a77 lens advise

Hi i am currently waiting for my sony a77 to arrive and am still undecided if i should get the Sony 16-50 kit lens or if i should just get the body and buy a separate lens that would better suit what i already have so far i have an old 28-80 kit lens from my old Minolta a Minolta 50mm f1.7 and a 70-210 Minolta beercan. my main interest is in portraits , landscape and macro i was thinking the 50mm would be for for the portraits the 28-80 is a macro capable lens so that might be fine for my macros but what i not sure on is landscapes i was thing the 16-50 kit lens might be good for that but i am unsure would like some feed back before i throw down the money on the 16-50 anyone who would have a better suggestion for a landscape lens please reply

Not sure how you shoot or what you shoot but it does seem you have a wide angle gap that the 16 50 would fill nicely.

The kit lens .. is only a kit lens in name.. kit lenses are not usually a jewel, so they get a bad rap... this " KIT" lens is 2.8 through the range. its HSM, its very fast and very quiet.. its 72mm. and its 100 dollars cheaper than it sells separately..You do not find 2.8 lens in kits... I just ordered mine and of course with the kit lens.

Another strong point for getting the " Kit Lens" Normally when you are a still photo shooter... audio is never a consideration...

I purchased the A77 for many reasons, including the HD video...with any screw drive lens the mic will pick up that noise,,,you need SSM.. I have both 16-50 SSM 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 SSM to go along with any HD video I want , at a wide angle or at a long angle... there is nothing out there that has this feature and for this price.. the 100 dollar price break is just another reason to purchase the camera as a kit.

--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

The 'kit' lens seems to be one of the best.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1449/cat/83

3 X 10 !!!!

What I don't understand is I keep reading it is 72 mm.

James
Get the 16-50. Unquestionably it is the best kit lens ever made by Sony

James Blackmore said:

Hi i am currently waiting for my sony a77 to arrive and am still undecided if i should get the Sony 16-50 kit lens or if i should just get the body and buy a separate lens that would better suit what i already have so far i have an old 28-80 kit lens from my old Minolta a Minolta 50mm f1.7 and a 70-210 Minolta beercan. my main interest is in portraits , landscape and macro i was thinking the 50mm would be for for the portraits the 28-80 is a macro capable lens so that might be fine for my macros but what i not sure on is landscapes i was thing the 16-50 kit lens might be good for that but i am unsure would like some feed back before i throw down the money on the 16-50 anyone who would have a better suggestion for a landscape lens please reply

Click to expand...

--
Mark K

If you are buying the A77, then you should include the 16-50mm f2.8 as part of the kit. This is the cheapest way of aquiring this excellent lens. However, for landscapes, you might also wish to consider a UWA lens, ranging from around 10mm. Unfortunately, there is no "no-brainer" UWA lens as they all have various pros and cons, however, I am perfectly happy with my Sigma 10-20mm non-HSM.

splashy said:

What I don't understand is I keep reading it is 72 mm.

Click to expand...

In this context, 72mm refers to the filter diameter. As in BIG and expensive.

--
I live, and try to learn. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.



Tacoma, Washington, USA

Ray Maines said:

splashy said:

What I don't understand is I keep reading it is 72 mm.

Click to expand...

In this context, 72mm refers to the filter diameter. As in BIG and expensive.

Click to expand...

Ok thank you, should have known myself. ;-)

splashy said:

Ray Maines said:

splashy said:

What I don't understand is I keep reading it is 72 mm.

Click to expand...

In this context, 72mm refers to the filter diameter. As in BIG and expensive.

Click to expand...

Ok thank you, should have known myself. ;-)

Click to expand...

--Big is good when you are wanting to get alot of light... expensive is arbitrary... its actually cheap insurance... a 700dollar lens deserves a 40 to 60 dollar filter.
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.

Visit my Smug Mug Galleries at:
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

EvilOne said:

EvilOne said:

EvilOne said:

In this context, 72mm refers to the filter diameter. As in BIG and expensive.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

EvilOne said:

--Big is good when you are wanting to get alot of light... expensive is arbitrary... its actually cheap insurance... a 700dollar lens deserves a 40 to 60 dollar filter.

Click to expand...

Big apertures are good - perhaps a little over rated but still good - but there isn't anything particularly good about the size of a 72mm filter. They are big enough to be difficult to store and are about 40 to 50 percent more expensive than the more common 62mm filters. If that's the price you have to pay to get a F/2.8 lens then so be it, but there isn't anything inherently "good" about about expensive, oversize filters.

Filters are obviously cheaper than lenses, but are also more expensive than the lens hood that came with the lens which provides pretty good protection as well. Except in blowing sand or salt water I suppose, but how often do you expect to encounter those conditions?

--
I live, and try to learn. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.



Tacoma, Washington, USA

Have just used the kit lens for some quick people shots...You will only be disapointed if you don't buy this lens with the camera!!