Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 142
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    You should probably look up reviews of the lenses you just talked about.

    Alright, fine - let me put it differently then.

    ...

    DWessel's standard zooms aren't Sony.

    ...

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

    Why?
    Budget, Budget ... Budget.

    The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 was the first lens I purchased along with buying the A900. For my budget at the time, starting without any lenses, and shooting a lot of low-light, I decided my first lenses would be the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sony 50mm f/1.4 prime. I could have opted for the Sony equivalent 70-200mm zoom, but then my budget would have been blown on a single lens.

    I'm now looking at buying a wide angle in the future. If I were getting paid mucho bucks to photograph high quality sharp images, I could justify the cost of the wide angle CZ f/2.8's. But at this point, photography is a money black hole, it is only the emotional reward that pays. So, again, do I drop about $1.5K on a CZ or get two Tamrons or Sigma lenses for an equivalent amount of $$$.

    I would be in the same place had I opted to go Canon or Nikon FF. Do I drop in the range of $1K-2K/per lens for the Canon/Nikon brand name or do I buy 2-3 Tamron/Sigma lenses for the same amount of money.

    Now, after I have a decent lens collection and if I happen to come into a couple of grand in expendable cash, then I might go for a CZ for the sharpness quality.
    Darin Wessel
    α 900
    Zooms: Tamron SP AF70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro; Sigma 28-90mm D macro, Konica-Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6
    Primes: Minolta 28mm f2.8; Sony 50mm f1.4
    Minolta RC-1000 remote commander

    Film:
    Calumet Cambo CC400 4x5 View Camera
    YashikaMat 6x6 TLR (other accessories)
    Minolta Maxxum 7000 w/ Minolta 35-80mm f/4-5.6 & Minolta 2800 flash
    Minolta Maxxum 5000i & Vivitar 728 AFM flash
    What's next???

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    This thread seems to have degenerated into yet another "Lets knock Sony" session mainly on price so far as I can see with a measure of condescension thrown into the mix.
    I was responding to another one of Don's fantastic quotes, namely this one:

    IMO, SONY appears to be "holding the line" on the SLR tradition and not giving into gimmickry.
    (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=18)

    So... yeah. If he's going to post things like that, I'm going to challenge him on it. Sony doesn't carry nearly the range of glass other companies do, and yet Don calls them "traditional"? He says it so often himself - Glass is most important (hell, it's in his signature).
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by DWessel View Post
    Budget, Budget ... Budget.

    The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 was the first lens I purchased along with buying the A900. For my budget at the time, starting without any lenses, and shooting a lot of low-light, I decided my first lenses would be the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sony 50mm f/1.4 prime. I could have opted for the Sony equivalent 70-200mm zoom, but then my budget would have been blown on a single lens.

    I'm now looking at buying a wide angle in the future. If I were getting paid mucho bucks to photograph high quality sharp images, I could justify the cost of the wide angle CZ f/2.8's. But at this point, photography is a money black hole, it is only the emotional reward that pays. So, again, do I drop about $1.5K on a CZ or get two Tamrons or Sigma lenses for an equivalent amount of $$$.

    I would be in the same place had I opted to go Canon or Nikon FF. Do I drop in the range of $1K-2K/per lens for the Canon/Nikon brand name or do I buy 2-3 Tamron/Sigma lenses for the same amount of money.

    Now, after I have a decent lens collection and if I happen to come into a couple of grand in expendable cash, then I might go for a CZ for the sharpness quality.
    Well, first of all, how many lenses do you need? You really only need 4-5 to cover a wide range of things (wide angle, standard zoom, telephoto zoom, F/1.4 prime, and maybe a macro or other specialty lens).

    Whether you spend $1.5k on CZ or 3-4 other lenses, your black hole got bigger $1.5K , might as well make it a killer black hole with good glass.

    Get the 16-35mm CZ!
    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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DWessel View Post

    I would be in the same place had I opted to go Canon or Nikon FF. Do I drop in the range of $1K-2K/per lens for the Canon/Nikon brand name or do I buy 2-3 Tamron/Sigma lenses for the same amount of money.
    This is absolutely untrue, by the way. Both Nikon and Canon provide reasonable cost, full frame alternative lenses in both the standard zoom (24-120 F3.5-5.6 and 28-105 F3.5-4.5 respectively) and telephoto zoom (70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR and EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III repectively).
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    Whether you spend $1.5k on CZ or 3-4 other lenses, your black hole got bigger $1.5K , might as well make it a killer black hole with good glass.

    Get the 16-35mm CZ!
    Yup, might as well make for a big deep black hole. Pro level glass definitely changed my perspective on what was possible with a camera. I often wondered how people got those incredible shots you see in magazines. After placing the ancient 80-200 f/2.8L on my camera I knew I could never go back.

    Peek:
    I could pick and choose a few lenses out of the catalogue to prove my point too, I could mix in a Nikon mid range zoom too and come up with a price point. Heck Sony's 300 f/2.8 is $2300 MORE than the comparable(and regarded as one of the finest lenses of it's focal length)Canon lens. Sony's price on the 70-200 is one of the only lenses where Sony's price is actually lower than the comparable Canon lens. But take out the IS(Sony doesn't need IS of course because it's in body)and the same Canon lens is significantly cheaper.

    Looking in a Canon forum or Nikon forum, people do use third party lenses, there are a lot of them that are pretty decent. But I would say the majority use Canon glass. Here in the Sony forum, though, there are a majority of Tamron users, and that's because the Pied Piper of Tamron shoves them down everyone's throat here. And I still believe the high end Sony glass is largely ignored because it is priced pretty high. People live in the now and do not think about amortizing their lens purchase over 10 years. A couple of hundred dollars or pounds is a decent amount of money in the now.

    Remember I have always been an advocate of using legacy Minolta glass on Sony bodies. I have argued along side of you with the man from Hamelin about this very point. Some high end Minolta lenses were bargains for a while, but not as much now. Sony is exactly where I'd be if I had been a Minolta shooter.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    I'm a Minolta lens person myself. Tamron doesn't really cross my mind too much. But since Tokina is gonna start making some for us, i may look into them. I personally prefer Sigma.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Hey Don. Let's put a 50mm lens on a 645. Holy cow my 50mm lens is a wide angle lens. There is no mm to fov standard.

    "Full Frame has the unique ability to return what was an EFFECTIVELY "normal" lens back to its originally designed wide-angle format. Instead of a silly 42mm (44mm w/ Canon) response from a lens with "28mm" stamped on it ... you are actually going to get 28mm. How about that?"

    I have stated that I bought a FF camera body because I wanted lenses to feel like they did on my film camera. The only reason that makes any sense is because that is what I am used to. I grew up with it.

    Focal length is just that. The size of the media determines the FOV. A 50mm lens has always been a WA on a medium format body. A 50mm has always been a normal lens on a 35mm body. And it's always been a short telephoto on an APS-c body.

    APS-c has a place, it effectively increases the reach of your lenses and is excellent for quicker response. Sports and wildlife are two areas where this is a wonderful thing. To even suggest APS-c is for beginners is pompous.

    PS I own an APS-c and a FF body, and use them as a compliment to each other, using each strength as need be.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    I'm a Minolta lens person myself. Tamron doesn't really cross my mind too much. But since Tokina is gonna start making some for us, i may look into them. I personally prefer Sigma.
    I'd say my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 isn't holding me back, but my 70-200mm F/2.8 Tamron definitely is. I've missed many a shot due to the slow AF and I look forward to getting something with a super sonic motor to help me nail the focus.

    It's not really that Don is ramming Tamron down our throats (there I said it!), it's just that given $400 to spend on a kit replacement and $700 to spend on a 70-200mm F/2.8, there just isn't a whole lot you can get in Sony glass for those two needs. The Tamron fits the bill perfectly for each price range and that's the route I went. In the future, I will be getting first party glass (having had time to save up) and will not be looking back. Like I've said I missed a few shots due to the slow AF on the 70-200mm but I would've missed even more shots without it, so in that respect, I have no regrets.

    Quote Originally Posted by jekostas View Post
    This is absolutely untrue, by the way. Both Nikon and Canon provide reasonable cost, full frame alternative lenses in both the standard zoom (24-120 F3.5-5.6 and 28-105 F3.5-4.5 respectively) and telephoto zoom (70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR and EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III repectively).
    So does Sony. But to be fair, the Nikon 24-120mm (I think that's the Nikon) is not that great of a lens, maybe slightly better than the sony 16-105mm. As for a 70-300mm, Sony has one too. It's a bit more expensive, but it's better. You get what you pay for. Sony can compete price/quality with many lenses.
    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

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    I'd say my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 isn't holding me back, but my 70-200mm F/2.8 Tamron definitely is. I've missed many a shot due to the slow AF and I look forward to getting something with a super sonic motor to help me nail the focus.
    Don't get me wrong. the 17-50mm is a good range but it's DT only so I never would have gotten it. The 28-75mm on the other hand I would have bought but it would overlap with my 28-135mm.
    Aside from that the ones I was considering was the Sigma 24-70mm DG Macro only.
    The ones i really want is the CZ 24-70, Minolta 100mm f2, CZ 85 and 135.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    I don't really have a problem with it being DT. It fits the bill of having a wide angle and a tiny bit of zoom. Equivalent to a 24-70mm on FF.

    When I was thinking about getting a Zeiss 24-70mm, I was planning on using the kit lens of getting the 18-24mm range and selling the 17-50mm
    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

Posting Permissions

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