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 Aug 3, 2008, 9:07 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5
Default

I have been reading the reviews for the Sony A200 DSLR, and I am considering buying this camera. I currently have a Fuji S5100 that I have had for over 3 years and I want to move to a DSLR entry level camera. The reviews for the a200 seem to be pretty much in agreement about the camera and I don't have any questions about it, I was really wondering if anyone has has any experience wsith the 75-300 lens, and the quality of it. Is it worth buying this kit with both lens, or would it be better to buy the kit with just the 18-75 and then go get another brand/mfg telephoto. Is there a produce that you would reommend for a better long range telephoto?

Thanks in advance,

Jerry
jbirtsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 4, 2008, 6:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I've got some experience with two versions of the Minolta 75-300, which is identical to the Sony version.

Out past 200mm, the results are soft and prone to chromatic aberration. I got rid of my copies, but I have a Beercan (the Minolta 70-210mm f/4.0) for my longer shots. It doesn't quite have the range, but it's faster and sharper.

There are better lenses, like the Sigma APO and the Tamron Di LD, either of which is less than $200, but it's hard to beat the Sony for $100.

What do you plan to shoot?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2008, 11:01 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5
Default

I have seen references to the beercan lens and was wondering about it. I am glad to know about the softness and chromatic aberration on the lens. This is important to me, what is the sense of having a ling lens if yu can't expect good results.

I do all kinds of shooting, and when my wife and I go on vacations I have really appreciated the zoom on my Fuji S5100. I also like to do close up/macro photography, and this is one area that the Fuji lacks. I was hoping to get the Sony kit, but really wanted to know about this lens. I will look into the beercan and the Sigma APO or the Tamron Di LD lens.

Thanks for the feedback.....

Jerry
jbirtsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2008, 9:33 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Skyzoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default

jbirtsr wrote:
Quote:
I have seen references to the beercan lens and was wondering about it. I am glad to know about the softness and chromatic aberration on the lens. This is important to me, what is the sense of having a ling lens if yu can't expect good results.

I do all kinds of shooting, and when my wife and I go on vacations I have really appreciated the zoom on my Fuji S5100. I also like to do close up/macro photography, and this is one area that the Fuji lacks. I was hoping to get the Sony kit, but really wanted to know about this lens. I will look into the beercan and the Sigma APO or the Tamron Di LD lens.

Thanks for the feedback.....

Jerry
If you look at the Sigma 70-300mm APO, be careful. I have read many reports about how the AF torque on the Alpha 200 (300, 700) are just too fast for the Sigma lens, and over time, it strips the lens and of course it won't work properly. Seems like the lens (maybe just early batches?) were made a bit too cheap for the newer Alpha's.

This could all be mish-mash. Read around other forums and see what the consensus is. To me, it seems like a very good performing lens for it's range in price, with a good macro feature.
Skyzoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2008, 6:27 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21
Default

I've read reviews on http://www.dyxum.com about some of the Minolta lenses and it
seems that there must have been several versions of the 75-300 F4.5 (and other
lenses as well). They in fact show several versions of this lens class on the site (there were non-D, D, APO, I and II versions to name a few, plus black and chrome bodies). Depending on which version you look at the reviewers gave different stories. Some of these were sharper and had less CA at full zoom than others.
The earlier lenses had metal mounts, the latter ones were plastic. The chrome body lenses were reported to be of lower build quality.

Based on this, I ordered an early, black body "D" model from keh.com for $115. I expect that the lense will perform well enough to be worth what I paid for it, and will
be a better buy than a new Sony for $230.

kscharf 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 9:55 PM.