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 Jul 27, 2010, 1:11 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,296
Default Another afternoon hike with another lens

This time out was a special one. I don't know about you but ever since I bought my 5D some 5 years or so ago I've always dreamed of one day getting the Minolta 70-200 f/2.8 G.

Well I didn't get it. But I did just manage to get the Sony version from a friend who just bought a Canon 7D and decided to say adios to Sony.

I have very mixed feelings about this lens at this time and I'll share them for others who someday would like to get this lens.

I just recently posted a thread in this forum

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/so...s-beercan.html

and I've got to say that the beercan really is a great lens. You cannot beat the IQ to cost ratio of this lens. Take a look at that thread before you look at these and tell me if you notice a HUGE difference.

Now, I know that this is a lens for special situations, such as low light sports, weddings and other special situations but I just don't think it's worth the HUGE price.

During the hike I was surprised that it did not seem as heavy as I was expecting, but it is more of an attention getter then the beercan.

Now for the photo's. My wife and son joined me for a hike and I shot about 175 photo's. These are processed with Aperture 2.1.4. Editing includes slight saturation, vibrancy and definition boost, highlight recovery adjustment. NO sharpening was applied.

EXIF is in the shots.
Attached Images
    
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 27, 2010, 1:20 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,296
Default

These next shots are a warning to show you what can happen when you jump around on wet boulders.

The colors seem to be more saturated and there's better contrast with the G compared to the beercan but with decent PP skills you can get them really close in IQ.
Attached Images
    
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2010, 1:28 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,296
Default

I'm glad I finally got a hold of this lens but I'm even happier that I did not pay full retail for it.

The Tamron or Sigma versions of this lens I feel are a smarter way to go if you want to buy new.

Next hike will be the Sony 70-400 G the best tele-zoom lens in the Sony line-up in my opinion.

A few more shots
Attached Images
   
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2010, 12:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Hi Mike. I have to say no, I don't see a huge difference, but given a different situation where the f2.8 could be utilized and the difference might be greater. Having said that, the photos on this page seem to be ok to very sharp. Like you said, this lens would be better for a wedding or some sports. I think, for the money, and what I would use it for, the Tamron WOULD be my choice. Great pics, by the way...
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild 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 10:32 AM.