Bit the bullet, ordered a new lens

[VirtualMirage]

While ever so patiently waiting for Sigma to begin shipping the 18-35mm F/1.8 that I preordered back in June 2013, I've been going through my wish list to see what other lenses I need/want to add to my collection (Christmas money and some side work income helps too). Currently, I own the following:

• Sony 35mm F/1.8 SAM
• Sony 50mm F/1.4
• Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Macro
• Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8
• Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG IF HSM
• Minolta 70-210mm F/4, aka "Beercan"

The Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 will fill my gap between the Tokina and Sigma, so that leaves my weakest/slowest section above the 70mm range. My beercan is nice for the price, but it certainly is the weak link in the chain. Wide open it is a little soft and it fringes hard in bright light. AF is not the fastest and it is my slowest lens aperture-wise. But I will say when I do get a good shot from it, they are beautiful...just not consistent and it doesn't really let my A77 shine. He are some examples of my better shots with the beercan:

Next is my Sigma 24-70. For the price it, too, is a good performer. It may not be as sharp as the Tamron or Zeiss, but I don't think it is too far behind the Tamron when used on an APS-C (Full frame is a different story). It's weakest at 70mm, which needing a +9 MFA at 70mm yet a +1 at 24mm doesn't help. So I contemplated buying the Zeiss and selling the Sigma. But the lens is in great shape and still under warranty. I remembered there was a bulletin issued in 2011 for a firmware update to resolve some AF issues with the A65/A77 cameras, so I figured I would send it in to get the firmware updated and have Sigma test out the lens and calibrate it. So I sent the lens off on Monday and it should have arrived at their office today, but inclement weather has delayed the delivery to tomorrow. Sigma stated that expect a 2-3 day turn around time once they receive the lens. So here's hoping that it comes back improved. If it doesn't improve as much as I would like, then I will begin saving for the Zeiss. The Tamron, at the moment, I don't feel is worth the premium when used on an APS-C. If I knew I was going to full frame soon, then I would consider it. Here are some of my better shots with the Sigma:

So off to my list. I kept going back and forth as to whether I want to look at a prime or a zoom. I really, really want the Zeiss 135mm F/1.8, but I keep wondering if they will release an SSM variant in the near future. I also was concerned if that should be more secondary on my list since my primary limitation is in my telephoto zoom capability.

So the next option was a 70-200mm. The new Sony 70-200 G II looks to be very nice, but $3,000 is more than I want to spend. My budget is no more than $2,000, $2,200 if I want to push it. So as much as I drool over it, it's currently untouchable. That leaves me the Sony 70-200 G I, the new Tamron, and the Sigma. The older Sony seems to fall short when compared to the new Tamron. The Sigma seems to have so much variation in quality based on reviews and user experiences. The main thing that seemed consistent is that it is strong at 200mm but seems to fall short everywhere else. And to add to that F/2.8 seems to be a little softer than I want as well as it being pretty weak on full frame due to its corner sharpness. But it is cheaper, but I feel the Tamron is worth the $250 premium. My biggest issue with the Tamron is it falling shorter than I think I would prefer when focusing on close up subjects at 200mm due to its heavy focus breathing. But even the Sigma seems to suffer from it. So then I decided to look back at the Sony 70-200mm G II just to say, not worth the extra $1500 (at least not now). Then I started ogling the 70-400mm G SSM II. I can see instance where I would really like that extra reach. But the F/4-F/5.6 would be very hard for me to be happy with when trying to do low light shooting. So back to the F/2.8s I go.

So long story short, I decided to order the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 USD. Barring any weather delays, it should be here tomorrow. I plan to test it out thoroughly to make sure it meets my expectations. I also plan, time permitting, to throw it up on a tripod and do test shots with my LensAlign Mk II and review the results with my FocusTune software. I want to make sure that there isn't any decentering going on and that any MFA adjustments that are needed are consistent throughout its focal range.

If the lens turns out to be a keeper but still feel I need more reach, I might toy with the idea of getting a 1.4x teleconverter. I have read that some people have had some good results using one with this lens.

--
Paul

 

[enemjii]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

 

[nandbytes]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

sony 35mm f/1.8 delivers far above its price for quality. I don't have many pics as I am using my work laptop but here is a sample (for a APS-C sony it'd say its a must have):

But I am currently using minolta 50mm f1.7

 

[VirtualMirage]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

I really enjoy using my 35mm, especially after I calibrated it with some MFA compensation. I find it as a great walk around lens and for taking portraits of multiple people. It is a little soft wide open, but sharpens up quickly when stopped down to about F/2.2. I don't have too many online, but here are a few:

--
Paul

 

[nandbytes]

have you considered CZ 16-35mm its faster and also supports DMF.

Also have you considered buying use lenses. The sony 70-200 G, I found one today for £800 (nearly half price in this country), so prices are going down and I think we will see more on the market.

 

[VirtualMirage]

have you considered CZ 16-35mm its faster and also supports DMF.

Also have you considered buying use lenses. The sony 70-200 G, I found one today for £800 (nearly half price in this country), so prices are going down and I think we will see more on the market.

The CZ 16-35mm isn't faster than the Sigma 18-35 and costs 2.5 times more, but it is full frame ready. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, I suppose.

As for comparing it to any of my other lenses, the only lens it is faster than is my beercan but they cover two very different focal lengths. And I wouldn't consider replacing my 24-70 with it since I will be losing the longer end of my lens coverage.

I do consider some used lenses as an option if the price is worth it. Here, the 70-200 G (first gen) used goes for around $1,500-1,600 (maybe $100-$200 less from a forum site), while new it still goes for $2,000. Right now, being that the Tamron performs so well against the first gen 70-200 and the Tamron coming in around the same price or cheaper than the Sony used, I would prefer the Tamron (especially since I have a warranty to go with it).

 

[nandbytes]

have you considered CZ 16-35mm its faster and also supports DMF.

Also have you considered buying use lenses. The sony 70-200 G, I found one today for £800 (nearly half price in this country), so prices are going down and I think we will see more on the market.

The CZ 16-35mm isn't faster than the Sigma 18-35 and costs 2.5 times more, but it is full frame ready. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, I suppose.

As for comparing it to any of my other lenses, the only lens it is faster than is my beercan but they cover two very different focal lengths. And I wouldn't consider replacing my 24-70 with it since I will be losing the longer end of my lens coverage.

I do consider some used lenses as an option if the price is worth it. Here, the 70-200 G (first gen) used goes for around $1,500-1,600 (maybe $100-$200 less from a forum site), while new it still goes for $2,000. Right now, being that the Tamron performs so well against the first gen 70-200 and the Tamron coming in around the same price or cheaper than the Sony used, I would prefer the Tamron (especially since I have a warranty to go with it).

--
Paul

sorry meant to say "but its faster" as in sigma is faster. Typo

thats true the 6 year warranty is impressive. also any considerations for the new tamron 150-600? or don't you need such a range with smaller apertures.

 

[VirtualMirage]

sorry meant to say "but its faster" as in sigma is faster. Typo

thats true the 6 year warranty is impressive. also any considerations for the new tamron 150-600? or don't you need such a range with smaller apertures.

The Tamron 150-600 at this moment doesn't really fit what I shoot most of the time and is a bit too long on the wide end for me. I can see it being a very good birding lens, which I don't do much of (save for my hummingbirds and birds in the back yard (woodpeckers, cardinals, finches, etc.). The Sony 70-400 G SSM II, however, I can see useful for when I go to the zoo or doing shots of the moon. But for now I'll make do with the 70-200 F/2.8 and possibly a teleconverter.

 

[enemjii]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

I really enjoy using my 35mm, especially after I calibrated it with some MFA compensation. I find it as a great walk around lens and for taking portraits of multiple people. It is a little soft wide open, but sharpens up quickly when stopped down to about F/2.2. I don't have too many online, but here are a few:

 

[enemjii]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

sony 35mm f/1.8 delivers far above its price for quality. I don't have many pics as I am using my work laptop but here is a sample (for a APS-C sony it'd say its a must have):

But I am currently using minolta 50mm f1.7

Thanks Nand. The background blur/bokeh definitely looks nice. thank you for your inputs.
--
http://www.zeusboutique.com

 

[VirtualMirage]

Do you have any pictures with the Sony 35 f1.8 DT SAM that you can share?

I have the Sony A65 with 18-135mm lens, and was wondering if this 35mm lens would be useful to me as a dedicated lens. I am no professional photographer, but I intend to take pictures of my customers wearing the clothes I sell at my boutique and use them for advt. via email, facebook, pinterest, et al.

sony 35mm f/1.8 delivers far above its price for quality. I don't have many pics as I am using my work laptop but here is a sample (for a APS-C sony it'd say its a must have):

But I am currently using minolta 50mm f1.7

Thanks Nand. The background blur/bokeh definitely looks nice. thank you for your inputs.
--
http://www.zeusboutique.com

Now that I am home, here is one that I shot at F/1.8:







--
Paul

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

Thanks VirtualMirage, I found your post very interesting as I am undergoing some similar decisions around lens buying.

I identify the following areas in my line up I would like to improve;

35, 50, 135 Primes; Considering the 35 Sigma Art, 35 Sony DT, Sony 50 Zeiss SSM. I would love the STF but the 135 focal length is lowest priority at this stage.

I recently picked up a rokinon 85 1.4 to fill the 85 1.4 length, and it performs well on this, manual focus is not too big an issue unless trying to shoot fast moving subjects, such as children on the move. I do not think I need anything more than this stage at this focal length and it was basically brand new in box for half new price.

I also picked up the 16 - 50 2.8, and I do not know how I shot so long without this lens, it is just a great all rounder and works perfectly with a77.

I am also considering the 18 - 35 1.8 but starting to overlap a lot of focal lengths and this would not be considered if I picked up a prime at the 35 length. My question is, do you find the 35 1.8 DT sufficient? It could be a good low cost option.

I think your decision to go with the new tamron is a good choice. I am happy with the 70 200 g but just find I do not use it so much due to heft. It really only gets taken out when planning a specialist shoot, which is not so often. Its just a lot of money to have tied up in a lens that gets less use than other lenses.

 

[nandbytes]

I am also considering the 18 - 35 1.8 but starting to overlap a lot of focal lengths and this would not be considered if I picked up a prime at the 35 length. My question is, do you find the 35 1.8 DT sufficient? It could be a good low cost option.

Yep, it was more than sufficient IMO. better than minolta 50mm f1.7

What its lacks in build quality (hence low price) it more than makes up with IQ. I think someone made a thread asking why it "rattled" lol (it does that).

Its one of the must have primes if you like that focal range. I think some people compare it to the more expensive 35mm f1.4 in terms of IQ (especially at wider ends).

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

I think it might be a good option to save money considering I am staying with the APS-C environment for the foreseeable future. When I look at my lens line up I am too heavily invested in APS-C to really consider FF, and I like too many of the lenses for flexibility to sell many of them.

 

[nandbytes]

I think it might be a good option to save money considering I am staying with the APS-C environment for the foreseeable future. When I look at my lens line up I am too heavily invested in APS-C to really consider FF, and I like too many of the lenses for flexibility to sell many of them.

If you are considering going FF i would suggest slowly dropping APS-C lenses and buying FF lenses. Apart from your 16-50mm and tokina I don't think any others I would consider as huge investments (in terms of great quality keeper lenses thats hard to replace, of course you may have a different view). So I would slowly sell and replace others.

Your minolta collection is already FF and so is your G lens

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

I think it might be a good option to save money considering I am staying with the APS-C environment for the foreseeable future. When I look at my lens line up I am too heavily invested in APS-C to really consider FF, and I like too many of the lenses for flexibility to sell many of them.

If you are considering going FF i would suggest slowly dropping APS-C lenses and buying FF lenses. Apart from your 16-50mm and tokina I don't think any others I would consider as huge investments (in terms of great quality keeper lenses thats hard to replace, of course you may have a different view). So I would slowly sell and replace others.

Your minolta collection is already FF and so is your G lens

I have decided not to go FF until probably 2016, depending on finances etc at that time. The image quality I get from APS-C is sufficient for my needs. It would be a nice to have FF but it is definitely a luxury / want, not a need. Going FF means investing about 6 - 10 grand when factoring in top end lenses and cameras.

I see too many shots from people who have gone FF that could easily be achieved with APS-C. They are not getting value out of their investment, other than the want of having it. Great if you have tonnes of money to have this luxury.

 

[nandbytes]

I have decided not to go FF until probably 2016, depending on finances etc at that time. The image quality I get from APS-C is sufficient for my needs. It would be a nice to have FF but it is definitely a luxury / want, not a need. Going FF means investing about 6 - 10 grand when factoring in top end lenses and cameras.

Hence its better to mainly invest in FF lenses from the start to minimise further loses.

I see too many shots from people who have gone FF that could easily be achieved with APS-C. They are not getting value out of their investment, other than the want of having it. Great if you have tonnes of money to have this luxury.

hope you didn't mean me

but yeah you are right, I could get my shots with APS-C a lot of the times. Don't need tonnes of money, just need to have a job and be single (Also living with parents help, no rent, bills, food money etc etc lol)

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

I have decided not to go FF until probably 2016, depending on finances etc at that time. The image quality I get from APS-C is sufficient for my needs. It would be a nice to have FF but it is definitely a luxury / want, not a need. Going FF means investing about 6 - 10 grand when factoring in top end lenses and cameras.

Hence its better to mainly invest in FF lenses from the start to minimise further loses.

I had this option before buying some aps-c lenses recently, the 16 - 50 2.8 for example. However from what I can tell to replace this lens and to buy Zeiss i would have to get the 16 - 35 2.8 and 24 - 70 2.8, then live with these lenses on APS-C until I invested in a FF camera, and on APS-C they would not add much more IQ than the 16-50. I also got such a good price on this lens I it was the best solution for me now.

All of my lenses I have bought at great prices so when I do decide to sell will not incur a big loss, unless A Mount goes belly up, then that is another situation. Either way, my current line up can last a long time. I would incur a big loss only on my a77, as I bought it when it was first released, and would lose about a grand if i sold it now, so may as well use it up.

The only FF lenses I am considering investing in now is possibly the 35 sigma art or 50 Zeiss 1.4 as these would add value and usability to my current lineup. This would place me well if I went FF, and would also be useful on APS-C, but then again i could save a lot of bucks and by the 35 DT for 150 dollars second hand. Its not easy deciding which way to go at this point.

I see too many shots from people who have gone FF that could easily be achieved with APS-C. They are not getting value out of their investment, other than the want of having it. Great if you have tonnes of money to have this luxury.

hope you didn't mean me

but yeah you are right, I could get my shots with APS-C a lot of the times. Don't need tonnes of money, just need to have a job and be single (Also living with parents help, no rent, bills, food money etc etc lol)

Not talking about you specifically, only you can judge whether it was a good choice for you.

For me, I have a son, a wife, and need to invest for my sons future so this is also a deciding factor.

 

[nandbytes]

I have decided not to go FF until probably 2016, depending on finances etc at that time. The image quality I get from APS-C is sufficient for my needs. It would be a nice to have FF but it is definitely a luxury / want, not a need. Going FF means investing about 6 - 10 grand when factoring in top end lenses and cameras.

Hence its better to mainly invest in FF lenses from the start to minimise further loses.

I had this option before buying some aps-c lenses recently, the 16 - 50 2.8 for example. However from what I can tell to replace this lens and to buy Zeiss i would have to get the 16 - 35 2.8 and 24 - 70 2.8, then live with these lenses on APS-C until I invested in a FF camera, and on APS-C they would not add much more IQ than the 16-50. I also got such a good price on this lens I it was the best solution for me now.

I wouldn't replace 16-50 and tokina 11-16 (replace at the very end) if you go down this route.

All of my lenses I have bought at great prices so when I do decide to sell will not incur a big loss, unless A Mount goes belly up, then that is another situation. Either way, my current line up can last a long time. I would incur a big loss only on my a77, as I bought it when it was first released, and would lose about a grand if i sold it now, so may as well use it up.

The only FF lenses I am considering investing in now is possibly the 35 sigma art or 50 Zeiss 1.4 as these would add value and usability to my current lineup. This would place me well if I went FF, and would also be useful on APS-C, but then again i could save a lot of bucks and by the 35 DT for 150 dollars second hand. Its not easy deciding which way to go at this point.

Well for the price just get 35mm DT lol. I bought it and sold it with no problems at no loss. These lenses and 16-50 sell like hot cakes.

I see too many shots from people who have gone FF that could easily be achieved with APS-C. They are not getting value out of their investment, other than the want of having it. Great if you have tonnes of money to have this luxury.

hope you didn't mean me

but yeah you are right, I could get my shots with APS-C a lot of the times. Don't need tonnes of money, just need to have a job and be single (Also living with parents help, no rent, bills, food money etc etc lol)

Not talking about you specifically, only you can judge whether it was a good choice for you.

For me, I have a son, a wife, and need to invest for my sons future so this is also a deciding factor.

I know I was joking. yeah you need to think about other people unlike me lol. I still think about the future, saving up for a house etc.

 

[VirtualMirage]

...I am also considering the 18 - 35 1.8 but starting to overlap a lot of focal lengths and this would not be considered if I picked up a prime at the 35 length. My question is, do you find the 35 1.8 DT sufficient? It could be a good low cost option.

The 35mm F/1.8 is a great lens, especially for the price. Initially, I found it to be only a good performer but after doing some fine tuning via MFA it really stepped it up a notch in large aperture shooting. The only reason I would get rid of the 35mm F/1.8 is if my 18-35mm F/1.8 ends up matching or exceeding it in image quality and sharpness.

My biggest issues with the 35mm F/1.8 is that the mount is plastic, it isn't SSM, the focus ring turns when it auto focuses, and I can't manually override the focus unless I flip a switch (I like this with my Sigma 24-70mm HSM). Now I am sure the plastic mount is fine, but it would give the lens a little more reassurance in durability if it was metal. As for the focusing, I don't find it very fast and it is a little noisy. I shoot video every now and then and you can certainly hear it, forcing me to manual focus. Plus, with the SAM motor the focus ring can't be used to override or fine tune focus until you flip a switch to disengage the motor.

All that said, it is certainly a "plastic fantastic" and a great walk around lens. It's got its quirks and flaws, but the optics are sound.