Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447

    Wanting to get a new lens?

    So im thinking about getting a new lens but i want to know your guy's opinion first.

    This is the lens im looking at and i want to know 2 things.
    1: is at a good lens?
    2: is there a better lens for around the same money?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Thumbs up A fine choice

    The SONY 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM is a fine choice to shoot through.

    In a nut shell, though, it is almost identical in function and optics as the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

    The really important aspect is the price ... as the TAMRON should range from $400-500, which is a significant savings over the SONY, for basically the very same image taken.

    I have this lens for sale, actually ... but everyone has to make their own call considering that. My lens was returned right after I bought it to TAMRON for a final focus "tweak" and came back shooting a whole lot better, than it did out-of-the-box (OOTB). If you are interested in this lens, contact me.

    Good luck in your decision, but that is "sound thinking" and you should get a lot of great imaging with it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-03-2011 at 01:34 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
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    Yeah see thats the thing about other lens manufactures is i dont know what lens's or lens styles will work.

    with all of the Tamron lens's do you have to have them tweaked to get better shots?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Switch, I have no real idea how to answer your question because I don't know ...
    which camera you have although I assume it's APS-C
    what other lenses you have
    whether you are upgrading to a better quality lens
    what focal length you need (28-75mm is 42-112mm in APS-C speak)

    Don's Tamron might be a suitable alternative for you if you won't miss the SAM function and you can bet that it will be in good nick.

    On the other hand, at the price level of the Sony, you have to consider the more versatile Carl Zeiss - Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5 .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    I dont know what APS-C is but i have the A33.
    The lens's that i have are the 18-55mm, 55-200mm (Came with the camera) and a 30mm 2.8 Sony Macro

    Is the Carl Zeiss lens better even though the aperture is higher?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    APS-C (or crop sensor) just means that the Sensor is smaller than that of a FF (full frame) camera.
    The result is that the same lens, on an APS-C camera, will have a narrower FOV (field of view) than on a FF camera.
    Leading on from that, you need to know that a "normal" (similar FOV to your own eyes) lens on your camera is 35mm (50mm on FF).

    I mentioned the ZA 16-80mm mainly because of it's wider (16mm) end not knowing what lenses you already had.

    Compared to your 18-55mm, the 28-75mm is bigger and heavier because it does for FF as well. It has more reach but no wide angle although it does have the constant f2.8 aperture which is the big plus. IQ wise, I doubt it's a big step up from your (not bad at all) 18-55mm but I haven't seen an MTF chart for it.

    Clearly, with a new baby around, that's a priority but you have that covered with the 30mm macro. I might have preferred a 50mm lens for that but you can always add the well priced Sony - AF DT 50 F1.8 SAM unless you fancy springing for the rather more expensive 50mm f/1.4 offering.

    Your two zooms cover the range 18-200mm with no gap although the 55-200mm is so-so in terms of quality (IMO), unlike your rather decent 18-55mm.
    You really need to pin down how your current set up is failing you, focal length, IQ, speed ?? and then a sensible decision can be made.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    Well really what i want to have is something that i can use indoors(low light) and the same lens for out side if i want to zoom in without switching lens's. Thats why i was leaning more towards the Sony 28-75mm f/2.8

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Lightbulb Looking at lenses ... in reverse

    Back in the day ... circa 2006, I bought two new lenses for my then Canon EOS 20D dslr. The first was a TAMRON SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD,



    which, at first blush, sounds like a terrific range, indeed. The second was the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF).


    Now, you would think ... "I want that extra range", but the truth be told, the weight difference between these two lenses are like day and night. To just get that extra 30mm of focal length, you nearly double the weight. The first element of this longer zoom lens weighs nearly 8-ounces, by itself, and then the body of the longer zoom is significantly metal. All-in-all 35-ounces versus the 28-75's 18-ounces. I tell ya, after luggin' that bad boy around ... it spent a lot of time at home and not walkin' around. The two best days of ownership of that 28-105 were the day I got it and the day I sold it.

    You may not think that the additional pound is all that much, but believe me, on that lightweight α33 ... it would be killer and not something you want strapped to your neck. Plus, one other aspect, I almost forgot ... because the front element of the 28-105 is so heavy, the lens suffers from pretty significant "zoom creep" ... the 28-75 does not.

    So, my advice is DON'T GET NUTS with a walk-around lens. Keep it light, wide as you can and with a solid zoom range. The 28-75mm fits the bill and will not kill your wallet. If you are shooting mainly indoors, the 17-50mm f/2.8 is the better choice. So much for advice.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-04-2011 at 01:42 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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Switchblade906 View Post
    Well really what i want to have is something that i can use indoors(low light) and the same lens for out side if i want to zoom in without switching lens's. Thats why i was leaning more towards the Sony 28-75mm f/2.8
    Seems like you know what you need in terms of wide aperture and zoom so the Sony fits the bill provided it's wide enough for inside (which is why Don suggests a 17-50mm).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    Well in the future i would like to have a bunch of lenses but right now i just want to get the one that will fit all my needs (indoors and out)

Posting Permissions

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