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 May 7, 2007, 2:28 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 144
Default

Any one out there have one?

What do you think vs the kit lense?
kberntsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 7, 2007, 5:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I think the kit lens is very good.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2007, 5:48 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 144
Default

kberntsen wrote:
Quote:
Any one out there have one?

What do you think vs the kit lense?
I should add I realize this may be and apples vs oranges comparison. At least when you look at the price tag it is.

I'm kinda holding out till the high amateur body comes out to make the decision. I want a lense that focuses pretty fast. I'd look at the 18-250 Tamron but I've read that it is pretty slow.
kberntsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2007, 9:33 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 167
Default

kberntsen wrote:
Quote:
Any one out there have one?

What do you think vs the kit lense?
I like it for my purposes. It is a highly under-rated lens: sharpness is quite good as is the reproduction of light.

negatives: there is some barrel distortion at the widest-angle.

What's the f-stop on zeiss? I would imagine the kit lens will require flash indoors whilst the zeiss can use available light. It better, as you get what you pay for!

You should also consider the tamron af17-50 f2.8.
cgl88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 9:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

kberntsen wrote:
Quote:
Any one out there have one?

What do you think vs the kit lense?
At Dyxum.com, everyone that reviewed the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5 compared it to the KM/Sony 18-70 kit lens, and were glad they spent the money on the Zeiss. The Zeiss has a user rating of 4.69 (out of 5) with 14 reviews,while the Minolta has a 3.61 with 79 reviews,and the Sony has a 3.52 with 34 reviews. 14 reviews is pretty good considering the cost of the lens and that it competes with the kit lens.

If I had the money, I'd get one too. When one shows up on eBay, I'm there.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2007, 5:28 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 92
Default

In his reviews on photoclubalpha.com, David Kilpatrick reckons that the Tamron 18-200mm lens is close to the Zeiss 16-80mm lens in everything except focus where it is much slower but more accurate.

Food for thought.
Ikki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2007, 5:00 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 167
Default

Ikki wrote:
Quote:
In his reviews on photoclubalpha.com, David Kilpatrick reckons that the Tamron 18-200mm lens is close to the Zeiss 16-80mm lens in everything except focus where it is much slower but more accurate.

Food for thought.
Wow, no kidding. Good to know.
Does the CZ make a good indoor lens? f/stop starts at 3.5, whilst it is f/2.8 for the tamron 17-50mm
cgl88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2007, 5:39 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Ikki wrote:
Quote:
In his reviews on photoclubalpha.com, David Kilpatrick reckons that the Tamron 18-200mm lens is close to the Zeiss 16-80mm lens in everything except focus where it is much slower but more accurate.
I have the Minolta 18-200 (a rebranded Tamron) and it is the softest lens I own, and nothing I own compares to the Zeiss. I think you may be referring to the Tamron 18-250.

cgl88 wrote:
Quote:
Does the CZ make a good indoor lens? f/stop starts at 3.5, whilst it is f/2.8 for the tamron 17-50mm
f/3.5-4.5 does not an available light lens make. But f/2.8 isn't much better. The Tamron is about $350 cheaper, but it stops at 50mm also.

I think I'd go with the Tamron because I am, and have always been, an available light photographer.

What I really want is the 35mm f/1.4 G. What I really don't have is the $1,400.
TCav 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 10:51 PM.