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 Mar 1, 2007, 6:59 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

if you had to start a fresh, had a 5D, 3600 flash, and only wanted 3 lenses

taking auto focus speed and quality into consideration

which 3 would you pick:?

look foward to your responce

dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2007, 9:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
taking auto focus speed and quality into consideration

which 3 would you pick:?
Not price? Not having to change lenses all the time?

That's easy.

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ($1,399.95)
Carl Zeiss® Planar® T* 85mm f/1.4 ($1,299.95)
Carl Zeiss® Sonnar® T* 135mm f/1.8 ($1,399.95)

All fixed focal length.

I'm an available light photographer (f/3.5 s*cks, and f/2.8 isn't much better) and I drool at the thought of these lenses.


TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:43 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

thats way out of my price range

was looking more at

sigma 30 1.4 every day pics / low light

tamron 17-50 landscape

minolta 100-300 apo nature

are these goog choices

:?
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 12:32 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 323
Default

I have a Tamron 17-50mm. It's a nice lens. However, it's bit short for portraits. If you want to do portrait and/or macro work you might want to consider the Tamron 90mm Macro as a part of your line-up.

--FrankD
FrankD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 1:12 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
thats way out of my price range
They're out of my price range too, but that's not what you asked. I thought you were starting one of those "Fantasy Photography" topics.

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
sigma 30 1.4 every day pics / low light
Yeah, I like this lens too. But everytime I look at it I also see the Sigma 24mm f/1.8. The 24mm is a little bit wider and a little bit better, but a little bit darker and a little bit heavier, and for a little bit less money. Tough choice. And for some reason, the 30 seems a lot harder to find than the 24.

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
tamron 17-50 landscape
Nice lens. The kit lens covers the same range for a lot less money, but f/2.8 would be nice.

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
minolta 100-300 apo nature
Also a nice lens. Better than the 75-300 but for more money.

BTW, this and the 75-300are available used from www.keh.com for less than $100. And the 75-300 could fill in for portraits.

(None of this is from my own personal experience. Just what I've seen during my own shopping.)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 3:29 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

T Cav my fantasy is to have a lens

17-300 1.8, small , compact, light, excellent optics, and at a decient price

but thats wish full thinking

at present i own a 5D with the tamron 28-300, (i am not happy with the tamron output )and thinking of getting rid of that lens and getting 2 good zoom lenses or 3 primes within my budget,

taking land scaping, low light, portraitand nature into account

but having a hard time on choosing
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 5:06 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

minolta 50mm f1.7 $90-100 used

minolta 70-200 f4 (beercan)$175used

or

minolta 80-200 f2.8 APO$900 used

minolta 28-100 'kit'$90new



if you need wide for landscape : 20mm f2 or 2.8 $150-200 used
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 7:31 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Well, the three you've picked are pretty good. I would agree with bernabeuthat the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 would be a nice addition for not very much money. I love it for low light, protraits, and kids photos.

And as I said, the 100-300 and the 75-300 are available used for very reasonable prices. I have the Minolta 18-200 and am thinking of the 75-300 myself.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

how about

50 1.7 minolta

24-105 minolta

:?
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2007, 7:13 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

This one for starters (but, I'd hurry if you want one):

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=84


JimC 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 8:07 PM.