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 21, 2010, 3:07 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But it does not change anything, it is the best of the bottom of the barrel with the tamron. Sony just do not have many options currently.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2010, 3:14 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Navjac,

If you are open for a good used lens, you may be able to find a minolta 70-210mm f4 cheap. Under 150 dollars. And it would be a good macro lens, and brighter then your current 55-200mm lens.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; May 21, 2010 at 3:19 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2010, 3:15 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The 'Beercan' shoturtle mentioned is the Minolta 70-210mm f/4.0. It's an excellent lens, but it's only 1:4 macro, which isn't as good as the Sony 55-200 you already have. it's main advantage is its constant f/4.0 maximum aperture. It's available on the used market for from $150 to $250. Here are some of the flower shots I've taken with mine (These are lilies, so they're big. If you want comparable shots of small flowers, the Beercan won't do):
Attached Images
  
__________________
  • 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 May 21, 2010, 3:31 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The tamron 70-300 does a decent job as a macro. Just do not expect much when zoom out.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2010, 3:38 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The tamron 70-300 does a decent job as a macro. Just do not expect much when zoom out.
I agree.
__________________
  • 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 May 21, 2010, 11:14 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

BTW, KEH.com has some Minolta 100/2.8 1:1 Macro lenses (identical to the current Sony lens) in EX (excellent) condition, with hood and caps, for $364, and a Tamorn 90/2.8 1:1 Macro lens in EX+ (better than excellent) condition, with hood and caps, for $325.

Adorama has a Minolta 100/2.8 1:1 Macro lens in E- (slightly less than excellent) condition, for $349, and some Sigma 105/2.8 Macro lenses in conditions ranging from E- to E+, and prices ranging from $279 to $299.
__________________
  • 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 May 22, 2010, 11:02 AM   #47
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 50
Default

Getting a minolta 70-210mm does not make sense given what I am looking for. Those pictures are really nice by the way. Its similar to ones I've taken on my 55-200mm.

And thanks a lot for researching on the used lenses. I can definitely afford to get them as long as they serve my needs. So do those lenses work well with Sony A300? The Sigma 105/2.8 Macro especially.

Also I had a silly question: We've been talking about working distances and that larger working distance is better. Is there an optimum working distance for macro photography? The reason I am asking is because the closest focussing distance for the Minolta 100/2.8 1:1 Macro is 13.2 inches (0.33 m), which sounds fairly small. Does the lens have a larger farthest focussing distance?

Thanks,
Nev
nevjac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 1:04 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The sig 105 is an excellent macro lens,

13 inches is not bad for a working distance. The smaller ones require you to be even closer. But is you are not shooting 1:1 you can be further away the 13 inches.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 1:33 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevjac View Post
Getting a minolta 70-210mm does not make sense given what I am looking for. Those pictures are really nice by the way. Its similar to ones I've taken on my 55-200mm.

And thanks a lot for researching on the used lenses. I can definitely afford to get them as long as they serve my needs. So do those lenses work well with Sony A300? The Sigma 105/2.8 Macro especially.
They are all excellent lenses and will work well on your A300. Of the three, the Minolta is the best, but not by much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevjac View Post
Also I had a silly question: We've been talking about working distances and that larger working distance is better. Is there an optimum working distance for macro photography? The reason I am asking is because the closest focussing distance for the Minolta 100/2.8 1:1 Macro is 13.2 inches (0.33 m), which sounds fairly small. Does the lens have a larger farthest focussing distance?
Yes. Infinity. But the further away you are, the smaller the subject will be in your image.

BTW, that minimum focusing distance isn't from the subject to the front of the lens, it's from the subject to the image sensor. That's true of all lenses, btw, but it generally doesn't matter until you start talking about macrophotography.
__________________
  • 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 May 23, 2010, 10:09 PM   #50
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 43
Default Macro

Comparison between Beercan macro and Minolta 100mm macro for what it's worth.
If you can locate these in good condition you will save big bucks.
Furd
Attached Images
  
Furd 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 4:22 PM.