Which Lenses to buy with Sony Alpha?

chicago_summer · Jul 31, 2006

I need some expert advice and opinions on this subject. I have mild experience with Digital SLRs and I am shifting from Nikon D70 to Sony Alpha.

I am considering buying following lenses. Please suggest and comment.

1.Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens

A universal zoom lens. I resist changing lenses and I think this will serve me good. Any downside of this? I had used Nikon Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens. Doesn’t 18-200 means more magnification than 70-300?

2.The famous Beercan Minolta MAXXUM AF 70-210/4. Another zoom lens. The more I hear about it the more I think that I can make good use of it. Do you think it will be redundant if I have the lens 18-200?

3.I need a cheap (the best value) for a macro lens. I like shooting flowers, bugs and small things. Please suggest a cheap (the best value) lens.

4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

Thanks for your help.

Craig Gillette · Jul 31, 2006

chicago_summer said:
I need some expert advice and opinions on this subject. I have mild
experience with Digital SLRs and I am shifting from Nikon D70 to
Sony Alpha.

I am considering buying following lenses. Please suggest and comment.

1.Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom
Lens
A universal zoom lens. I resist changing lenses and I think this
will serve me good. Any downside of this? I had used Nikon Nikon
70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens. Doesn’t 18-200 means
more magnification than 70-300?

There are some trade-offs in optical performance and possibly build quality to get both a longer zoom range and a low price. I'd check reviews/comments on the particular lens you are considering (and the Tamron in the same range as they are ver similar, IIRC, if not the same). If you are sticking to web viewing and/or smaller prints, you may find it quite satisfactory.

Magnification? No. At least it depends a bit on how you are thinking of it. The zoom range is longer on the 18-200, about 10x versus something over 4x, but that just refers to the ratio between focal lengths. If you compare the focal lengths at the telephoto end, the 300mm length would give you more magnification of distant subjects, about what most people would see comparing a 9x binocular (the 300) to a 6x binocular (200) from the same point. However, and you'd need to find the specifications, if you were looking at near objects, at the closest focus, if you could get closer, you might get a larger image of the same item and more "magnification." Example (and the figures may not be correct off the top of my head), if you can focus at 4 feet with the 200mm but only 6 feet with the 300mm, the image on the sensor should be the same size, then if the 200mm actually allowed you to focus at 2 feet, then the image would be larger, more magnified, as it were.

chicago_summer said:
2.The famous Beercan Minolta MAXXUM AF 70-210/4. Another zoom lens.
The more I hear about it the more I think that I can make good use
of it. Do you think it will be redundant if I have the lens 18-200?

Yes and no. You wouldn't have the wide end. But everything I have read makes me think the beercan is a very good optical performer and from 70 to 200 would perform better. The other thing to consider is that the f4 aperture range is constant and while the 18-200 is a tad faster at the wide end, is significantly slower at the 200mm end f6.3 versus f4. That could well be an issue depending on the types of subjects or lighting conditions. (One of those negative trade-offs to get a long zoom range and low price.)

chicago_summer said:
3.I need a cheap (the best value) for a macro lens. I like shooting
flowers, bugs and small things. Please suggest a cheap (the best
value) lens.

The really cheap options are to consider extension tubes or close-up 'macro" diopter lenses. I don't shoot macro so can't offer any current relevant experience on using these. Used a manual bellows many years ago and it was interesting as a class exercise but not all that practical in actual use.

chicago_summer said:
4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

Depends on your interests. Most suggest the 50mm/1.7 for it's low price and fast aperture and general good quality. I like mine.

chicago_summer said:
Thanks for your help.

robrol · Jul 31, 2006

Craig Gillette said:
Craig Gillette said:

4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

Click to expand...

Depends on your interests. Most suggest the 50mm/1.7 for it's low
price and fast aperture and general good quality. I like mine.

Craig Gillette said:

Thanks for your help.

Click to expand...

The 50mm f1.7 would team up very nicely with a set of extension tubes or a couple of close-up filters ( say +2, +4 diopter ) to give a very good start into macro at minimal expense.
--
robrol

mark victor · Jul 31, 2006

chicago_summer said:
I need some expert advice and opinions on this subject. I have mild
experience with Digital SLRs and I am shifting from Nikon D70 to
Sony Alpha.

Sorry, I am not expert but let me try to help...

chicago_summer said:
I am considering buying following lenses. Please suggest and comment.

1.Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom
Lens
A universal zoom lens. I resist changing lenses and I think this
will serve me good. Any downside of this? I had used Nikon Nikon
70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens. Doesn’t 18-200 means
more magnification than 70-300?

If you really don't want to change lenses... 18-200 DT is a good choice. You can also look at the Tamron and Sigma ones. They also offer Alpha-mount lenses with this zoom range and prices should be cheaper than the SONY one and their quality are quite good too.

chicago_summer said:
2.The famous Beercan Minolta MAXXUM AF 70-210/4. Another zoom lens.
The more I hear about it the more I think that I can make good use
of it. Do you think it will be redundant if I have the lens 18-200?

Yes and no... Overlapped in term of zoom range with the 18-200mm. But the speed between the two lenses is quite a big difference. (F4 vs. F6.3). So whether buy the beercan or not depends on how fast you need your lens to be... But I would suggest you to get it. You will amaze the quality, the sharpness and the value it brings. Plus it's price is going up every month on ebay.

chicago_summer said:
3.I need a cheap (the best value) for a macro lens. I like shooting
flowers, bugs and small things. Please suggest a cheap (the best
value) lens.

Minolta AF 50/ 2.8 macro ---- Check Keh.com for a used one. Price is from $140-$199 depending on the condition. The Quality is one of the best. Or You can try your luck on ebay and local stores.

chicago_summer said:
4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

There are a lot of lens you may consider. But may I ask you what's your budget and purpose?

chicago_summer said:
Thanks for your help.

--
Mark

KM 5D -- 50mm/1.7; 100mm/2.8 Macro; 135mm/2.8;
70-210mm/4 (Beercan); 75-300mm/4.5-5.6 (Beercan),
18-70 (Kit) / 3.5-5.6

William S · Jul 31, 2006

My ideal setup for the A100 would probably be:
1) Sigma 10 - 20 for travel photo and funky studio portrait effects.
2) Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 Walkaround lens and fashion/portrait lens.
3) Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 Portrait and sports lens.

This would probably require a totally different budget than the lenses you're proposing, but I could wait a year to get the 70 - 200 one.

mark victor · Jul 31, 2006

robrol said:
robrol said:

robrol said:

4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

Click to expand...

Depends on your interests. Most suggest the 50mm/1.7 for it's low
price and fast aperture and general good quality. I like mine.

robrol said:

Thanks for your help.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The 50mm f1.7 would team up very nicely with a set of extension
tubes or a couple of close-up filters ( say +2, +4 diopter ) to
give a very good start into macro at minimal expense.

True.. but the price of a new or excellent condition 50mm 1.7 can go up to about $90 already. A new one could cost about $129. Adding extension tubes and close-up fithers.. the final price will be in the price range of an excellent condition 50/2.8 Macro ($149-$199) which is on par with the 100mm/2.8 Macro (the best macro lens in the minolta collection) in term of image quality.

So IMHO, A good condition used 50mm/2.8 Macro is still the best value.

Just my 2 cents

robrol said:
--
robrol

--
Mark

KM 5D -- 50mm/1.7; 100mm/2.8 Macro; 135mm/2.8;
70-210mm/4 (Beercan); 75-300mm/4.5-5.6 (Beercan),
18-70 (Kit) / 3.5-5.6

mark victor · Jul 31, 2006

You are rich dude! Good Choices!

William S said:
My ideal setup for the A100 would probably be:
1) Sigma 10 - 20 for travel photo and funky studio portrait effects.
2) Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 Walkaround lens and fashion/portrait lens.
3) Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 Portrait and sports lens.

This would probably require a totally different budget than the
lenses you're proposing, but I could wait a year to get the 70 -
200 one.

--
Mark

KM 5D -- 50mm/1.7; 100mm/2.8 Macro; 135mm/2.8;
70-210mm/4 (Beercan); 75-300mm/4.5-5.6 (Beercan),
18-70 (Kit) / 3.5-5.6

robrol · Jul 31, 2006

mark victor said:
True.. but the price of a new or excellent condition 50mm 1.7 can
go up to about $90 already. A new one could cost about $129.
Adding extension tubes and close-up fithers.. the final price will
be in the price range of an excellent condition 50/2.8 Macro
($149-$199) which is on par with the 100mm/2.8 Macro (the best
macro lens in the minolta collection) in term of image quality.

So IMHO, A good condition used 50mm/2.8 Macro is still the best value.

Just my 2 cents
Mark

Yes, I'd agree with you, but if one was to follow the advice of buying the 50 f1.7 as a must have lens, I was suggesting using this if it was an already owned lens and suggesting a way forward into macro.

However I've been keeping an eye out for a 50mm 2.8 macro and not seen one in the price range you mention.
I more often use a Sigma 105 2.8 macro myself and really like it.
--
robrol

chicago_summer · Jul 31, 2006

Mark,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions.

I can spend 200 on beer can and the macro lens. My purpose is fun. I like to take pictures of bugs and flowers and that is why I need the macro lens. Zoom lens is needed day to day photography like sceneries, portraits and shows.

Ankit

mark victor · Jul 31, 2006

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx

Hope that helps.

Mark

robrol said:
robrol said:

True.. but the price of a new or excellent condition 50mm 1.7 can
go up to about $90 already. A new one could cost about $129.
Adding extension tubes and close-up fithers.. the final price will
be in the price range of an excellent condition 50/2.8 Macro
($149-$199) which is on par with the 100mm/2.8 Macro (the best
macro lens in the minolta collection) in term of image quality.

So IMHO, A good condition used 50mm/2.8 Macro is still the best value.

Just my 2 cents
Mark

Click to expand...

Yes, I'd agree with you, but if one was to follow the advice of
buying the 50 f1.7 as a must have lens, I was suggesting using this
if it was an already owned lens and suggesting a way forward into
macro.
However I've been keeping an eye out for a 50mm 2.8 macro and not
seen one in the price range you mention.
I more often use a Sigma 105 2.8 macro myself and really like it.
--
robrol

--
Mark

KM 5D -- 50mm/1.7; 100mm/2.8 Macro; 135mm/2.8;
70-210mm/4 (Beercan); 75-300mm/4.5-5.6 (Beercan),
18-70 (Kit) / 3.5-5.6

Malcy · Jul 31, 2006

Can I suggest the Sigma 18-200mm instead of the Sony version. It is as far as I can see, just as good as the Tamron/KM version and significantly cheaper than the Sony version (which looks like a rebadged Tamron/KM).
--
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets

David Kilpatrick · Jul 31, 2006

The kit 18-70mm is better than the 18-200mm, within the 18-70mm range, and almost free with the camera (not quite, but it's easier to get the camera with kit 18-70 than without right now as well). We have both lenses, and the 18-200mm is tons better in feel and build, but the actual shots are definitely no better.

If you can pick up a good 70-210mm 'beercan' to add to the kit lens, both then take 55mm filters, and the 70-210mm has one of the closest minimum focus distances in its class without using a special macro setting - down to 1.1 metres at all focal lengths. It's already a quarter-life size macro. Both lenses respond very well to using a +2 or +3 top grade close-up accessory lens - the ideal solution is to buy either a Minolta double element (achromatic) close-up No 2 in 55mm thread, or get hold of a Sigma - they also have made achromatic, cemented two-element close-ups for use on zooms. The 70-210mm has front group focusing, and on near distance subjects behaves like a non-zoom of around 185mm. At minimum focus, it will shoot a subject 85mm wide filling the APS sensor width. The 18-200mm focuses right down to 0.45m - over twice as close. But guess what? It has internal focusing. To get a subject 85mm wide to fill the frame at 200mm, you have to actually go right down to minimum focus... 45cm!

This is the truth about superzooms. Their optical construction means you can not trust the focal lengths to be 'actual' except on infinity subjects (and even then they are often not so accurate). The apparent close focus of the 18-200mm doesn't help you get a bigger scale at all. And if you compare the curvature of the image of the 18-200mm set to 18mm at closest focus with the 18-70mm set to 18mm and closest focus, you would never use the 18-200mm again; the 18-70mm gives a clean result, the 18-200mm is severely barrelled.

And, by the way, the 18-70mm at its closest focus - very close - also gives exactly the same quarter life size subject ratio as the 70-210mm zoom, and better than the 18-200mm can do even at 200mm.

The 70-210mm - assuming you get a GOOD example - is in a different category of sharpness at 210mm to the 18-200mm zoom, as well as 1.5 f stops faster, and much faster and more accurate in following focus with action. You are not forced to get the heavy 'beercan' either. The later, lighter 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 has the benefit of being very fast at 70mm (perfect for portraits), still a stop faster at 210mm.

The 18-70mm and 70-210mm seem almost a perfect combination - sharing one size of polarizing filter, being able to do the same with a good CU lens, focusing cleanly to a very good subject size with excellent working distance in the case of the long lens.

David

Franklin · Jul 31, 2006

Even at the current ebay price, beercan is a steal. It is 70-210 F4 fix-aperture and built like a tank(metal construction). Look at how much you have to pay for Canon Nikon equivalents(Nikon 70-210 F4-5.6D, Canon 70-200 F4L).

chicago_summer said:
I need some expert advice and opinions on this subject. I have mild
experience with Digital SLRs and I am shifting from Nikon D70 to
Sony Alpha.

I am considering buying following lenses. Please suggest and comment.

1.Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom
Lens
A universal zoom lens. I resist changing lenses and I think this
will serve me good. Any downside of this? I had used Nikon Nikon
70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens. Doesn’t 18-200 means
more magnification than 70-300?

2.The famous Beercan Minolta MAXXUM AF 70-210/4. Another zoom lens.
The more I hear about it the more I think that I can make good use
of it. Do you think it will be redundant if I have the lens 18-200?

3.I need a cheap (the best value) for a macro lens. I like shooting
flowers, bugs and small things. Please suggest a cheap (the best
value) lens.

4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

Thanks for your help.

Dr Nemo · Jul 31, 2006

Chicago-

Not sure if this will be any help but a really nice combination of lenses would be the beercan (70-210 covered) and the sigma 17-70 macro. The Sigma seems rarely mentioned as an alternative to the kit lens but there have been some very positive postings and it is a very close focusing lens 1:2.3 . There is an occasional quality issue but it would seem this shows itself right out of the box.

If you are interested here is a link to John Beans experience with this lens and his Pentax. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=18741334
Also haydenson has posted some macro samples of this lens here on this forum.
Regards

Bruce

Jeff Varszegi · Jul 31, 2006

busch · Jul 31, 2006

Exactly what I'm starting out with.

I want also want the Sigma 100-300 but the piggy bank is in bad shape right now. Santa, did you get that request?????

--
Busch

Take the scenic route! Life is too short to do otherwise.

http://www.pbase.com/busch

Jeff Varszegi · Jul 31, 2006

It offers a constant f/2.8 and better image quality. The build is very good and it is very small and light. It is superior to the 17-70 in almost every way except range-- and the 20mm on the long end doesn't matter much compared to the constant aperture alone.

I am not pushing this lens, but it is really excellent. It would be my first purchase with an A100 body.

busch · Jul 31, 2006

I considered both of them and went with the 17-70 for several reasons:
the Photozone tests
the extra reach
a little cheaper

That said, it certainly wouldn't be the first mistake I ever made. ;-)

--
Busch

Take the scenic route! Life is too short to do otherwise.

http://www.pbase.com/busch

Dr Nemo · Jul 31, 2006

Jeff

Actually dymax.com rates the 17-70 a little higher than the 18-50 but the reason I recommended this lens to the OP is that this lens focuses very close right up to the lens hood, something he/she is desiring. With just two lenses, the beercan and the Sigma you will have 17-210 covered as well as macro all with better glass than the 18-200 Tamron or Sigma and good glass is what this sensor needs. Maybe later when you can afford it you might consider the Tamron 90 macro, it and the Minolta 100 are both excellent lenses and again this camera needs good glass.

Busch- we can form a mutual admiration society. I have already noted your superlative optic taste

Regards

Bruce

Vince T · Jul 31, 2006

chicago_summer said:
I need some expert advice and opinions on this subject. I have mild
experience with Digital SLRs and I am shifting from Nikon D70 to
Sony Alpha.

Just curious as to why you'd switch from Nikon to Sony.

What has drawn you to the Sony a100?

chicago_summer said:
I am considering buying following lenses. Please suggest and comment.

1.Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom
Lens
A universal zoom lens. I resist changing lenses and I think this
will serve me good.

How about the Nikon 18-200VR on your D70?

chicago_summer said:
Any downside of this? I had used Nikon Nikon
70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens.

It's a low budget lens that works well for some occasions. Above 200mm it will be soft.

chicago_summer said:
Doesn’t 18-200 means
more magnification than 70-300?

Yes, 18-200 is a 11X zoom lens (200 divided by 18) while the 70-300 i s a 4.2X zoom. But the 70-300 has longer reach. i.e. you can get closer.

chicago_summer said:
2.The famous Beercan Minolta MAXXUM AF 70-210/4. Another zoom lens.
The more I hear about it the more I think that I can make good use
of it. Do you think it will be redundant if I have the lens 18-200?

Never used this lens.

chicago_summer said:
3.I need a cheap (the best value) for a macro lens. I like shooting
flowers, bugs and small things. Please suggest a cheap (the best
value) lens.

Best quality for the price is the tamron 90mm Di f2.8 or sigma 105mm EX DG. Cant go wrong with either one.

chicago_summer said:
4.Any compelling suggestions for any must have lens.

As others have mentioned the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a great value. consider the tamron 28-75 f2.8 as well.

--
Vince from Toronto

Which Lenses to buy with Sony Alpha?

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts