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 Apr 2, 2008, 9:05 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Thanks again for both of yours, those are very good and usefull links. Now I think I can go ahead and buy both lenses. BTW how do you compair minolta 105 f/2.8 to minolta 100 f/2? I am thinking to get one of those too.

Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 9:26 AM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Minolta didn't make a 105mm f/2.8 AF lens. Sigma makes a 105mm f/2.8 Macro.

Minolta made a 100mm f/2.8 Macro (and you can still get the Konica Minolta 100mm f/2.8 Macro new at B&H). The 100mm f/2 is not a Macro lens (but, it's twice as bright at f/2).

I've got a Minolta 100mm f/2. But, I don't have any Minolta Macro lenses (except for the zooms like the 35-70mm f/4 Macro with Macro in their description).

The 200mm f/4G Macro is a highly regarded lens (and good glass ain't cheap). You may find it a little long for inside shots of anything other than smaller subjects though. You'll see a link to user reviews, samples and more here:

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=100

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 9:35 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Sorry miss type for 105. So how you like your 100 f/2? I thinl I need only one of those to complete my lenses. The reason try to buy those 1:1 is because for later if sony come out with full frame ccd . Thank you so much for your help and excellent advice.

Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 9:45 AM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I really like my 100mm f/2. Having f/2 is nice for low light (dance recitals, live music, indoor sports, etc.). It looks like prices have been shooting up on them lately though (selling for more than you can buy a used 85mm f/1.4 in some cases I've seen).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 9:12 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Hi Jim I am going to pickup both lens on monday will post some pics later. Now I am looking for the 100 f2 but it is hard to find, so can a 135 f2.8 do well for me? Thanks.
Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 9:16 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

For what? Different lenses are useful for different types of subjects and conditions. ;-)

I've also got a Minolta 135mm f/2.8. But, it's not as useful in lower light (since it's only an f/2.8 lens). It's also a bit too long in most conditions I shoot in, but it comes in handy from time to time.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 9:27 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Thanks again, just like I mention before I try to shoot some pics for food but the restaurannt I work are very low lighting and I try no to use flash that much ( try not to brothering customers ) so I think f/1.4 or 2 will be my best bid? but I don't have a chance to test out any fast and bright lens yet ( none of my friends got one below f2.8 ) So any opinion from you is very important. Thanks a lot.
Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 9:47 AM   #18
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

For food, you'll probably need to stop down the aperture a bit for better depth of field (higher f/stop numbers), depending on how you want to capture it. Sometimes a shallower depth of field can help portions of a smaller subject stand out. But, you wouldn't normally use wider apertures for a closeup of smaller subjects anyway (like a single serving of food).

You'd stop down your aperture some (which means slower shutter speeds) and use a tripod if your lighting is not sufficient (which it won't be indoors in low light)

A tripod is the best approach for subjects like closeups in lower light where you may want better depth of field than you'd get at wider aperture settings. That way (using a tripod), you can shoot at lower ISO speeds, too.

But, if you really want to take photos in very low light without a flash or tripod, regardless of depth of field concerns, you'll need a brighter lens.

I'd probably lean towards the brighter f/1.4 lenses if budget permits for dimmer surroudings.

For closer quarters (you can only back up so far and get what you want in the frame), a lens like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 may be worth a look. I've got a Minolta 28mm f/2, and sometimes it's not quite as bright as I need in some dimmer surroundings. So, f/1.4 (twice as bright as f/2) would come in handy.

For shots a bit further away, I'd probably look at a 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.7. I've got a 50mm f/1.7. For even further away, I'd look at the 85mm f/1.4 or 100mm f/2. I've got the 100mm f/2.

Note that none of these lenses are Macro lenses.

No single lens is going to be perfect for all conditions and subjects.

If you only want to take photos of the food you serve, I'd get a tripod and take them. The 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 you mentioned you're getting, when zoomed in a bit, should work well for something as large as a plate of food.

If you're trying to capture it along with the surroundings, guests, etc., get a brighter prime if you don't want to use a flash. But, don't get one that's too long to fit what you want to get into the frame. You can only back up so far. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 10:08 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Or, for want to fill the frame with a smaller portion (versus a larger plate of food), I'd get something like a 50mm f/2.8 Macro or 100mm f/2.8 Macro if you can't focus close enough to get the framing you want with the 16-80mm.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2008, 10:08 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Jim this is a great lesson for me, as you mentioned tripod is good for that but I can not carry one and walk arround in the restaurant ( too bad ) . I think 50 f/1.4 or 1.7 should be ok. I am so happy to joint this forum and will definitely recomment to all my friends. Again Jim you are good man, can't said enought for thank you.

Chefkenny 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 9:38 PM.