Former Canon user moving to a77, question about lenses.

CTR1 · Feb 9, 2014

So I am interested to moving the a77 for various already researched reasons and comparisons.

I am trying to learn the lens compatibilities of/with the a77 and possibly later on moving to the a99 or other future Sony full frame camera.

So far all I know is that the "DT" lenses don't work on FF, but how do you tell about the rest of the lenses? Is there a Canon or Nikon like marking/numbering/lettering to indicate this?

Thanks!

Calvin
There's always a catch. Life is a catch. You better catch it while you can.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Nice, thanks for the detailed explanation - I will keep this in mind. Thanks!

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Thanks and do you know of any equal or better 16-50 f2.8 lenses for equal or less money?

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Thanks for the recommendations, I will keep them in mind when I start buying stuff in a couple days.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Thanks, I will keep this in mind when I buy my gear in a couple days.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Oh nice catch, I don't think this was mentioned yet! I will for sure keep this in mind when buying. Thanks.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Hmm yeah I would love to start investing in the FF glass straight from the start but not sure if I will actually go FF in the future but I will do lens comparisons and see what I come up with. Thanks.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Great, thanks for the reply and helpful info!

walking dude · Feb 10, 2014

CTR1 said:
Yeah even though you lose a little light to the EVF, I think it is still worth it imo. Thanks

The redirected light (light loss) is for the PDAF sensor. The EVF gets it's feed from the image sensor.
This seems to be a common misconception among those not familiar with Sony SLT.

walking dude · Feb 10, 2014

CTR1 said:
Thanks and do you know of any equal or better 16-50 f2.8 lenses for equal or less money?

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a less expensive option and gets great reviews.

nandbytes · Feb 10, 2014

CTR1 said:
Hmm yeah I would love to start investing in the FF glass straight from the start but not sure if I will actually go FF in the future but I will do lens comparisons and see what I come up with. Thanks.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

Ok, I stand corrected then. Thank you for the info!

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

It seems this new Sigma alternative is more preferred over the Tamron and the Sigma lens it is replacing: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B006G7WQOY/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

It is priced quite well too.

CTR1 · Feb 10, 2014

I don't think I would need to go that far (regarding zooms). The most I would really want (not even need) is 200 to 300 (on FF). I don't do bird/animal watching or sports.

I will look into the other options though. Thanks.

thebustos · Feb 10, 2014

In response to another comment on the thread. The Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8s are cheaper alternatives to the Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8. However when you get the 16-50mm in a kit with the A77 the difference is smaller.

A77 body only $800
DT 16-50mm f/2.8 $800
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $570
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $500

Lenses together with the body:

A77 + 16-50mm f/2.8 kit $1400
A77 + Sigma 17-50mm separately $1370
A77 + Tamron 17-50mm separately $1300

The difference between these lenses is a popular topic in this forum. If you search past threads you'll find a lot of discussions. There are people that have traded the Sony 16-50mm for the Sigma and Tamron and vice versa. There isn't a clear winner because people that have had both tend to have varying opinions. One thing that the Sony has over the others is that it's weather resistant.

In regards to the stiffness you seem to have seen in the store copy you tried, the 16-50mm is usually stiff out of the box, but this goes away over time. However it may still be too stiff to smoothly zoom with video, which might have something to do with the internal environmental seals. But that's just a guess. Personally I haven't had much trouble with my copy, but i guess it depends on your preference.

If you're not aware, there have been deals off and on for the A77 with a free battery grip. I still see those options at B&H. However they also have options without the grip that cost the same price, so wherever you buy it, check for that.

Besides dyxum.com, kurtmunger.com has a lot of thorough reviews with samples for A-mount lenses. The following is a very informative article that discusses what the good and not so good lenses are available for the A-mount including a rundown of some choice Minolta AF glass:

An Introduction to the Alpha Mount by Kelly Davis. | sonyalpharumors

SAR note: This is a guest post. If you want to write an article for this site just contact me (Andrea) at [email protected]. Thanks! ---- An Introduction to the Alpha Mount by Kelly Davis (http://www.kellydavisphotography.com). Foreword About five years ago, when I first got into...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

Good luck and happy shooting!

nandbytes · Feb 11, 2014

CTR1 said:
I don't think I would need to go that far (regarding zooms). The most I would really want (not even need) is 200 to 300 (on FF). I don't do bird/animal watching or sports.

I will look into the other options though. Thanks.

--
Calvin
There's always a catch. Life is a catch. You better catch it while you can.

in that case I would suggest going for FF. There are some lenses I don't believe have a good alternative on APS-C my main one being CZ 16-35 if you shoot more at wide ends. I am only suggesting this as you said you were interested in FF lenses/body so I am assuming you are able to invest in some expensive (overpriced in some cases) gear.

K E Hoffman · Feb 11, 2014

CTR1 said:
Great, thanks for the reply and helpful info!

--
Calvin
There's always a catch. Life is a catch. You better catch it while you can.

This is my first "kit Lens" list in order of what I considered

Sony 18-135 (still good for video with extra zoom range)

I Bought the NEW Sigma 17-70 F2.8 "C" version there are two previous versions.. good but not as good. Best Under $500 lens IMHO small very sharp..

Sony 16-50 F2.8 (wish I would have got that with camera)

Will probably get this later this year..

the Sony 16-50 is weather sealed to match the body and really good

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

nandbytes · Feb 11, 2014

K E Hoffman said:
CTR1 said:

Great, thanks for the reply and helpful info!

Click to expand...

hajime93 · Feb 11, 2014

CTR1 said:
I debated on whether I should wait for the a77 replacement and for the price, reviews, etc I think I can live with having the a77 vs it's annoucement. Not to mention I just sold my camera body today and will be shipping my lenses tomorrow.

So from what I gather based on your post as well as the others' responses, I can't buy lenses that would work 100% on FF and crop sensor cameras?

Thanks!

tqlla · Feb 11, 2014

CTR1 said:
It seems this new Sigma alternative is more preferred over the Tamron and the Sigma lens it is replacing: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B006G7WQOY/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

It is priced quite well too.

nandbytes · Feb 11, 2014

CTR1 said:
Thanks and do you know of any equal or better 16-50 f2.8 lenses for equal or less money?

Former Canon user moving to a77, question about lenses.

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts