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 31, 2008, 11:48 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Hi, I'm new to Dslr so any help from yours will be helpful, long story short.
I have a A100 with a stock lens and I have the following lenses also:

sony 75-300 4.5-5.6
sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 stock
minolta 28-80 1:3.5(22)-5.6 D
minolta 70-210 4.5-5.6 macro
minolta 35-70 1:3.5(22)-4.5

I would like to sale all those lenses and in the future I only need 3 lenses. I am going to buy the sony 16-80 3.5-4.5 Zeiss ( I try it on my friend's A200 and I love it ). I also have a chose between a Minolta Zoom Telephoto AF 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 APO (used about $500) and a Minolta AF 200mm f/4 Macro APO ( used about $900-$1000) so in between the last 2 lenses which one should be chosen and what's your suggestion for a reasonable wild lens selection. BTW thanks for any comment.

Best
A Sushi Chef need to shoot good picture for my future cook book.
Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 1, 2008, 7:16 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

What do you want to use the longer lens for (subject type, conditions)? Do you care about size and weight?

A less expensive choice you may want to look at in that general focal range is the Minolta 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO lens (and make sure to get one of the APO versions).

It's a little smaller and lighter than the 100-400mm, with great quality according to most reports, and it would be longer than the 200mm f/4 you're looking at. It's around $300 used.

Another lens you may want to look at is the new Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G SSM lens. It's a bit pricey for a lens with only f5.6 avaiable at $799, though.

In a little brighter lens (which is also larger and heavier) in that general focal range, the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG gets very high marks for optical quality, focus speed, etc. With f/4 available throughout it's focal range, it's also bright enough so that you could also use a 1.4x TC on it to extend the range if needed (turning it into a 140-420mm f/5.6 AF lens after the 1 stop light loss from a 1.4x Teleconverter). It's around $1000 now.

But, the subjects and conditions you want a longer lens for should be taken into consideration.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 8:23 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Thanks, I want to use it for wildlife shooting and sports. Well I am not a pro but just like it as a hobby. There has 2 of those lenses going on ebay 1 is 100-300 4.5-5.6 Xi Zoom at about $100 now the second on is 100-300 apo at $350 now so which is my best bid? Thanks alot. ( If for 350 to get the 100-300 apo will it be better to get the 100-400 apo for abot $4-500? )
Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 8:26 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Avoid the non-APO versions of the 100-300mm. There is a reason for the price difference. The 100-300mm APO is a *much* higher quality lens, with virtually no CA problems, and good sharpness throughout it's focal range based on user reports and images I've seen.

What kind of sports? You may need much brighter lenses for night sports in a stadium, or indoor sports in a gym. Also, focus speed comes into the equation (and there can be a big difference between lenses on your A100). A lens like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 going to focus much faster than a Minolta 100-300mm or 100-400mm. But, it's also a brighter and heavier lens. But, for something like night sports, f/4 is not bright enough either. You'd want a lens that can maintain f/2.8 throughout it's focal range for that.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 8:38 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Thanks again, mainly used for outdoor sport - football and baseball for a faster long range lens that will be too pricey for me I think the sigma is around $1000 too. But if I only shooting during the sunny day how is your opinion of that minolta 100-400 apo, because I had try it on my A100 the pic looks very good,. Also need advice for a good close up lens because I want to shoot some dishes I creat and use it for my cook book later- I am a sushi chef and I will travel a lot for the company I'm working now. Thanks a lot. Jimc your good man!




Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 8:53 AM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The 100-400mm seems to be a very good lens. I've thought about getting one myself from time to time. It's not rated quite as highly by users throughout it's focal range, as compared to reports I've seen of the 100-300mm. But, the 100-300mm doesn't reach as far either.

For closeups, if you need something better than the zooms provide, you may want to look at a Minolta 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro, or Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro. These are all well thought of lenses for Macros and have 1:1 Macro ability. In a shorter focal length, look at the Sigma and Minolta 50mm f/2.8 Macro lenses.

But, for something as large as photos of food, you probably don't need a dedicated 1:1 Macro lens (which allows you to fill the frame with a subject the same size as the film or sensor). Most zooms with a Macro designation are 1:4 lenses (allowing you to fill the frame with a subject 4 times the size of the film or sensor). That's usually good enough for most closeups of subjects like food.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2008, 10:13 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 48
Default

Hi JimC, thanks alot for those advice, now 1 more question. The person who selling his 100-400 apo for $400 also offer me if I buy the 200mm f/4 APO as a combo with the 100-400 for $1200 together, both lens on like new condition but 100-400 missing lens hood and the 200mm missing fornt cap. Is this a good deal? I can't find any usefull info online about the priceing of both lens. So please advice. Thank you very much.
Chefkenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 5:51 AM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The last new price for the 200mm alone was around $1349 at B&H, and the last new price for the 100-400mm alone was $749 at B&H (over $2k for the pair).

If you can get that pair of lenses for $1200, that sounds like a very good deal to me, missing caps and hood or not , as long as the lenses themselves are in great shape.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 7:05 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 323
Default

You can also find some used Minolta price guides here

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18080
FrankD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2008, 7:13 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Good links. It looks like this site was tracking the average Ebay price for 2007 at $1114 for the 200mm f/4G Macro and $550 for the 100-400 f/4.5-6.7

http://worldexclusiveminoltaclub.com/gear/ebay.htm

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 10:37 AM.