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, 5:40 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleehobbit View Post
... 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?
Absolutely. Teh Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 that frank-in-toronto mentioned is longer, wider, faster and sharper than the kit lens, plus it's a 1:2.3 macro lens. It is more expensive, though.
__________________
  • 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 Sep 6, 2010, 5:43 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

yes those are the 35mm eq in range with the different lenses. So if you need more reach, 210 is a little short for some.
__________________
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, 5:48 PM   #23
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 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.
Not necessarily. Another major problem with the superzoom lenses is chromatic aberration, which is often apparent even in images that have been resuced for posting here. While the Tamron 70-300 Di LD is not free of CA, it's not as bad as the superzoom lenses.
__________________
  • 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 Sep 6, 2010, 5:51 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleehobbit View Post
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?
shoturtle is applying the 35mm equivalent focal length. Since all the lenses we're discussing here would be used on APS-C dSLRs with the same size image sensor, I'm not clear why. The actual focal lengths of the lenses are sufficient to distinguish them.
__________________
  • 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 Sep 6, 2010, 5:53 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleehobbit View Post
Well, for extra zoom, what about something like the Minolta 70-210 "beercan", it seems to get favorable reviews?
The 'Beercan' is a very nice lens. It's a good focal length for small children, it can be had for about the same price as a new Tamron 70-300 Di LD, and the constant f/4.0 aperture is very nice to 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 Sep 6, 2010, 5:59 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But it is really not a great lens, matching that with the sig 17-70 would give you a very good short lens and a poor lens.

The megazoom is not my personal choice. They do have some nice results. But you said it, it can be correct for posting. And from allot of the megazoom lens shooter, they are sharper the the 70-300 on the long end.

But it really comes down to compromises, as the lens options are limited in the op's budgeted range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Not necessarily. Another major problem with the superzoom lenses is chromatic aberration, which is often apparent even in images that have been resuced for posting here. While the Tamron 70-300 Di LD is not free of CA, it's not as bad as the superzoom lenses.
__________________
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, 6:30 PM   #27
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
But it is really not a great lens, matching that with the sig 17-70 would give you a very good short lens and a poor lens.
While the Sigma 17-70 is a very good lens, I wouldn't call the Tamron 70-300 "a poor lens". PhotoZone.de gives it 2 1/2 stars out of 5, for optical quality (making it about average), and 4 stars for Price/Performance. For comparison's sake, the Sigma 17-70 gets 3 stars for optical quality and 5 stars for Price/Performance, and they give the Sony 70-300 'G' 3 1/2 to 4 stars for optical quality, besting the other two, but only 3 1/2 stars for Price/Performance, which isn't as good as the other two.
__________________
  • 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 Sep 6, 2010, 6:33 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Adorama has the 17-70 for 369. The 18-250 is used for 349. I think I'll get the 17-70 for now and see how often I'm wanting a longer reach. I think this will serve my needs to get acquainted with the new camera and such.

Thanks for all the help
purpleehobbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 6:36 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Diana-

Congratulations on your choice of the A-500, as your camera of choice. If the issue is to be as budget conscious as possible, why not begin with the Sony 18-55mm lens which is a good lens and the Sony 55-200mm lens which can usually be purchased on E-Bay for $100 and under.

Then when you get some experience with the A-500, your perspective on the lenses needed might be somewhat different. The Sigma 17-70 is a good lens. if you are getting the A-500 body only, the Sigma 17-70 makes even more sense.

Sarah Joyce

Last edited by mtclimber; Sep 6, 2010 at 6:38 PM.
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 6:40 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

A good way to gauge how much range you need would be to check how much zoom you use on you H5. If you find yourself on the long end about 50% of the time. You may need something over 400mm in the 35mm eq. As you H5 has a reach of about 430mm.
__________________
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
 
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 11:41 PM.