DM1DM
Active member
Great information on lenses on this thread. You guys are awesome! I'm reading and learning.
DM
DM
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A100 and Old Lenses--Help Needed
- Thread starter Cindy Young
- Start date
Gregory King
Veteran Member
Wow, what a load of differing opinions. Are you confused yet? ;-)
My take...
A 28-75mm 2.8 will be a good fast standard zoom. $300ish
A 50mm 1.7 will be faster and lighter still, and for $75 is a good add on.
A 70-210/3.5-4.5 is the fastest lightest telezoom. $100ish. The beercan is better and easier to find, but heavier.
You're out for under $500 and have everything covered.
Greg
My take...
A 28-75mm 2.8 will be a good fast standard zoom. $300ish
A 50mm 1.7 will be faster and lighter still, and for $75 is a good add on.
A 70-210/3.5-4.5 is the fastest lightest telezoom. $100ish. The beercan is better and easier to find, but heavier.
You're out for under $500 and have everything covered.
Greg
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks for this--I would probably need a lens which wouldn't be too long. Thanks for your comment on this lens. Would the 28-75/2.8 take close-up pics of flowers, too? If (when) I get too frustrated with the ever-wiggly g'kids, then I could take pictures of flowers which stay in one spot!
Yes, fast is of importance to me. However, so is the idea of getting quality lenses on a "retired" budget.
PS: Loved your gallery--Livia is a real cutie.
--
Cindy Young
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
I will most probably get this lens. When I was shooting film, I used my 28mm lens a lot of the time. Also, my family depends on me taking group photos (inside) when we all get together.
Thanks for pointing this out. It doesn't make sense because I would probably take along the 17-50 too. So, you have caused me to rethink my plan and I appreciate your insight in this matter. I will check out the faster telephoto lenses you mentioned. I have read where a lot of the Sony SLR Talk Forum members love their "beercans." I will check out the weight of it, too. Thank you for your input.
--
Cindy Young
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
That is a definite maybe!
Thank you for your take on the lenses--getting everything I need for about $500 sounds wonderful! Will check out dynax.com and see what I find.
Your time and effort to help me in my decision is much appreciated, so another Thank You!
--
Cindy Young
tomhongkong
Veteran Member
Cindy
Sorry to be a while replying, I have only just got on the computer. You ask about whether a 50/1.7 is good for (indoor) shots of your grandchild.
Actually the stimulous for me to get back into decent photography was realising that there is only a brief chance to take photos of children/grandchildren, before they grow up. I think that is why my wife puts up with me spending so much cash on it. You and I are almost in the same position (my grandchildren are 2yrs and 3 months).
I thought I would use my 50/1.7 for exactly what you describe, but I hardly ever use it (or rather them, I actually found another one in an old dry box yesterday, together with a 2x convertor and some close up lenses and filters...I wondered where they had got to, they must have been there for 15 years!)
I like natural light, but find that the KM/Sony off camera wireless flash system gives some great alternatives if it's too dark for 3.5 and ISO400 and IS. With older children moving about quite a bit and quickly, I find that I need a bigger DOF than I get at 1.7, and by the time I have got to 3.5, it is more convenient to use a zoom. Anyway unless it is a posed photo I like to be a bit further away than the 50mm wants me to be...you're not in the child's face so much and they are much more natural as a result.
Now I am certainly not an expert, and I am sure others will correct me. I havn't sorted out posting on this forum yet, but if you like to let me have an email I'll send you a sample from the 35-105 and my grandson, or wait for a couple of weeks while I get my site set up.
You also say you are not really looking for the cheapest lenses. Some underrated lenses like the 35- 105 give just as good IQ as the popular ones, so its worth doing a bit of research. Dyxum.com has other users' opinions on most KM lenses and it's pretty helpful. It's also worthwhile digging about a bit. The $60 75-300's at circuit city are over $250 at other shops!
After having bought a lot of lenses in the last year, I am going to sell a stack on ebay and keep:
CZ16-80 (if it is as good as I hope)
35-105 (because it is so good and cost me almost nothing)
100-300APO (for birds, flowers and boats)
18-200 (probably, as it is a good walkaround lens, even it the IQ is not so hot)
50/1.7 (one of them!)
135/2.8 (I think, although I have not used it since my film days)
If the CZ does not work out, I may keep my 24-105, or may go to a Tamron 17-55
Cheers
Tom
Sorry to be a while replying, I have only just got on the computer. You ask about whether a 50/1.7 is good for (indoor) shots of your grandchild.
Actually the stimulous for me to get back into decent photography was realising that there is only a brief chance to take photos of children/grandchildren, before they grow up. I think that is why my wife puts up with me spending so much cash on it. You and I are almost in the same position (my grandchildren are 2yrs and 3 months).
I thought I would use my 50/1.7 for exactly what you describe, but I hardly ever use it (or rather them, I actually found another one in an old dry box yesterday, together with a 2x convertor and some close up lenses and filters...I wondered where they had got to, they must have been there for 15 years!)
I like natural light, but find that the KM/Sony off camera wireless flash system gives some great alternatives if it's too dark for 3.5 and ISO400 and IS. With older children moving about quite a bit and quickly, I find that I need a bigger DOF than I get at 1.7, and by the time I have got to 3.5, it is more convenient to use a zoom. Anyway unless it is a posed photo I like to be a bit further away than the 50mm wants me to be...you're not in the child's face so much and they are much more natural as a result.
Now I am certainly not an expert, and I am sure others will correct me. I havn't sorted out posting on this forum yet, but if you like to let me have an email I'll send you a sample from the 35-105 and my grandson, or wait for a couple of weeks while I get my site set up.
You also say you are not really looking for the cheapest lenses. Some underrated lenses like the 35- 105 give just as good IQ as the popular ones, so its worth doing a bit of research. Dyxum.com has other users' opinions on most KM lenses and it's pretty helpful. It's also worthwhile digging about a bit. The $60 75-300's at circuit city are over $250 at other shops!
After having bought a lot of lenses in the last year, I am going to sell a stack on ebay and keep:
CZ16-80 (if it is as good as I hope)
35-105 (because it is so good and cost me almost nothing)
100-300APO (for birds, flowers and boats)
18-200 (probably, as it is a good walkaround lens, even it the IQ is not so hot)
50/1.7 (one of them!)
135/2.8 (I think, although I have not used it since my film days)
If the CZ does not work out, I may keep my 24-105, or may go to a Tamron 17-55
Cheers
Tom
It would - it has a maximum magnification ratio of 1:3.91 (which means that at closest focus distance, you can fill the frame with something 4X the size of the sensor ... a medium-sized flower, like a daisy, perhaps). In another reply, you mentioned that the 17-50/2.8 might be a "must have" for you. That lens has a max mag ratio of 1:4.5 so not a huge difference between the two ... if you're set on getting that lens, play with it for a while ... it may serve all your people photography needs, freeing you up to pick up a tele zoom. While not the highest quality lenses, Sigma and Tamron make a 55-200 that would complement the 17-50 nicely; they're pretty sharp, a tad faster at f/5.6 than the 18-200 superzooms, and ultra light, compact, and probably dirt cheap !) And, of course, there's the Sony 75-300 and the ol' beercan. You could do well with that 17-50/2.8 and any of those tele zooms.
Thanks a lot !
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks for explaining this so well, Dennis. Maybe now I understand the magnification ratio a little better.
Also, thanks for the info on the other lenses. Some day I will want the highest quality lenses, but to get started, I'll look into the Sigma and Tamron 55-200.
--
Cindy Young
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
OK, Tom, now you have me rethinking the 50/1.7. Man, do I have a lot to learn!
I will look at this lens. Thanks, Tom, as IQ is something good to get out of a lens.
How is the IQ on the 75-300 from Circuit City?
Good luck with your lens sale on eBay.
Tom, thanks for taking the time to help me learn about all these lenses.
--
Cindy Young
Cindy Young
Forum Enthusiast
I sincerely thank all of the forum members who gave me so much information to consider (Keith Schmidt, Jason Shaffer, laguire, Dennis, Mister Mike, tomhongkong, and Gregory King).
Now, if only Sony would release information about what's coming up at PMA. I guess I have to be patient about buying the A100 but, as you know when you get "camera fever," it's hard to be patient!
--
Cindy Young
Now, if only Sony would release information about what's coming up at PMA. I guess I have to be patient about buying the A100 but, as you know when you get "camera fever," it's hard to be patient!
--
Cindy Young
Jason Shaffer
Leading Member
You are most welcome Cindy. I really cannot wait to see the beautiful images I know you will capture with you camera. Hope to hear from you soon!
Jason
--
'Just take the picture already.'
http://www.pbase.com/jasonshaffer
Jason
--
'Just take the picture already.'
http://www.pbase.com/jasonshaffer
tomhongkong
Veteran Member
Cindy
the IQ is about right for a lens costing $250, but if they are still there you will get it much cheaper.
I don't know how much you want to spend on your hobby, but my advice would be to buy a few cheaper lenses first, and see what you really use most often. Then you can buy something really good for your main lengths, and sell the duplicates on ebay without a great loss.
However just enjoy!!
I look forward to seeing great posts of your grandchild
tom
the IQ is about right for a lens costing $250, but if they are still there you will get it much cheaper.
I don't know how much you want to spend on your hobby, but my advice would be to buy a few cheaper lenses first, and see what you really use most often. Then you can buy something really good for your main lengths, and sell the duplicates on ebay without a great loss.
However just enjoy!!
I look forward to seeing great posts of your grandchild
tom
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum