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 Dec 5, 2006, 11:46 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
MINOLTANUT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 807
Default

SIGMA 2.8 70-200 WORKS FOR ME :|
MINOLTANUT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 12:10 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

70-200 wouldn't work for me for a standard zoom though.

I have considered the 18-50 Tamron, it would leave a gap in my coverage ( 50-70mm) in bright glass, but it does more closely match my ideal on the short end. I'd probably wait if that CZ 16-80 was going to be f2.8, but I can't see buying a f3.5-4.5 lens for (my guess) $1,300.


Edit- I just picked up a Tokina 28-70 f2.8 (the really old one) on Ebay for under $150 shipped. At that price I figure if I don't like it, I can make a pretty good profit off it on resale. That sales guy at Adorama isn't going to be happy at all, lol.
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 8:00 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Why not get the KM 28-70 2.8 and pull out the kit lens if you need a wider angle? At 3.5 it is not that far off from 2.8.

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 8:24 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Though I just picked up that Tokina, I'm not sure my search is over. I just figured it was easily worth the money and so no risk. I may wind up with that KM lens, a lot of you really like it.

I do have a Sigma 18-50, but it's not a real sharp example (but it does at least focus right) so I can cover shorter than 28mm. I'd just prefer to have a good lens in that range. My budget only allows one step at a time though. That range is 2 down the line from the one I'm looking into now, then a 80-200 f2.8, then a good short zoom. I'll get to it. :-)
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2006, 10:09 PM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Mercury694 wrote:
Quote:
I'd probably wait if that CZ 16-80 was going to be f2.8, but I can't see buying a f3.5-4.5 lens for (my guess) $1,300.
Sonystyle.com originally showed the suggested list at $699.95 for it. Then, they removed the pricing after the expected delivery date got pushed out.

You'd also want to look at how linear the available aperture was from f/3.5-4.5 to see if you could live with it, since you're only a half stop off from an f/2.8 zoom on the wide end, and only a stop and a half down at a focal length that's longer than most wider f/2.8 zooms would go anyway.

I doubt it will be designed like the 18-70mm kit lens (already down to f/5.6 by the time you're at 35mm with it). lol The rolloff as focal lengths increase will likely be much better from f/3.5-4.5 for a Carl Zeiss branded lens that they're probably counting to market as step above a consumer grade lens. We'll just have to wait and see.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that there will probably a one stop or less difference in brightness at most focal lengths shared with the new Carl Zeiss and most (but, not all) of the f/2.8 zooms that you could find starting out at either 18, 24, or 28mm; and the Sony will end up being a sharper lens compared to most f/2.8 zooms.

When I got my Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, I took sharpness wide open into consideration, since I wanted to make sure I'd get good photos with a zoom wide open, comparing it's MTF Chart to some of the MTF charts for f/2.8 zooms (since most brighter lenses have a rep for being a tad softer wide open).

For example, look at the MTF chart for this Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II, as compared to the Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (and yes, I realize that Tokina has a few different zooms with this focal range, but this is the only one I see MTF charts for at photodo.com)

The Minolta is sharper wide open compared to this Tokina stopped down to f/4 or smaller apertures at similar focal lengths (and comparing the long end, it's even sharper wide open compared to this Tokina stopped all the way down to f/8, even though the Minolta is softest on it's long end).

Pincushion Distortion on the long end of the Minolta is little higher. But, the Minolta goes longer, so there may not be any difference at 70mm where the Tokina ends at. Even better, barrel distortion is better with the Minolta at 24mm, compared to the Tokina's starting point of a longer 28mm.

Tokina ATX 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 Pro II
Photodo test result: 3,1
Effective focal length: 29 - 67 mm
Weighted MTF for 28 mm: f2,6 0,62, f4 0,71, f8 0,75
Weighted MTF for 40 mm: f2,8 0,59, f4 0,71, f8 0,78
Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2,8 0,56, f4 0,70, f8 0,73
Average Weighted MTF: 0,73 Grade: 3,1
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,84
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,68
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,41
Max distortion: -3,91% - 3,72%

http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/det...26-2-841.shtml

Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Lens
Photodo test result: 3,5
Effective focal length: 24 - 81
Weighted MTF for 24 mm: f3,5 0,74, f8 0,80
Weighted MTF for 35 mm: f3,8 0,74, f8 0,80
Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f4,2 0,75, f8 0,79
Weighted MTF for 85 mm: f4,5 0,75, f8 0,76
Average Weighted MTF: 0,77 Grade: 3,5
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,87
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,72
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,46
Distortion: -3,13% - 4,35%

http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/det...5-45-371.shtml

When lens shopping, one thing that influenced my decision to go with the 24-85mm as a walk around was it's sharpness wide open, since most (but, not all) f/2.8 lenses would need to be stopped down a bit anyway for best results), and I've got primes to fall back on if light gets too low for it. As an added bonus, the Minolta is smaller, lighter and less expensive compared to f/2.8 zooms that have similar focal ranges, going as wide or wider, and longer, compared to the common ones (Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8; Tamron/KM 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ).

Of course, I also have some brighter zooms (my two Tamrons).

None of them are perfect, and charts never tell the whole story anyway. But, the charts influenced my thinking when deciding on it as my primary "standard zoom". lol

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 6:08 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

I don't have anything against that 24-85 Minolta zoom, it looks to be a nice lens. It may even suit me better than the one I bought last night, but I wasn't going to pass up that lens for under $150 shipped. The new Tokina 'super value' (e.g. plastic) version is selling for $100 more and is not nearly as well reviewed. I may even break down and post a couple of shots from it. ( It should arrive Friday)

The range of the Minolta 24-85 is a better range, but the tradeoff was brightness. I still have a 18-50 lens that starts at f3.5 which has disappointed me in several low ambient light situations. It's a Sigma though, and Sigma has let me down the last 3 times ( 18-50 f3.5-5.6 DC, 28-105 f 3.8-5.6 ASP IF, Super DG Ef500 flash). Of the 3, the 18-50 is the most impressive, which isn't saying much.

It could be the answer doesn't even lie in one standard zoom, but in 2 or 3. This would be ironic since zooms are the 'answer' to carrying around half a dozen primes. I bet my camera bag is heavier now than it ever was before I started accepting zooms. lol.
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 8:41 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Here is what I own for my KM5D in lenses:

Tamron 28-300XR 3.5-6.3

KM 18-70 kit lens (3.5-5.6, I think)

KM 28-70 (75?) f2.8

Vivitar 70-210 2.8-4

Vivitar 100-400 4-6.3

Minolta 50 1.7

And a 2x teleconverter.

I leave my Tamron on 95% of the time, but it is nice to know to have the extra range to go wider or longer or faster as needed. All of those lenses are top notch, I find. I have never used the teleconverter so far or the extension tubes and some of the other niceties, but it's good to know to have them.

With this setup I really cannot think of anything I need to add. Maybe a 500mm mirror lens if I get it really cheap, or the Sigma 10-20. But really my "lens addiction" has come to an end.

Rainer






rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 7:13 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
But really my "lens addiction" has come to an end.

Rainer





Sure....... we believe you. :homey:
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 7:30 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Mercury694 wrote:
Quote:
I don't have anything against that 24-85 Minolta zoom, it looks to be a nice lens. It may even suit me better than the one I bought last night, but I wasn't going to pass up that lens for under $150 shipped. The new Tokina 'super value' (e.g. plastic) version is selling for $100 more and is not nearly as well reviewed. I may even break down and post a couple of shots from it. ( It should arrive Friday)

The range of the Minolta 24-85 is a better range, but the tradeoff was brightness. I still have a 18-50 lens that starts at f3.5 which has disappointed me in several low ambient light situations. It's a Sigma though, and Sigma has let me down the last 3 times ( 18-50 f3.5-5.6 DC, 28-105 f 3.8-5.6 ASP IF, Super DG Ef500 flash). Of the 3, the 18-50 is the most impressive, which isn't saying much.

It could be the answer doesn't even lie in one standard zoom, but in 2 or 3. This would be ironic since zooms are the 'answer' to carrying around half a dozen primes. I bet my camera bag is heavier now than it ever was before I started accepting zooms. lol.
If you can pick up a24-85mm at a decent price it will make a nice addition to your collection. I know it may seem redundant since the range is close to the 28-70mm, but it makes for a nice walk aroundoutdoors when you don't need a high powered zoom. Having the extra 4mm (6mm with crop factor)at the wide end makes quite a bit of difference for landscape when you don't have the flexibility to take a few steps back. When I can carry two lenses I pair this with the 70-210mm F4beercan or the 75-300mm KM.Sometimes I wish I had the smallerF 3.5-4.5 non-beercan version. If I need to shoot wider when traveling in pairs, I pair up the 24-85mmwith the 11-18mm KM lens.

I'm dying to get the 18-250mm Tamron when it comes out. Despite the disadvantages of an all-in-one solution that is going to be the ultimate walk-around lens. That zoomwill be virtually glued to one of my bodies if I ever get my hands on one and virtually eliminate getting dust into the camera.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2006, 11:05 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
I'm dying to get the 18-250mm Tamron when it comes out. Despite the disadvantages of an all-in-one solution that is going to be the ultimate walk-around lens. That zoomwill be virtually glued to one of my bodies if I ever get my hands on one and virtually eliminate getting dust into the camera.
I am thinking 5D with the 18-250, but who knows? I definately am waiting until the price drops a bit.
cope 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 6:21 AM.