Was thinking of selling/swapping my a99 II for a7R II

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Marco Cinnirella
Marco Cinnirella Veteran Member • Posts: 7,257
Re: Some of the old Minolta lenses are spectacular.

Anders_Nilsson wrote:

Douglas F Watt wrote:

Steve Cohan wrote:

In fact, I would not replace them with anything newer. Maybe you're operating in the margins with the ones that you have. To truly appreciate the 99II, put some equivalent glass on. Try any of the Zeiss lenses or anything from the Sigma art line. Until you see what those lenses do, you're not doing the body justice. I am in the school of a modest body with excellent lenses rather than a great body with mediocre lenses. I love the Minolta 80-200G f/2.8 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 and would use nothing else in place of them. Pick up a Sony/Zeiss 28-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and you'll see how the 99II really performs

Don't forget about the Sigma Art 24-105 f4. It's a better walk around lens IMHO than even the Zeiss 24-70 - not as fast, but the extra reach has proven invaluable and it's just a bit lighter, plus it's actually a bit sharper than the CZ at 24, where I did a lot of shooting. AF works great on that lens, and I don't miss the hybrid AF at all. It's a pity that only the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 24-105 are available from the amazing Sigma Art series. I'd buy the whole series.

With the Sony 70-400 G2 and the Sigma Art 24-105 I had a decent coverage from 24-400 with just those two lenses on a recent amazing two weeks in Italy.

Pictures were consistently superb from both lenses.

Mike seems to be very happy with his 24-105, claiming it's major step up from the Minolta 28-105. I have the Minolta 24-105 which can give very good results in the right circumstances. Kurt Munger didn't seem all that overwhelmed with the CZ vs the Minolta 24-105 though he acknowledged the CZ is a superior lens.

Don't need 2.8 but would like a better lens to match my DT1650 on my a77ii. Will the Sigma 24-105 match the CZ24-70 over the whole range or is it only at 24mm? I do most of my shooting in the 24-35 range but I will not buy a 24-35 zoom since I want a general purpose zoom.

Does the CZ have that "extra" like the 16-50 has? In my view the 1650 outdoes the Minolta even on the a99i in crop mode.

There seems to be sample variation in copies of the Sony CZ 24-70 2.8 lens - not all that unusual for fast zooms. Douglas perhaps didn't get a copy that was as strong at the 24 end as some copies. In contrast, my copy is very sharp through the focal length range, even wide open. It's noticeably sharper than my Tamron 24-70, but I do notice some AF oddities from time to time when using the extended hybrid AF points that go right into the corners on the a99ii. I have owned the Sony 16-50 f2.8 lens. It had a contrast and 3D rendering to it that was very Zeiss like. However my 24-70 Sony absolutely smokes that lens at the wide end - it is far, far better at 24 than the 16-50 was at 16, with much less complex distortion as well. My feeling is that overall the 24-70 is a better lens than the 16-50, as it should be given the price. I imagine Kurt probably got a mediocre copy of the 24-70. I tend to favour Dyxum.com for alpha-mount lens reviews because at least you can look at the average ratings across a sample of user reviews, and that should help to balance out sample variation if there are a reasonable number of reviews.

-- hide signature --

"When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence." Ansel Adams.

 Marco Cinnirella's gear list:Marco Cinnirella's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a99 II Sony Alpha a99 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Labe
MOD Labe
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow