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 Sep 6, 2010, 12:42 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 purpleehobbit View Post
I know that a lens with this large of range won't perform as well as 2 lenses with shorter ranges. This is my dslr, and I thought that while it wouldn't be the best, it might work to help me make my transition and I wouldn't have to change lenses right away. ...
The problem with that is that it's an expensive experiment. A superzoom lens gives lower image quality than the kit lens plus the Tamron zoom, it costs a lot more, and it only provides a little convenience.

You'd be buying an expensive lens (relatively speaking, of course) to find out whether or not you want to buy less expensive lenses.

It's your call, of course.
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 1:34 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

purple, you mentioned the sigma 17-70 which i recently purchased for my sony a550. i was dis-satisfied with the kit lens combo of 18-55 and 75-300. the gap was bothering me too. now the sigma is my almost all-the-time walk around lens. i still need a better long zoom, but that can wait. the brighter sigma (over sony kit) is definitely usable. the distance scale is another small improvement.

perhaps you could take some time and look at the exif of the pictures you've been taking with your p&s. i'm not really sure, but if they will show you the actual focal length you were "zooming" to, you will have a better idea what your needs as-of-now are. just a suggestion. the discussion so far, as it usually is, has been about the equipment quality based on vague needs. the facts will assist you in getting the right lens for your situation.
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 2:16 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
donp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naperville, IL.
Posts: 185
Default

Ditto on the Sigma 17-70 ! I just picked one up recently (on Tcav's advice) and I couldn't be happier, it is VERY sharp, light weight and a very usable range. I got it used at KEH for $265 (It's the f2.8/4.5 DC macro)
donp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 2:51 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The problem with that is that it's an expensive experiment. A superzoom lens gives lower image quality than the kit lens plus the Tamron zoom, it costs a lot more, and it only provides a little convenience.

You'd be buying an expensive lens (relatively speaking, of course) to find out whether or not you want to buy less expensive lenses.

It's your call, of course.

I did mean my first dslr, not my dslr (that sounded snotty... oops)

You make a good point. I think I am leaning more towards a 2 lenses. Would the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 70-300 be a good starter set? Or would I be better off with the kit lens?
purpleehobbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 3:06 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frank-in-toronto View Post

perhaps you could take some time and look at the exif of the pictures you've been taking with your p&s. i'm not really sure, but if they will show you the actual focal length you were "zooming" to, you will have a better idea what your needs as-of-now are. just a suggestion. the discussion so far, as it usually is, has been about the equipment quality based on vague needs. the facts will assist you in getting the right lens for your situation.
This was an excellent idea.

Outdoors, even at the zoo and seaworld where I was using max zoom, my P&S shows a focal length max of 72mm. I seem to average around 17-20 for my wider shots outdoors, and 50-72 when I am zooming in.

Indoors I hardly ever touch the zoom button because it won't focus, it becomes blurry, ect. So those focal lengths vary between 6/8 to 12. But in these shots, the composition wasn't the greatest but I was battling moving kids and indoor lighting so not really ideal conditions.

Hmm, I'm wondering if I might be satisfied, for now at least, with something like the Sigma 17-70 and then wait and see if I find myself needed more.
purpleehobbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 3:16 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post

I agree that the Tamron 70-300 Di LD isn't a great lens, but it is better than anything else close to its range at up to twice the price, which makes it a great value.


I agree, but given purpleehobbit's discussion on the price differences among the A500, A550 & A560, I presume there's a budgetary constraint, and that the 70-300 'G' is likely to exceed that. And, of course, the 'G' is a lot bigger and a lot heavier than the Tamron, and that is definately a concern that purpleehobbit has mentioned.
The 70-300 G is most definitely out of my price range. I'm trying very hard to keep my budget as close to 1,000 as possible, with probably 1,200-1,400 being absolute maximum.

I am not opposed to multiple lenses. When I was considering the Kx, I was figuring on the 2 kit lenses plus a prime. When mtclimber suggested the 18-250 with the A500, I liked the idea. Now I'm doing more research and finding that maybe that is not the best option (which is why I started this thread to figure out what would be best).
purpleehobbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 3:25 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The 2 lens option is the better IQ option. But the 1 lens option is still a good one. They performance is not to apparent unless you are really cropping in to see it.

But the problem with the tamron 70-300mm is that if you do notice the issue with the 18-250 or 18-270. You will also notice the issues with the tamron 70-300. And you will down the line want to change up this lens also.

That is the biggest issue that the sony system have. Not to many telephoto options. You have 2 very low end tele's like the 75-300 and the tamron 70-300. if you have the sig 17-70 and then go to the tamron 70-300, you will notice the change in IQ when you really look into it.
__________________
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 Sep 6, 2010, 4:15 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The 2 lens option is the better IQ option. But the 1 lens option is still a good one. They performance is not to apparent unless you are really cropping in to see it.

But the problem with the tamron 70-300mm is that if you do notice the issue with the 18-250 or 18-270. You will also notice the issues with the tamron 70-300. And you will down the line want to change up this lens also.

That is the biggest issue that the sony system have. Not to many telephoto options. You have 2 very low end tele's like the 75-300 and the tamron 70-300. if you have the sig 17-70 and then go to the tamron 70-300, you will notice the change in IQ when you really look into it.
Well, for extra zoom, what about something like the Minolta 70-210 "beercan", it seems to get favorable reviews?
purpleehobbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 4:21 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The beercan is a good lens, on the used market. If the short range works well for your need. You will have about 310mm of zoom vs 450 with a 300mm lens, and around 400 with the 270mm.
__________________
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 Sep 6, 2010, 4:33 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
You will have about 310mm of zoom vs 450 with a 300mm lens, and around 400 with the 270mm.
Sorry, I'm a wee bit confused. Are you comparing the beercan to the 70-300 or the 18-250/18-270 in terms of zoom?
purpleehobbit 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 2:46 PM.