

You should probably look up reviews of the lenses you just talked about.

Why?

First you say you weren't talking about quality but just price. then you direct us towards reviews and i can only assume you are referring to the quality here as we do not need reviews for prices.
And now you are talking about price again since it has already been established that similar quality lenses by Nikon and Canon are priced comparably.

Have you made up your mind what it is that you are arguing about?
And it's not like Minolta made bad lenses, so why shouldn't we use Minolta glass?
Tamron and Sigma are cheap alternatives as well. Hopefully Tokina will join in as well.
Ideally we would all want a full Sony/CZ lineup but none of us here are Pros so we only have selective Sony glass lineup.