Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade

Started Apr 27, 2011 | User reviews
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Calico Jack, 9 months ago

Calico Jack wrote:

Ahoy!

Which is why you buy a body only and add a short W/A lens such as a Sigma AF 17-70 DC Macro or Tamron AF 17-50/2.8 Di-II (if using an APS-C camera) with an A-Mount body that doesn't have any compatibility issues with 3rd party hardware. These 2 lenses are both affordable and very, very good (used prices are about 50% of new retail).

It's also a good idea to research lenses on the Dyxum website before buying not just to see the specs, but also to make direct comparisons and look at the image quality (IQ) from posted samples. Buying a 'kit' means just that . . you normally get the basic standard lens, though as a kit lens it's actually fair to middling, but nothing exceptional, and the re-sale value of these kit lenses is likely a lot less than the price difference between a 1 lens kit and body only option, so you then buy what you need and not what's supplied, though they work well as a paperweights, but the SAL-1855 or SAL-1870 are 10-a-penny on the used market and you wouldn't buy one through choice.

Anyway, FWIW, I have many items on sale right now on evilBay, Amazon (UK) and private classifieds as well as the Dyxum external sales and Photoclubalpha should you be looking for lenses, flashguns or accessories (assuming they're compatible).

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

What do you think about your Minolta AF 24-105mm F/3.5-4.5  VS the Sony kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Calico Jack
Senior MemberPosts: 2,112Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Michel J, 9 months ago

Michel J wrote:

Calico Jack wrote:

Ahoy!

Which is why you buy a body only and add a short W/A lens such as a Sigma AF 17-70 DC Macro or Tamron AF 17-50/2.8 Di-II (if using an APS-C camera) with an A-Mount body that doesn't have any compatibility issues with 3rd party hardware. These 2 lenses are both affordable and very, very good (used prices are about 50% of new retail).

It's also a good idea to research lenses on the Dyxum website before buying not just to see the specs, but also to make direct comparisons and look at the image quality (IQ) from posted samples. Buying a 'kit' means just that . . you normally get the basic standard lens, though as a kit lens it's actually fair to middling, but nothing exceptional, and the re-sale value of these kit lenses is likely a lot less than the price difference between a 1 lens kit and body only option, so you then buy what you need and not what's supplied, though they work well as a paperweights, but the SAL-1855 or SAL-1870 are 10-a-penny on the used market and you wouldn't buy one through choice.

Anyway, FWIW, I have many items on sale right now on evilBay, Amazon (UK) and private classifieds as well as the Dyxum external sales and Photoclubalpha should you be looking for lenses, flashguns or accessories (assuming they're compatible).

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

What do you think about your Minolta AF 24-105mm F/3.5-4.5 VS the Sony kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

The Min AF 24-105 (D) is one of those 'ideal' lenses especially on full frame bodies as is the Min AF 28-135 Macro (Secret Handshake), though the former is plastic and the latter metal. Whilst the latter has incredibly good IQ, it's long MFD lets it down unless put into macro mode. The 24-105 (D) is a bit of a compromise and is very good as a general walkabout lens. It really depends on various factors as to what would be suitable for purpose, but with respect to a kit lens replacement, I found the Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro to be just sublime, but there are specialist lenses like fisheye's and portrait/macro's like the Tamron SP AF 90/2.8 (272E), Minolta 100/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8 EX/EX DG which is another area as sometimes you can find one lens that covers various functions. The best of the budget macro's is the Cosina AF 100/3.5 MC or any of it's re-branded variants, plus they're dirt cheap.  A lot of people like the 70-210/4 Beercan, but frankly it's slow, generally soft and often produces CA/PF and I find it's over-rated. One lens that goes way under the radar is the Tokina SD AF 35-200mm F/4-5.6 Macro (AF 352) which is very sharp and knocks the 70-210/4 BC into a cocked hat by comparison and has a more useful focal range and no loss of IQ (at least my copy didn't), so that's another that I recommend if you're looking for a general purpose mid-range zoom, but the Tokina is about as sharp as the Minolta AF 28-135mm Macro and is about 25% or more cheaper than the average Minolta AF 28-135mm price for an EX++/Mint- copy. You'd need to try this lens . . . I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. It's this one: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tokina-35-200mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-SD-AF-_lens666.html

One of the main factors is if using APS-C, the FF lenses due to the 1.5x crop factor may not be as useful as a dedicated format lens, and you'll be surprised with the results of some lenses that again don't get the attention they deserve. My ex copy of the Sigma AF 50-200mm DC OS HSM was tack sharp (new) and are pretty cheap used, and IMO better than both the Tamron and Sony 55-200mm versions.  Any references to lenses are based on ownership and use.  Sigma 50-200 DC OS HSM data here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-50-200mm-F4-5.6-DC-OS-HSM_lens597.html

I would advise you be selective with the optics you need rather than think you 'must have'.  I mainly do aviation and motorsport, so either a Tokina 300/4 or Tokina/Sigma 100-300/4 are ideal for purpose and very affordable, though as much as 300/2.8's are desirable, they weren't used at widest aperture (albeit I've owned 3 - 1x Tokina + 2x Minolta's), thus were a waste of money (and darned heavy).  If you do portrait and macro, any of those mentioned would be perfect, but they're all full frame as are all the Minolta back-catalogue lenses, but there are some APS-C gems on the market.

Are you looking to buy anything specific or are trying to fill a focal range and can't decide on what to go for?  I  have many lenses and other items on sale right now, so could have what you're looking for, but if you're just after an opinion, now you have it (and some) so I hope it helps in some way.

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

 Calico Jack's gear list:Calico Jack's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Adobe Photoshop CS6 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
L R Harner
Regular MemberPosts: 222Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Calico Jack, 9 months ago

my kit wide zoom sat at home after i got my 30 macro.  tho i still took my 70-300 kit lens.  was gifted a 16-80z and never looked back.  then traded a knife for a 70-200 tamron 2.8f.  so thats my kit now

 L R Harner's gear list:L R Harner's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony DT 30mm F2.8 Macro SAM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Calico Jack, 9 months ago

Calico Jack wrote:

Michel J wrote:

Calico Jack wrote:

Ahoy!

Which is why you buy a body only and add a short W/A lens such as a Sigma AF 17-70 DC Macro or Tamron AF 17-50/2.8 Di-II (if using an APS-C camera) with an A-Mount body that doesn't have any compatibility issues with 3rd party hardware. These 2 lenses are both affordable and very, very good (used prices are about 50% of new retail).

It's also a good idea to research lenses on the Dyxum website before buying not just to see the specs, but also to make direct comparisons and look at the image quality (IQ) from posted samples. Buying a 'kit' means just that . . you normally get the basic standard lens, though as a kit lens it's actually fair to middling, but nothing exceptional, and the re-sale value of these kit lenses is likely a lot less than the price difference between a 1 lens kit and body only option, so you then buy what you need and not what's supplied, though they work well as a paperweights, but the SAL-1855 or SAL-1870 are 10-a-penny on the used market and you wouldn't buy one through choice.

Anyway, FWIW, I have many items on sale right now on evilBay, Amazon (UK) and private classifieds as well as the Dyxum external sales and Photoclubalpha should you be looking for lenses, flashguns or accessories (assuming they're compatible).

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

What do you think about your Minolta AF 24-105mm F/3.5-4.5 VS the Sony kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

I would advise you be selective with the optics you need rather than think you 'must have'.

ammm !

Thanks for your answer, but you haven't answered my question about the kit lens! (lol) That tell to me you don't tested it maybe?? If not may I warning you on preconceptions. I tested many DT lenses, bought and return it, then I bought "G" class lenses, and it's the first time that one DT kit lens seems to be as good. I also noticed significant differences with UV/skylight filter attached (or not) on the lenses. Mostly is better without (I tested both) but sometimes it's better with (and I can't explain why).

I came to the same conclusion that DxO have today: don't mix apples and oranges. Don't mix APS-C sensors & crop lenses with FF ones. Don't believe than any good lenses should be as good with any bodies.
We must evaluate each lens with each camera, for themselves, period.

The Minolta AF 24-105 (D) is one of those 'ideal' lenses especially on full frame

This lens is far inferior to the 18-55 kit lens from 24mm to 55mm (very bad in the corner), mounted on the A77. (Anyway, I bought the AF 24-105 (D) new, and don't want to sale it until I tested it on a FF.)

The Minolta AF 24-105 (D) is one of those 'ideal' lenses especially on full frame bodies, as is the Minolta AF 28-135 Macro (Secret Handshake),

The Minolta AF 28-135 F/4-4,5 Macro, is tack sharp center and 1/3 with the A77, but ax grass at the edges and corners

though the former is plastic and the latter metal. Whilst the latter has incredibly good IQ, it's long MFD lets it down unless put into macro mode. The 24-105 (D) is a bit of a compromise and is very good as a general walkabout lens.

Not usable with the A77 imho.

It really depends on various factors as to what would be suitable for purpose, but with respect to a kit lens replacement, I found the Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro to be just sublime,

This lens is so-so mounted on a Canon:

Source: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-17-70mm-F28-4-DC-MACRO-OS-HSM-C-Canon

Show 9 p-MP only at 24mm stoped down at F/3.5 with the 7d, but 11 p-MP with the 70d or a 700d. But I confess it's only for this mount. That should be different with another mount, I guess. The fact is the results are far from constant, according to the diagram.

but there are specialist lenses like fisheye's and portrait/macro's like the Tamron SP AF 90/2.8 (272E), Minolta 100/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8 EX/EX DG which is another area as sometimes you can find one lens that covers various functions.

I have the Minolta 100/2.8 and it's a tad soft in the corners with the A77, so it's stunning in the center and excellent in the corner for me,  fairly usable professionnaly such as CZ, depending of what you use for. Anyway, diffcult to get better results except with the CZ 85mm I guess...

The best of the budget macro's is the Cosina AF 100/3.5 MC or any of it's re-branded variants, plus they're dirt cheap.

I don't know this one, thanks for sharing.

A lot of people like the 70-210/4 Beercan, but frankly it's slow, generally soft and often produces CA/PF and I find it's over-rated.

Agreed, but I tested on an A37 by a flat dull day, and get tack sharp shots center, and no noticeable CA/PF (except if you're a pixel peeper like me ahahaha). So, it was "good" to "very good", and much more better than the Minolta 24-105mm (D) of course.

One lens that goes way under the radar is the Tokina SD AF 35-200mm F/4-5.6 Macro (AF 352) which is very sharp and knocks the 70-210/4 BC into a cocked hat by comparison

With wich camera, pls?

and has a more useful focal range and no loss of IQ (at least my copy didn't), so that's another that I recommend if you're looking for a general purpose mid-range zoom, but the Tokina is about as sharp as the Minolta AF 28-135mm Macro and is about 25% or more cheaper than the average Minolta AF 28-135mm price for an EX++/Mint- copy. You'd need to try this lens . . . I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. It's this one:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tokina-35-200mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-SD-AF-_lens666.html

Very nice to know! Thanks again. I will get one if I can find...

"as sharp as the Minolta AF 28-135mm" you mean both at 100% or print size?

One of the main factors is if using APS-C, the FF lenses due to the 1.5x crop factor may not be as useful as a dedicated format lens, and you'll be surprised with the results of some lenses that again don't get the attention they deserve. My ex copy of the Sigma AF 50-200mm DC OS HSM was tack sharp (new) and are pretty cheap used, and IMO better than both the Tamron and Sony 55-200mm versions. Any references to lenses are based on ownership and use. Sigma 50-200 DC OS HSM data here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-50-200mm-F4-5.6-DC-OS-HSM_lens597.html

With which lens you replace your Sigma, pls ?

I would advise you be selective with the optics you need rather than think you 'must have'. I mainly do aviation and motorsport, so either a Tokina 300/4 or Tokina/Sigma 100-300/4 are ideal for purpose and very affordable, though as much as 300/2.8's are desirable, they weren't used at widest aperture (albeit I've owned 3 - 1x Tokina + 2x Minolta's), thus were a waste of money (and darned heavy). If you do portrait and macro, any of those mentioned would be perfect, but they're all full frame as are all the Minolta back-catalogue lenses, but there are some APS-C gems on the market.

Agreed.

Anyway, I prefer an F/4 constant that a F/2,8 ones (if tack sharp, but it's difficult to find one working well with an APS-C 24MP, maybe the 24-105mm F/4 generation next, from Sony or Sigma?). I usually get better micro-contrast with F/4 imho. Need to be confirmed with the A77.

Are you looking to buy anything specific or are trying to fill a focal range and can't decide on what to go for? I have many lenses and other items on sale right now, so could have what you're looking for, but if you're just after an opinion, now you have it (and some) so I hope it helps in some way.

I am always interested to know what's up on the market, at all focal lengths, new or oldies (if goodies!) ( ) °_O Anyway, if a lens is not razor sharp, it can have it's charm and caracters!

I think the new Sigma 18-35mm F/1,8 looks stunning (despite to previous and recurrent criticisms against this brand...). But I would try to test it from the shop if possible, because 17 p-MP it's just unbelievable for wide angle lens in the digital APS-C high-end world:

Source: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100__865

Anyway, after I seen the excellent results of this Sony kit lens, anything is possible!

Cheers,

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ralf B
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,244Gear list
Like?
Typo?
In reply to Michel J, 9 months ago

Michel J wrote:

So ok, I checked again, as an exemple with the 16-35mm.

No Minolta 16-35 G lens exists. A Minolta 17-35/3.5 G exists, though.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Ralf
www.ralfralph.smugmug.com

 Ralf B's gear list:Ralf B's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A55 Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Calico Jack
Senior MemberPosts: 2,112Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Michel J, 9 months ago

Michel J wrote:

Calico Jack wrote:

Michel J wrote:

Calico Jack wrote:

Ahoy!

Which is why you buy a body only and add a short W/A lens such as a Sigma AF 17-70 DC Macro or Tamron AF 17-50/2.8 Di-II (if using an APS-C camera) with an A-Mount body that doesn't have any compatibility issues with 3rd party hardware. These 2 lenses are both affordable and very, very good (used prices are about 50% of new retail).

It's also a good idea to research lenses on the Dyxum website before buying not just to see the specs, but also to make direct comparisons and look at the image quality (IQ) from posted samples. Buying a 'kit' means just that . . you normally get the basic standard lens, though as a kit lens it's actually fair to middling, but nothing exceptional, and the re-sale value of these kit lenses is likely a lot less than the price difference between a 1 lens kit and body only option, so you then buy what you need and not what's supplied, though they work well as a paperweights, but the SAL-1855 or SAL-1870 are 10-a-penny on the used market and you wouldn't buy one through choice.

Anyway, FWIW, I have many items on sale right now on evilBay, Amazon (UK) and private classifieds as well as the Dyxum external sales and Photoclubalpha should you be looking for lenses, flashguns or accessories (assuming they're compatible).

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

What do you think about your Minolta AF 24-105mm F/3.5-4.5 VS the Sony kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6?

I would advise you be selective with the optics you need rather than think you 'must have'.

ammm !

Thanks for your answer, but you haven't answered my question about the kit lens! (lol) That tell to me you don't tested it maybe?? If not may I warning you on preconceptions. I tested many DT lenses, bought and return it, then I bought "G" class lenses, and it's the first time that one DT kit lens seems to be as good. I also noticed significant differences with UV/skylight filter attached (or not) on the lenses. Mostly is better without (I tested both) but sometimes it's better with (and I can't explain why).

I came to the same conclusion that DxO have today: don't mix apples and oranges. Don't mix APS-C sensors & crop lenses with FF ones. Don't believe than any good lenses should be as good with any bodies.
We must evaluate each lens with each camera, for themselves, period.

The Minolta AF 24-105 (D) is one of those 'ideal' lenses especially on full frame

This lens is far inferior to the 18-55 kit lens from 24mm to 55mm (very bad in the corner), mounted on the A77. (Anyway, I bought the AF 24-105 (D) new, and don't want to sale it until I tested it on a FF.)

The Minolta AF 24-105 (D) is one of those 'ideal' lenses especially on full frame bodies, as is the Minolta AF 28-135 Macro (Secret Handshake),

The Minolta AF 28-135 F/4-4,5 Macro, is tack sharp center and 1/3 with the A77, but ax grass at the edges and corners

though the former is plastic and the latter metal. Whilst the latter has incredibly good IQ, it's long MFD lets it down unless put into macro mode. The 24-105 (D) is a bit of a compromise and is very good as a general walkabout lens.

Not usable with the A77 imho.

It really depends on various factors as to what would be suitable for purpose, but with respect to a kit lens replacement, I found the Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro to be just sublime,

This lens is so-so mounted on a Canon:

Source: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-17-70mm-F28-4-DC-MACRO-OS-HSM-C-Canon

Show 9 p-MP only at 24mm stoped down at F/3.5 with the 7d, but 11 p-MP with the 70d or a 700d. But I confess it's only for this mount. That should be different with another mount, I guess. The fact is the results are far from constant, according to the diagram.

but there are specialist lenses like fisheye's and portrait/macro's like the Tamron SP AF 90/2.8 (272E), Minolta 100/2.8 and Sigma 105/2.8 EX/EX DG which is another area as sometimes you can find one lens that covers various functions.

I have the Minolta 100/2.8 and it's a tad soft in the corners with the A77, so it's stunning in the center and excellent in the corner for me, fairly usable professionnaly such as CZ, depending of what you use for. Anyway, diffcult to get better results except with the CZ 85mm I guess...

The best of the budget macro's is the Cosina AF 100/3.5 MC or any of it's re-branded variants, plus they're dirt cheap.

I don't know this one, thanks for sharing.

A lot of people like the 70-210/4 Beercan, but frankly it's slow, generally soft and often produces CA/PF and I find it's over-rated.

Agreed, but I tested on an A37 by a flat dull day, and get tack sharp shots center, and no noticeable CA/PF (except if you're a pixel peeper like me ahahaha). So, it was "good" to "very good", and much more better than the Minolta 24-105mm (D) of course.

One lens that goes way under the radar is the Tokina SD AF 35-200mm F/4-5.6 Macro (AF 352) which is very sharp and knocks the 70-210/4 BC into a cocked hat by comparison

With wich camera, pls?

and has a more useful focal range and no loss of IQ (at least my copy didn't), so that's another that I recommend if you're looking for a general purpose mid-range zoom, but the Tokina is about as sharp as the Minolta AF 28-135mm Macro and is about 25% or more cheaper than the average Minolta AF 28-135mm price for an EX++/Mint- copy. You'd need to try this lens . . . I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. It's this one:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tokina-35-200mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-SD-AF-_lens666.html

Very nice to know! Thanks again. I will get one if I can find...

"as sharp as the Minolta AF 28-135mm" you mean both at 100% or print size?

One of the main factors is if using APS-C, the FF lenses due to the 1.5x crop factor may not be as useful as a dedicated format lens, and you'll be surprised with the results of some lenses that again don't get the attention they deserve. My ex copy of the Sigma AF 50-200mm DC OS HSM was tack sharp (new) and are pretty cheap used, and IMO better than both the Tamron and Sony 55-200mm versions. Any references to lenses are based on ownership and use. Sigma 50-200 DC OS HSM data here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-50-200mm-F4-5.6-DC-OS-HSM_lens597.html

With which lens you replace your Sigma, pls ?

I would advise you be selective with the optics you need rather than think you 'must have'. I mainly do aviation and motorsport, so either a Tokina 300/4 or Tokina/Sigma 100-300/4 are ideal for purpose and very affordable, though as much as 300/2.8's are desirable, they weren't used at widest aperture (albeit I've owned 3 - 1x Tokina + 2x Minolta's), thus were a waste of money (and darned heavy). If you do portrait and macro, any of those mentioned would be perfect, but they're all full frame as are all the Minolta back-catalogue lenses, but there are some APS-C gems on the market.

Agreed.

Anyway, I prefer an F/4 constant that a F/2,8 ones (if tack sharp, but it's difficult to find one working well with an APS-C 24MP, maybe the 24-105mm F/4 generation next, from Sony or Sigma?). I usually get better micro-contrast with F/4 imho. Need to be confirmed with the A77.

Are you looking to buy anything specific or are trying to fill a focal range and can't decide on what to go for? I have many lenses and other items on sale right now, so could have what you're looking for, but if you're just after an opinion, now you have it (and some) so I hope it helps in some way.

I am always interested to know what's up on the market, at all focal lengths, new or oldies (if goodies!) ( ) °_O Anyway, if a lens is not razor sharp, it can have it's charm and caracters!

I think the new Sigma 18-35mm F/1,8 looks stunning (despite to previous and recurrent criticisms against this brand...). But I would try to test it from the shop if possible, because 17 p-MP it's just unbelievable for wide angle lens in the digital APS-C high-end world:

Source: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100__865

Anyway, after I seen the excellent results of this Sony kit lens, anything is possible!

Cheers,

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

All the lenses I've mentioned were owned/used on A700 and A850.  The SAL-18-70mm kit lens was used on an A100 (my first Sony DSLR) and these kit lenses are OK for what they are, but best replaced for superior results.  I don't use online testing sites and my findings are based purely on usage.  If I found a lens lacking, then it was sold and I'd buy something else, thus trial and error.  With the later Sony SLT versions, not all lenses are compatible and that's one of the main drawbacks IMO, thus I'm still with the 'proper' A850 DSLR which is dual format.  I never actually replaced the Sigma 50-200 DC OS HSM as I found it's a limited range albeit a wonderful bit of kit, though the Tokina AT-X 300/4 AF (AF 304) is my main lens, but for general use, either a Sigma AF 100-300/4 EX DG (IF) APO or if you can find one, a Tokina AT-X 100-300/4 AF (AF 340) as these have excellent IQ and a decent range, but of course for close-up W/A the choices are varied so it's a bit of a crap-shoot.  The beauty of FF is the ability to crop, but FF lenses on APS-C bodies usually gives you the centre 2/3rds of the lens which normally is the meat and any softness I found to be non-existent as it was never recorded on the sensor, though it's plainly obvious on a FF camera if there is softness towards the edges/corners, so FF on APS-C should generally be excellent but that depends on the lens itself.

If you have deep pockets and afford the top-shelf models, then great, but most shooters are keen amateurs and you really don't need to spend a fortune as there are plenty of excellent legacy lenses available.  I got some of my best results with the A700 and FF telephoto zooms/primes plus the Cosina 100/3.5 MC and Sigma 17-70 DC Macro which were my main lenses.  Yes I had either a SAL50F18 or MIN50F17, but they didn't get used much, so it got whittled down to 4 lenses and I found that was all I need to meet my requirements.  I've owned over 50% of the top-shelf Minolta lenses and have found cheaper makes/models that are at least as good for a lot less money, so those working on a budget can easily find quality without a hefty price tag.  If I can do it, anyone else can, but it's horses for courses and if anyone wants any insight, then I'm happy to share and only on optics used/owned and not because of website testing.  All lenses are different and albeit one lens model will always get a 95% rating, you can still find a lemon, so be patient, choose wisely and buy for your needs and not wants or must haves as you'll waste money on stuff that'll never be used much and likely pay over the odds for the privilege and lose on re-sale.

Just my own input.

-- hide signature --

Mark (aka Pirate!)

 Calico Jack's gear list:Calico Jack's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Adobe Photoshop CS6 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,306Gear list
Like?
Re: would love to have the Tamron 17-50/2.8
In reply to RussellInCincinnati, 9 months ago

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

123Mike wrote: That's pretty decent...where's-Waldo shot

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better though, because I can get better speed and/or exposure, and it's even sharper. I think anyone that has the option to save money and skip the kit lens, is better off to spend that saved money and upgrade to the 17-50 IMO.

Am greatly desiring that lens. You would say in your experience that it's at least the equal of the Alpha 18-55 at 18mm and F/3.5 (i.e. could you post a sample of that setting)? Also where did you buy your lens? Would you recommend getting it used? Have heard tell of decentered copies floating around. And any comment on the 50mm F/2.8 bokeh would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Sony kit lens at any aperture at any length. I actually traded this lens, from a Minolta 28-135 which I did not like. I never would have spend like $300 on a lens that seems to be merely a kit-type of lens. But boy was I wrong. It's sharper, and it's so much brighter. Nicer depth. Nicer bokeh. It's excellent all around. If this lens broke on me, I swear, I would buy that same lens again in a jiffy! This lens is on the camera pretty much 95% year round !

 123Mike's gear list:123Mike's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS A3000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
K E Hoffman
Senior MemberPosts: 3,132Gear list
Like?
Re: would love to have the Tamron 17-50/2.8
In reply to 123Mike, 9 months ago

123Mike wrote:

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

123Mike wrote: That's pretty decent...where's-Waldo shot

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better though, because I can get better speed and/or exposure, and it's even sharper. I think anyone that has the option to save money and skip the kit lens, is better off to spend that saved money and upgrade to the 17-50 IMO.

Am greatly desiring that lens. You would say in your experience that it's at least the equal of the Alpha 18-55 at 18mm and F/3.5 (i.e. could you post a sample of that setting)? Also where did you buy your lens? Would you recommend getting it used? Have heard tell of decentered copies floating around. And any comment on the 50mm F/2.8 bokeh would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Sony kit lens at any aperture at any length. I actually traded this lens, from a Minolta 28-135 which I did not like. I never would have spend like $300 on a lens that seems to be merely a kit-type of lens. But boy was I wrong. It's sharper, and it's so much brighter. Nicer depth. Nicer bokeh. It's excellent all around. If this lens broke on me, I swear, I would buy that same lens again in a jiffy! This lens is on the camera pretty much 95% year round !

Sony 17-50mm F2.8 tests out Sharper and better in corners with less light fall off than Tamron Especially at wide open.

the Sony though does have more CA and Less vignetting.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1449/cat/83

-- hide signature --

K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<

 K E Hoffman's gear list:K E Hoffman's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Nikon 1 J1 Sony a77 II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 100mm F2.8 Macro +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: would love to have the Tamron 17-50/2.8
In reply to 123Mike, 9 months ago

123Mike wrote:

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

123Mike wrote: That's pretty decent...where's-Waldo shot

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better though, because I can get better speed and/or exposure, and it's even sharper. I think anyone that has the option to save money and skip the kit lens, is better off to spend that saved money and upgrade to the 17-50 IMO.

Am greatly desiring that lens. You would say in your experience that it's at least the equal of the Alpha 18-55 at 18mm and F/3.5 (i.e. could you post a sample of that setting)? Also where did you buy your lens? Would you recommend getting it used? Have heard tell of decentered copies floating around. And any comment on the 50mm F/2.8 bokeh would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Sony kit lens at any aperture at any length. I actually traded this lens, from a Minolta 28-135 which I did not like. I never would have spend like $300 on a lens that seems to be merely a kit-type of lens. But boy was I wrong. It's sharper, and it's so much brighter. Nicer depth. Nicer bokeh. It's excellent all around. If this lens broke on me, I swear, I would buy that same lens again in a jiffy! This lens is on the camera pretty much 95% year round !

Agreed.

The Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF appear with a very, very good score of a 13 p-MP on DxO, (kit lens 18-55mm a real 9 p-MP comparing to) and moreover tested with the Nikon D7100 (who apparently get the same sensor as the A77 have? However stoping down a tad on the flagship, I guess) it's a lens what is pratically free of AC, and distortion only a few.

My 0,02: in the other hand, having the Tamy tested on A Nikon D200 (OMyG) the Sony 17-50mm F2.8 tested on an antic A350 (huh!) dosen't help here, since you have an A57 (which is stellar with the picky A77, comparing to previous generation!)

For a side by side test between the Tamy VS the Minolta 17-35mm F/3,5 (G) on an APS-C 24 MP, the green gem would be far behind: jettisoned, I guess !

(But another story again on a FF, I'm sure)

Cheers

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Vikas Rana
Contributing MemberPosts: 805Gear list
Like?
Re: would love to have the Tamron 17-50/2.8
In reply to Michel J, 9 months ago

Michel J wrote:

123Mike wrote:

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

123Mike wrote: That's pretty decent...where's-Waldo shot

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better though, because I can get better speed and/or exposure, and it's even sharper. I think anyone that has the option to save money and skip the kit lens, is better off to spend that saved money and upgrade to the 17-50 IMO.

Am greatly desiring that lens. You would say in your experience that it's at least the equal of the Alpha 18-55 at 18mm and F/3.5 (i.e. could you post a sample of that setting)? Also where did you buy your lens? Would you recommend getting it used? Have heard tell of decentered copies floating around. And any comment on the 50mm F/2.8 bokeh would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Sony kit lens at any aperture at any length. I actually traded this lens, from a Minolta 28-135 which I did not like. I never would have spend like $300 on a lens that seems to be merely a kit-type of lens. But boy was I wrong. It's sharper, and it's so much brighter. Nicer depth. Nicer bokeh. It's excellent all around. If this lens broke on me, I swear, I would buy that same lens again in a jiffy! This lens is on the camera pretty much 95% year round !

Agreed.

The Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF appear with a very, very good score of a 13 p-MP on DxO, (kit lens 18-55mm a real 9 p-MP comparing to) and moreover tested with the Nikon D7100 (who apparently get the same sensor as the A77 have? However stoping down a tad on the flagship, I guess) it's a lens what is pratically free of AC, and distortion only a few.

My 0,02: in the other hand, having the Tamy tested on A Nikon D200 (OMyG) the Sony 17-50mm F2.8 tested on an antic A350 (huh!) dosen't help here, since you have an A57 (which is stellar with the picky A77, comparing to previous generation!)

For a side by side test between the Tamy VS the Minolta 17-35mm F/3,5 (G) on an APS-C 24 MP, the green gem would be far behind: jettisoned, I guess !

(But another story again on a FF, I'm sure)

Cheers

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

The non-VC version of Tamron 17-50 is much better than the newer Tamron 17-50 VC

Tamron 17-50 non-VC

Tamron 17-50 VC

Sony 18-55 SAM

Sony 18-55 SAM -2

 Vikas Rana's gear list:Vikas Rana's gear list
Sony SLT-A58 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM II Adobe Photoshop CS6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ralf B
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,244Gear list
Like?
Only non VC version for the A Mount
In reply to Vikas Rana, 9 months ago

Vikas Rana wrote:

Michel J wrote:

The Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF appear with a very, very good score of a 13 p-MP on DxO,

The non-VC version of Tamron 17-50 is much better than the newer Tamron 17-50 VC

Correct. On top of that, only the non-VC version is offered for the A Mount, so discussing the VC version is pointless for A Mount shooters.

Tamron 17-50 non-VC

Tamron 17-50 VC

Sony 18-55 SAM

Sony 18-55 SAM -2

Thanks for the links! I can confirm from own use on a55 and a700 that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great lens with a price-to-performance ratio that is hard to beat.

Cheers,
Ralf

 Ralf B's gear list:Ralf B's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A55 Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: would love to have the Tamron 17-50/2.8
In reply to Vikas Rana, 9 months ago

Vikas Rana wrote:

Michel J wrote:

123Mike wrote:

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

123Mike wrote: That's pretty decent...where's-Waldo shot

I like my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 better though, because I can get better speed and/or exposure, and it's even sharper. I think anyone that has the option to save money and skip the kit lens, is better off to spend that saved money and upgrade to the 17-50 IMO.

Am greatly desiring that lens. You would say in your experience that it's at least the equal of the Alpha 18-55 at 18mm and F/3.5 (i.e. could you post a sample of that setting)? Also where did you buy your lens? Would you recommend getting it used? Have heard tell of decentered copies floating around. And any comment on the 50mm F/2.8 bokeh would be helpful.

I'm pretty sure that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Sony kit lens at any aperture at any length. I actually traded this lens, from a Minolta 28-135 which I did not like. I never would have spend like $300 on a lens that seems to be merely a kit-type of lens. But boy was I wrong. It's sharper, and it's so much brighter. Nicer depth. Nicer bokeh. It's excellent all around. If this lens broke on me, I swear, I would buy that same lens again in a jiffy! This lens is on the camera pretty much 95% year round !

Agreed.

The Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF appear with a very, very good score of a 13 p-MP on DxO, (kit lens 18-55mm a real 9 p-MP comparing to) and moreover tested with the Nikon D7100 (who apparently get the same sensor as the A77 have? However stoping down a tad on the flagship, I guess) it's a lens what is pratically free of AC, and distortion only a few.

My 0,02: in the other hand, having the Tamy tested on A Nikon D200 (OMyG) the Sony 17-50mm F2.8 tested on an antic A350 (huh!) dosen't help here, since you have an A57 (which is stellar with the picky A77, comparing to previous generation!)

For a side by side test between the Tamy VS the Minolta 17-35mm F/3,5 (G) on an APS-C 24 MP, the green gem would be far behind: jettisoned, I guess !

(But another story again on a FF, I'm sure)

Cheers

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

The non-VC version of Tamron 17-50 is much better than the newer Tamron 17-50 VC

Tamron 17-50 non-VC

Tamron 17-50 VC

Sony 18-55 SAM

Sony 18-55 SAM -2

Hi Vicas !

Thanks for pointing that: but "non VC" version show 9 p-MP "only" (insteed 13 p-MP for the VC on APS-C 24MP). Alas!

And it's right that is not the same optic formula (19 lenses in 14 groups for the VC, and 16 lenses in 13 groups for the "non VC")

The http://slrgear.com tests is interesting if you have exactly the body which the lens was tested. But it's a tad outdated for brand new cameras imho. Proof is the Sony 18-55 SAM II, it is not out yet but tested on a discontinued camera, I wonder how they do that?

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ralf B
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,244Gear list
Like?
VC vs. non VC Tammy on same camera
In reply to Vikas Rana, 9 months ago

Vikas Rana wrote:The non-VC version of Tamron 17-50 is much better than the newer Tamron 17-50 VC

Correct also according to Photozone which tested both on the same camera, the 16 MP Nikon D7000, see links and quotes below:

non VC version

Verdict: "The Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] is a very serious performer capable to deliver very sharp images at all focal lengths. Vignetting and distortion are about average for a lens in this class. CAs are a bit on the high side towards the short end of the focal range. Unfortunately the lens suffers from strong field curvature at 17mm which may push the corner portions out-of-focus. The level of distortion is about average in this class whereas vignetting and lateral CAs could be somewhat better."

VC version

Verdict: "The Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC is a very promising lens based on its specifications. However, it falls somewhat short of the high expectations especially when considering the excellent performance of its non-VC variant....If VC is not high on your priority list, the still available non-VC variant gives better results at a lower price."

Alas! Case closed, especially with the same camera and the same test lab being the base for the test.

Cheers,
Ralf

 Ralf B's gear list:Ralf B's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A55 Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter Albinger
Forum MemberPosts: 55Gear list
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Scott Nicol, 9 months ago

The 2.5 stars the OP gives what he himself calls a not-bad lens is a bit harsh! In my grade book that would be a D-, just a step above an F. A more fair grade might be C - i.e. 3.3 on 5. I have both the 18-55 and the Zeiss 16-80 and while I usually have my Zeiss on the camera there are times, like my upcoming trip to Sri Lanka, where I will take the 18-55 and its companion the 55-200, as well as my Sony DT 35 F1.8 and 50 F1.8 lenses. I like the fact that they are all 55 mm. It makes the polarizer, ND filter issue very simple.

You may have Gary Friedman's guide to one of the SLT cameras - I have got the one for the A57. Here is what he has to say about the 18-55 :

So how good are these kit lenses? I did a quick informal test in Figure 1-45, shooting the identical scene using the Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 “kit” lens and the highly-regarded Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (which costs about four times as much). The differences can be seen in Figure 1-46.

And if that’s not proof enough for you, go back to the portrait model shots at the beginning of this chapter. ALL of them were taken using the 18- 55mm kit lens – to prove what I said a few pages back – “it is the photographer, not the camera, that makes a great picture”.

Conclusion: The differences between these two lenses are so small that in order to even see a difference you have to zoom in tight and examine the image more closely than you’ve probably ever examined a film image. (See pages 76-78 of the 37 & 57 Sony Alpha book)

Thanks to in-camera lens correction, many of the inadequacies of the 18-55 are eliminated, at least in in the jpg format to which the corrections are applied.

Back to a more appropriate grade for this lens, the German site ends up giving it a 5 on 5 based the performance you get for the price.

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/573-sony1855f3556?start=1

 Peter Albinger's gear list:Peter Albinger's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A57 Sony a6000 Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael W00d
Contributing MemberPosts: 802
Like?
Re: Ok for a starter lens but it soon stays in the bag as you upgrade
In reply to Peter Albinger, 9 months ago

Peter Albinger wrote:

You may have Gary Friedman's guide to one of the SLT cameras - I have got the one for the A57. Here is what he has to say about the 18-55 :

So how good are these kit lenses? I did a quick informal test in Figure 1-45, shooting the identical scene using the Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 “kit” lens and the highly-regarded Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (which costs about four times as much).

The 16-80mm Zeiss is adequately, not bitingly, sharp. But what you also get, and where the 18-55mm cannot compare, is consistent, adequate sharpness from 16mm right through to 80mm. That justifies its cost as far as I'm concerned.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Renato1
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,323Gear list
Like?
You make me......
In reply to Peter Albinger, 9 months ago

......want to actually try this lens out now.
Thanks for the information.
Cheers,
Renato

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads