A77II lens dilemma

When did the A77III come out?
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

tbcass said:

Has Tamron come out with a new version of the 18-200? I used to own the old version but I was less than satisfied with it. Other than from about 35-125 or so stopped down a full stop at least it wasn't very good suffering from CA and lack of sharpness.

Click to expand...

No, they brought out the 18-250 instead, which is a lot better but more expensive. No improvement on the apertures, though, but, arguably, the OP could afford to use a higher ISO to make up for some of that, considering the improvement in that department offered by the a77II.

steelhead3 said:

You can't go wrong with the 16/50 2,8, but personally I would spring for the 16/80.

Click to expand...

I, from personal experience, don't feel the 16-80 would be fast enough to keep up with the indoor volleyball game, primarily in the AF speed department. As for aperture, it might do in a pinch, but you still might want something faster. But I do agree that the focal range would be just short of perfect.

My little sister plays indoor volleyball and I would primarily find myself shooting with lenses that are rated F/2.8 or faster. Before I got my Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 USD, I was using a Minolta 70-210mm F/4 "Beercan" for telephoto stuff and it was rarely fast enough, in both AF speed and aperture. The ISO would crank up higher than I would like even at F/4.5-5.6, and even at the limit with F/4 ISO or shutter speed would be slower than I wanted. I found myself shooting more and more with fast lenses, Tamron 90mm F/2.8 macro with range limiter set, 50mm F/1.4, Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 HSM. With those fast lenses, I would shoot at around F/2 to F/3.5 most of the time and F/4-4.5 on still shots when I could afford a slower shutter speed.

So, if possible, I would stick with the F/2.8 or faster lenses. Maybe, just MAYBE, the new Sigma 24-105 F/4 "Art" lens might work out well. In the same focal range that overlaps with the 16-80, it would be no slower on the wide end and faster than the 16-80 on the long end. The 16-80 is only F/3.5 from 16-18mm, from 20-30mm it is F/4 and everything else above that it is F/4.5. The 24-105mm is also supposed to be pretty sharp wide open, so you might be able to get away shooting at F/4 and still have some nice results.

Calico Jack/Mark/Pirate! wrote:

Calico Jack said:

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 (depending on the version) is an excellent lens on the whole

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued by this statement. How many versions of this lens are there? I have the version with OS; I think that they've removed it from current models.

But how does the lens quality vary between the models?

For what it is worth, this is my favourite lens. I'm also quite happy with Sigma's 17-70/f2.8-4 OS version. Again, I'd be curious to know if anything other that the in-lens OS functionality is different between the versions of this lens.

Thanks,
Keith

Eddi D said:

I have a A77II on its way (due here Wednesday). I've been hesitant to buy any new lenses due to budget. Our youngest started playing HS volleyball and I'm having a little problem getting wide enough with my 70-200 and my 28-75 doesn't zoom enough for my liking. So, I've decided to suck it up and possibly sell a couple of my lenses to finance something new. Below I listed my lenses and whether I would like to keep it, dump it or on the fence. I have a Sony kit lens my wife can use for my A100, so the 28-75 can go, though it is a nice lens.

Peleng 8mm fisheye (on the fence)
Minolta 50mm 1.7 (keep)
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5 DG (on the fence)
Tamron 28-75 2.8mm XR DI (on the fence)
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG (I LOVE this lens, but would sell it for the right replacement)
Sigma APO 2X EX DG Teleconverter (dump)

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

Eddi, for the purpose of photographing volleyball, you need a fast lens - especially with crappy gymnasium lighting. If you are too close to the action for the 70-200 than I think you should try out the 50mm since you might really appreciate the extra stop.

If you need a single lens that lets you do both court-wide shots and close-ups, then you might think about trading your 70-200 for Sigma's similar 50-150/f2.8. However, I think that is considered it is a fairly rare lens and I don't know how its quality compares. For the cost of changing lenses, you could probably afford a second body and have the best of both worlds. I have the Sigma 70-200 as well and would be loath to part with it; it's my favourite lens.

Another possibility would be to trade in the 28-75 and the 15-30 for Sony's 16-105 or 18-135; I just don't think that they are fast enough.

Honestly, I think the second body with your existing 50mm is probably your best bet.

Let us know what you decide - and your reasoning!

Keith Hanlan said:

Calico Jack/Mark/Pirate! wrote:

Keith Hanlan said:

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 (depending on the version) is an excellent lens on the whole

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued by this statement. How many versions of this lens are there? I have the version with OS; I think that they've removed it from current models.

Click to expand...

The OS is still available on the most current model being offered.

Keith Hanlan said:

But how does the lens quality vary between the models?

Click to expand...

It's an older comparison, but try this: http://kurtmunger.com/70_200mm_f_2_8compid210.html

Keith Hanlan said:

For what it is worth, this is my favourite lens. I'm also quite happy with Sigma's 17-70/f2.8-4 OS version. Again, I'd be curious to know if anything other that the in-lens OS functionality is different between the versions of this lens.

Thanks,
Keith

Click to expand...

Yes that comparison is way out of date. For example they rated the Tamron AF as slow (older model) but the new model is much faster. It's also better built and heavier (and more expensive) so there's no comparison here that is relevant.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

You could consider the 70-200 f2.8 and sit up in the bleachers. This would allow you to get close ups of all the action and zoom out for a full court shot without moving.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

tbcass said:

Yes that comparison is way out of date. For example they rated the Tamron AF as slow (older model) but the new model is much faster. It's also better built and heavier (and more expensive) so there's no comparison here that is relevant.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Click to expand...

The post I was responding to was talking about different versions of the Sigma lenses and what quality differences there was between them. So in that respect, my link was relevant.

Keith Hanlan said:

How does the lens quality vary between the models?

For what it is worth, this is my favourite lens. I'm also quite happy with Sigma's 17-70/f2.8-4 OS version. Again, I'd be curious to know if anything other that the in-lens OS functionality is different between the versions of this lens.

Thanks,
Keith

Click to expand...

Ahoy!

With respect to the Sigma 70-200/2.8 family of lenses (it started with the EX (IF) APO model), I owned the EX (IF) APO and subsequently the EX DG (IF) APO versions, though a trip over to Dyxum lens database will show you the variants as I think there is also a II model as well.

I also owned several copies of the Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro which is said to be sharper than the OS version (not my words BTW) and there were some copies with OS in A-Mount but I heard Sigma stopped it for the A-Mount (I haven't researched that BTW so I'm only going by what I've been told). anyway, for a short WA lens, OS really isn't a requirement, but it 'may' have some uses depending on circumstances. Apart from OS, the focal range is F/2.8-4 as opposed to F/2.8-4.5 on the DC Macro non-OS version. I think that lens is just fantastic and I've taken some exquisite images with it on the A700 which you can see on either my Flickr page and some aviation websites after first being approved before acceptance into their respective databases (Jetphotos and Airplane-Pictures) but to name a couple.

The latest Sigma AF 70-200/2.8 OS EX DG APO (IF) HSM is meant to be an excellent optic (they're around GBP £500.00 on the used market and is in a similar price range to the Minolta, Tamron and Sigma's) but the Tokina AT-X is about 50% cheaper, though I've not owned the Sigma OS version myself, but when I did own the 70/80-200/2.8's, I found 200mm too restrictive as more often than not, additional range was required hence why the Sigma 100-300/4 EX DG (IF) APO is arguably the best of it's type and with a constant F4 which produces sublime results at all focal ranges and apertures, makes it the logical choice for fast action subjects, though the sigma 70-200/2.8 OS HSM isn't too far behind the Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO G/APO HS G, though the Minolta/Sony AF 70-200/2.8 APO HS G is grossly over-priced for the extra 10mm (even with a few buttons that most people never use anyway) and most don't think about the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 when looking, though the Tamron SP AF 70-200/2.8 Di (IF) LD (A001 model) is very good and is only let down by it's physical AF speed and it's hit/miss focus lock in anything other than decent lighting conditions.

The Minolta 80-200/2.8 is the benchmark lens as the overall package that others try to emulate.

I hope that (in a round-about way) answers to questions and my reasons why.

[No message]

VirtualMirage said:

nandbytes said:

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

Click to expand...

Is that lens still worth looking into? It's a fairly old design by today's standards. Remember, us A-mount users never got the newer version of this lens (new one is 21 elements, 15 groups, 6 SLDs). The only one that we saw was the older 2008 model (18 elements, 13 groups, 4 SLDs).

I am not trying to diss the 50-150, I am really just curious. Does the older model still stand up to today's higher resolution sensors?

--
Paul
http://www.flickr.com/photos/virtualmirage/

Click to expand...

don't know to be honest which is why I simply suggested it for consideration rather than write a big blurb about it. Its pretty much only lens that seems to fit his needs.

But even if it can't resolve a 24mp sensor, the chances are its going to be good enough for the resolution he'll be printing.

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

Whenever I use my 70-200 f/2.8, I find I always need some wide shots too. Like photos of my daughter posing with her friends.

My solution is to also carry my Sony RX100II. Fits really nicely in a small bag that goes on my belt.

I apologize for not coming back to this thread sooner. I had some personal business to take care of and went to NY for 4 days. The day after we returned, the little one (if you want to call her that..14YO, 5' 9", lol) had a game in a gym I had never been at. I decided to roll the dice and bring 1 lens (70-200). I did NO EDITING, other than resizing and rotating. I also uploaded some NY pics. The next volleyball game is a home game on Tuesday and I'm going to try out my 50mm. I also found out the camera has, what's called, 'smart teleconverter'. Which supposedly, using my 50, can make it a 50mm (1X), 72mm (1.4X) or 100mm (2X), which I want to try.


70-200, 1/640, F/2.8, ISO 4000


70-200, 1/800, F/2.8, ISO 4000


70-200, 1/640, F/2.8, ISO 4000


15-30, 1/3 sec, F/22, ISO 250


15-30, 1/250, F/4.5, ISO 640


15-30, 1/500, F/7.1, ISO 640


Peleng 8mm, 1/3, F/3.5, ISO 640

[No message]

I was planning to try that with my 50mm on Tuesday. It would be to close for my 70-200.

[No message]

Eddi D said:

I have a A77II on its way (due here Wednesday). I've been hesitant to buy any new lenses due to budget. Our youngest started playing HS volleyball and I'm having a little problem getting wide enough with my 70-200 and my 28-75 doesn't zoom enough for my liking. So, I've decided to suck it up and possibly sell a couple of my lenses to finance something new. Below I listed my lenses and whether I would like to keep it, dump it or on the fence. I have a Sony kit lens my wife can use for my A100, so the 28-75 can go, though it is a nice lens.

Peleng 8mm fisheye (on the fence)
Minolta 50mm 1.7 (keep)
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5 DG (on the fence)
Tamron 28-75 2.8mm XR DI (on the fence)
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG (I LOVE this lens, but would sell it for the right replacement)
Sigma APO 2X EX DG Teleconverter (dump)

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

A Sigma 50-150 2.8f if you can find a good used one.

Samsolar said:

Eddi D said:

I have a A77II on its way (due here Wednesday). I've been hesitant to buy any new lenses due to budget. Our youngest started playing HS volleyball and I'm having a little problem getting wide enough with my 70-200 and my 28-75 doesn't zoom enough for my liking. So, I've decided to suck it up and possibly sell a couple of my lenses to finance something new. Below I listed my lenses and whether I would like to keep it, dump it or on the fence. I have a Sony kit lens my wife can use for my A100, so the 28-75 can go, though it is a nice lens.

Peleng 8mm fisheye (on the fence)
Minolta 50mm 1.7 (keep)
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5 DG (on the fence)
Tamron 28-75 2.8mm XR DI (on the fence)
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG (I LOVE this lens, but would sell it for the right replacement)
Sigma APO 2X EX DG Teleconverter (dump)

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

A Sigma 50-150 2.8f if you can find a good used one.

Click to expand...

Taken with a Sima 50-150