Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 25, 2006, 8:28 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

looking for a wide anglezoom lens

excellentin quality

excellentin sharpness

excellent for low light situations
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 26, 2006, 7:40 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

21 views

no replies

please help:?
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:01 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The widest zoom I've got (other than the 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens) is a Tamron SP 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 (a discontinued lens model, but they're available on the used market).

It's not a bad lens. But, as a general rule, if I'm shooting in lower light, I prefer to use my Minolta 28mm f/2 instead. The extra stop can come in handy. Actually, I wish I had an f/1.4 instead a lot of the time. If the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC lens would have been shipping at the time, I probably would have bought it instead. lol

Sigma makes an 18-50mm f/2.8 that you can get in Minolta mount. Reports are a bit mixed with it.

Tamron has a new 17-50mm f/2.8 that should be hitting the store shelves soon. But, I haven't seen it appear at vendors like B&H yet.

What's your budget?

How wide and how bright (i.e, do you need f/2.8 throughout the focal range)?

You can still buy the Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4 AF lens (a bit over $400 at vendors like B&H). You'd lose a stop to f/4 compared to an f/2.8 zoom on it's long end.

Sigma is now making a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC lens in Minolta mount, too (again, it's not going to be as bright on it's long end as a zoom that can maintain f/2.8 throughout it's focal range, but you've got more total focal range than most similar f/2.8 zooms).

In a lens that doesn't start out as wide, the Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 is a popular lens. Ditto for the Tamron branded version of it.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:16 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

my mind was just floating between

tamaron 30 1.4 or sigma 18-50 2.8

i dont place a budget when it come to making these type of decission

just want to make sure i make a good choice
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:20 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Well, no one lens is going to be perfect for all conditions. Any choice tends to be a compromise in one area or another (size, weight, focal range, brightness, etc.).

What have you got now in lenses, and where are you seeing limitations with your existing gear?

What conditions do you need a newer lens for?

Maybe if you let us know a little bit more about why you need a wider zoom, some of the forum members can help to steer you in the right direction.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:38 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

at present i have a KM 5D with a tamron 28-300 zoom (latest model)

its a great walk about zoom, but shows its limit in focusing in low light situations. and always find myself going to too high iso speeds, and the end result looks grainy or in digital heavy pixelated.

i dont like to use flash, more prefer to go with existing light. i have a tripod but hate lugging it around, so its always in my cupboard somewhere.


dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:52 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The key to getting better high ISO shots is not to underexpose. Even a little underexposure can mean a big boost in noise levels. You'll find that the default metering is heavily weighted towards your focus point. So, if you're not careful about what you focus on, that can cause underexposure (a brighter focus point may cause the entire scene to be a bit darker).

But, that particular lens is not really a low light lens. That's part of the compromise for the convenience you have with a lens as small and light as it is with that kind of focal range from wide to long. An f/2.8 zoom with it's focal range would be very large and heavy. That's why you don't see any like that. ;-)

What conditions are you looking to use a lens in? Are you looking for something you can use indoors without a flash?

If so, I'd personally suggest using a prime instead of a zoom (letting your feet act as your zoom). My Minolta 28mm f/2 is my favorite lens for that purpose, and it's going to be twice as bright as any zoom you can buy for your 5D (f/2 is twice as bright as f/2.8, which is the brightest zoom available).

A lens like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC I mentioned is going to be 4 times as bright as any zoom you can buy (f/1.4 is 4 times as bright as f/2.8, allowing shutter speeds 4 times as fast for the same lighting and ISO speed).

Of course, you have some drawbacks if you try to shoot at the largest apertures, too. You'll have a shallower depth of field. So, you'll need to be careful of your focus point if using one at wider apertures and closer ranges. You don't have to use the widest aperture available if light permits using a smaller one, though.

Is the 28mm end of your Tamron wide enough, or is that also a limitation and you need something wider to work for you?

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 8:59 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

I just bought the 17-35 f2.8-4 KM lens from a forum member who had decided to go with canon. I haven't had a chance to use it yet; been busy and the Houston weather isn't cooperating this week. I did take a few casual shots with it, and I like the feel; it is close to the size and weightof the KM28-75 f2.8, but with a 77mm filter as opposed to the 67mm of the 28-75. It is smooth and quiet focusing and zooming.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 9:02 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

B&H still has them in stock, also.

KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D) AF Lens at B&H for $429.95
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2006, 9:11 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

If your trying to replace a tripod with a lens and want great quality, might as well go for f/1.4

It still wont be enough all the time, but f/2.8 is only two thirds of a stop brighter than the 28-300 at its widest so thats a very small improvement. I found focusing with the 28-300 to be very spotty, sometimes it worked perfect and quick but often it was very bad. In this repsect you'll probably see some improvement with any lens (in dim conditions). Primes are really the way to go for what you describe.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:21 AM.