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 Oct 9, 2009, 2:30 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
The Sony 55-200mm lens remains an excellent buy at well under $200.00. It also gets excellent reviews.
Excellent advice, and the Tamron version of the same lens is cheaper and is available with a $40 rebate until the new year.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2009, 5:02 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
The Sony 55-200mm lens remains an excellent buy at well under $200.00. It also gets excellent reviews.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
I just bought one lightly used, looks brand new, on Ebay for $100.
Outhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2009, 5:15 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outhouse View Post
I just bought one lightly used, looks brand new, on Ebay for $100.
Sounds good. Good luck with it. And post some image samples if you can.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 4:16 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland county Michigan
Posts: 121
Default

well the camera shop has a sony kit 70-200 for 105.00 but i was told that the stock lens or kits that come with it ..are not very good. so should i return this lens and pick up a different one.. i took to shots with it this weekend and seamed to do ok..a little slow..
lonefeather93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 6:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The kit lenses, the new 18-55 and the older 18-70 are as good as the 18-200 where their ranges overlap, and the Sony/Tamron 55-200 runs rings around the 18-200. If you REALLY need an all-around lens, the 18-250 is better than the 18-200, but still not as good as the 55-200, and it's more expensive.

And Sony doesn't make a 70-200 kit.

As a result, I'm a little confused.

Which camera do you have?

Which lenses do you have?

What do you want to take photos of?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 6:28 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland county Michigan
Posts: 121
Default

i have the sony a300, minolta 50mm, and the tamron 18-200, and standard lens of a minolta 70-210, i told you them before and you said that they was not very good, so that is why i was upgrading..so i gave them to one of my sons.. and he is playing with a film camera. til i get another digital, then i will let him use and play with it more.
i miss posted it is the combo kit that you can get it was the 200mm lens i think 55 to 200 , i really just did a quick look. i asked for the tamron 18-250 but he gave me the 18-200 and said that it would be better for the pics i was doing for the kids. that is why i was wondering if i should take this one back. and get the 18-250 like what i wanted. he said that the 18-200 was better in the low light.

Last edited by lonefeather93; Oct 11, 2009 at 6:31 PM.
lonefeather93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 7:46 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

lonefeather-

Only you can evaluate the lens that you have in hand. However, based on my experience, I personally would return the Sony 18-200mm lens. For children's photos you are going to need a good external flash. That would be my first priority, if you do not yet have one.

As far as lenses, the least expensive solution is to add either the Sony or Tamron 55-200mm. It you really want a single lens solution, then consider either the Sony or Tamron 18-250mm lens.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 9:28 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonefeather93 View Post
i have the sony a300, minolta 50mm, and the tamron 18-200, and standard lens of a minolta 70-210, i told you them before and you said that they was not very good ...
The Minolta 50mm and the Minolta 70-210 are good, solid, inxpensive lenses. I can't imagine why I would have said they were not very good, and in low light they are very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonefeather93 View Post
... i asked for the tamron 18-250 but he gave me the 18-200 and said that it would be better for the pics i was doing for the kids. that is why i was wondering if i should take this one back. and get the 18-250 like what i wanted. he said that the 18-200 was better in the low light.
Actually, no. The 18-250 is better in low light than the 18-200, but only very slightly. For low light shooting, neither of them is particularly good, and neither can hold a candle to the Minolta 50 or the Minolta 70-210 you already have.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 10:02 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland county Michigan
Posts: 121
Default

no... the 50mm was a suggestion that you gave me to get.. so i did.. i love that lens. i have stock lens of my minolta qtsi that i thought was ok, but when i gave the specs on them, they were a very cheap make. just basic. my 70-210 is not a macro, (beercan) but i did like it for the extra zoom. i got the tamron 18-200 on the salemen recommended advice....but i like to come here and ask.. it seams i get better advice from here ..but when i was there i saw the stock lens off the sony's in the used cabinet. and the same 70-200 minolta i have he was selling it for 25.00.
i was looking for a 24mm to have but my 50mm i would leave on almost all the time. but found myself running out of room in living rooms trying to take some pics.. so that is why i was looking at the tamron. i did look at the sig on line but the store didn't have any of those in the store. could order.
lonefeather93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2009, 10:53 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

If you're looking for something that you can use indoors that's more flexible that the Minolta 50, you could try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 or 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. They are all very good low light lenses, and are a lot better than any of the superzoom lenses that have been mentioned here.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
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 8:38 PM.