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 Jan 24, 2006, 2:52 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8
Default

I just got a 5D with the kit, and 50mm 1.7 lens, happy with both,"I'm new to this SLR world" I would like one more lens to get to about150mm to 200, I'm no pro, in fact I'm not even close, so I need advise on what is the best "cost vs quality" option for me. I would like to stay on the "cheep" side of the fence.

thanks for you help:? PSIHAVE NOT READ GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE 18X200 BOTH 3RD PARTY AND MINOLTS LENS. true or false?
jimmy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 24, 2006, 5:30 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

try to find a used (it's out of production) maxxum 70-210mm f4 (not the f3.5-5.6)

about $180 USA
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2006, 10:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

There are FOUR minolta 70-200 zooms that I know of :?
1)70-210 F4 (The most liked, used only, large heavy and relatively the most expensive) Aobut $100-200 on eBay
2)70-210 F3.5-4.5 Second most recomended, I havent found one yet
3)70-210 F4.5-5.6 CHEAP ($35 used at KEH, $90 new)
4)70-200 F2.8 APO G Top end, really nice, $1800

I cant offer any first hand info, but I can regurgitate what I've read recently (making this at least third hand info...:?). Seems that #1 on my list is the most desirable but it IS big and heavy, #2 is often recomended too. There are other third party lenses too, like Sigma. I dont think too many people know anything about the new Minolta 18-200 yet ($430) but generally the longer range a zoom has, the lower quality... FWIW.

Dont forget the three 80-200's, the 70-300's, and the 100-200 f4.5 (which is supposed to be another good one, used only). Oh, primes too! (135mm and 200mm are applicable here... but expensive).

I dont mean to confuse you, but I'm just starting to see whats out there myself, and without realizing there are so many lenses with nearly identical names you might easily order a turd thinking your getting a good lens.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2006, 7:48 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 89
Default

I should be ordering my 5D in a week or so.* What zoom lens would be equivalent to a 10-12x optical with decent quality and will not break the bank (if this is even possible)?
gobucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2006, 10:47 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

According to this post:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=9
10-12x zoom technically dosent mean anything....

Since I guess your comparing to the superzoom all-in-one cameras which have a max focal length of around 430mm, youd need a 300mm lens on a DSLR (300*1.5=450mm).

The 70-210 zooms are probably the best compromise between convienence and image quality though, as a 18mm-300mm lens (if they exist, would be 16x zoom) is going to be a very compromised piece of glass. 3x zoom is about the max you want to go (i.e. 70-210 or 18-55, both 3x zooms!).

The 300mm (in 35mm film equivilent terms) range of a 210mm lens is plenty for most things. How you plan to use it dictates how much money you need to spend, the faster the lens the more cash outlay!
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 8:21 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

It does matter what you're going to use it for. I have a 70-210 f3.5-5.6 and it is not a bad lens, for the price. (less than $30 us on ebay) It's not a magnificant piece of glass, but I don't worry about it getting stolen at the beach or broken by my children. It's clear enough for great 4x6 prints, though I have only used it on film cameras so I can't say the results would look great on a 19" monitor. Anyway, it focuses fast and sharp and for what I use it for it's perfect. If I had the $1800 APO lens, it would get left at home in situations where I would take this lens.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I'm still working on a 70-210 4.0, just haven't found the right lens (I like to hold them before I buy them if they're going to cost more than ~$100).
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 9:45 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 89
Default

How about a KM 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for $140?* Or a Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 for $160 and $200 respectifully?* These lenses would accomplish the "10-12x zoom" of the super zoom point and shoots and still get the same results of the 70-200mm that was mentioned in the previous posts?
gobucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 9:56 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

It all depends on what you use it for.


Really.


Getting 200mm closeups of a bug means that your lens must focus close. Sunny landscapes with a tripod? Not very demanding, but sharpness will be more noticable. Shooting sports in a high school gym requires miracles of the unlimited budget type, nothing sugested yet in this thread would be considered "good".Maybe adequate? Depends.

If you dont know what you'll use it for, go cheap, upgrade later (if needed). If there was a magic lens, there wouldnt be so many other choices.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 2:40 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 89
Default

The first two conditions are the intended use.* Any recommendations for a good lens? Which brands or specifications to stay away from?
gobucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 8:18 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Clearly the larger the maximum aperture size (the smaller f- number) in any given focal range is better. Many find the Minolta brand glass better quality in the same price range, and there is some question of compatibility with 5d/7d bodies in some aftermarket lenses. If you're unable to fit the lens to the camera before you buy, I'd stick with Minolta brand lenses. As stated above, lenses with more zoom have more compromises- typically resulting in dimmer lenses. Many of the tiny compact zooms today are optically inferior to the larger and more cumbersome zooms made in the past. This is because they have more complex zoom mechinisms, and differing grinds on the internal lenses. (there are a lot of individual lenses inside there moving, changing the magnification- this results in a smaller "clean image" area of light transmission through the lens. At least this is how I understand it. ) Also consider that only the new "d" lenses are going to allow all of the camera's functions to work.

The real issue is, it's up to you to find the lenses that suit you. If you always shoot outdoors with the lens, a dimmer one is ok. If you never do or shoot extremely fast sports, buy a lottery ticket and get a bright zoom. When you buy a bright zoom, you are almost invariably buying a good lens- their price dictates that. Also I consider the fact that I take my camera everywhere. I take cheaper glass to places where my kids may use the camera, where the environment is dirty, or I may have to leave it unattended.

The pricing of comparable focal length lenses is going to tell you the quality of the lens. If you want a better lens, it costs more money.

Bernabeu has already labelled what is probably the best lens to start with. It's a quality Minolta brand lens, still available for a decent price. As soon as I find one, I'm all over it. :-)
Mercury694 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 9:39 PM.