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 11, 2006, 1:54 PM   #1
Member
 
Ru5tY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Hey all,

I've had my Dynax 7D since January 2005, and I can't believe I didn't find this forum earlier! I started off as a DSLR newbie, and in many ways, I still am. I love taking pics for fun, so I'm always looking for constructive feedback.

Anyways, I'm thinking of buying a new telephoto lens without breaking the bank, and I've narrowed it down to the 70-210 f/4 "beercan". What are your thoughts about this lens? I'm kind of kicking myself, because I was going to buy this last year (when prices were around $60-70USD on ebay), but I thought I would wait to catch a better deal- now prices are around $150! =(

I'm also considering the KM 28-75 f/2.8, and 18-200mm lenses. At mid-range, how do both these lenses compare to the 24-105mm? Do you guys recommend these lenses?





I guess I'll also give a review of some of the lenses that I currently own (in order of when i purchased it)

Minolta AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 D
Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7
Minolta AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sigma AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DL
Minolta AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D


Both 50mm and 28mm primes are nice and sharp, but I don't use them often as I am lazy and don't like to zoom with my feet. Blasphemous, I know :-)

The 17-35 is amazing, by far the most useful lens for me. Great for indoor car shows where lighting is tricky, and landscapes when travelling.
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asi...hoto373857.htm
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asi...hoto374240.htm
for the ones hosted on netfirms, you can click on the pic to see a bigger image
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=4&pos=23
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=4&pos=57
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=4&pos=80

The 75-300 is good enough for the Zoo, but leaves me wanting more. This is why I'm looking towards the "beercan" lens.
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto188486.htm
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto191145.htm
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto187315.htm
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto192798.htm
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto191902.htm

The 24-105 is a relatively new addition to my arsenal, but when dealing with mid-range zoom's, apparently this blows everything out of the water in this price range (the G lenses are too bling and expensive, so I don't include them). The 28-85 is decent too, and it used to stay on my camera most of the time until I got the 24-105. Downside of 28-85 is that it is relatively heavy, and is not travelling friendly for my neck!
24-105, Oversaturated in PS, i know...
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto371634.htm
28-85:
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=3&pos=29
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=3&pos=34
http://ru5ty.netfirms.com/gallery/nf...m=3&pos=37

The 35-70, honestly I haven't used it much. I bought this around the same time when I bought the 28-85. The lack of range is a shame, and from comparing pictures from the two lenses, the 28-85 seems to have similar performance.

The sigma 28-200mm was a disappointment. Not bad at wide-angle, but it is soft at telephoto. I also did test shots by comparing this with the 28-85mm at 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm. At all 3 focal lengths, the 28-85 performed superior to the sigma. At that point, I wanted to buy a lens that I could keep on my camera all the time for travelling, but back then the KM 18-200mm did not come out yet. Oh well, I only spent55 bucks on the sigma brand new.



That's all for now!

Rusty
Ru5tY is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 11, 2006, 1:58 PM   #2
Member
 
Ru5tY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Also, what settings do you have your Maxxum / Dynax on?

Currently, I have it at +1 sharpness. At default settings, I find that most pictures need to be adjusted in PS before the colours "pop".

I've been reading some canon forums, and alot of those guys have +1 for sharpness, saturation, and contrast.

What do you guys do?
Ru5tY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 2:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Ru5tY wrote:
Quote:
Hey all,

I'm also considering the KM 28-75 f/2.8, and 18-200mm lenses. At mid-range, how do both these lenses compare to the 24-105mm? Do you guys recommend these lenses?



__________________________________________________ ______________

I haven't done any comparisons, since I don't have all the lenses you mention but I love the 28-75mm f2.8 D lens. It's not cheap,but I got it as a package with the camera. It is pretty crisp throughout the entire focal range..... then again it's not a big range compared some some of the others you mention. It's great indoors in low light.

I also like the Tamron 28-300 I just picked up from Cord Camera on Ebay for 149.00. It's a little soft at the far end but I'm pretty happy with it. It's a real light lens and is a great "one size fits all" walk around lens.

meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 4:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
Ru5tY wrote:
Quote:
I also like the Tamron 28-300 I just picked up from Cord Camera on Ebay for 149.00. It's a little soft at the far end but I'm pretty happy with it. It's a real light lens and is a great "one size fits all" walk around lens.

If you think about it, all the "soft" isn't that much different than what you seewhen you look at a distant object. I'm ordering the Tamron 28-300 from Cameta Camera tomorrow.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 5:11 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Welcome to the forums Rusty!

The 70-210mm f/4 seems to be well liked by those that have it. Yep... I'm kicking myself for not buying one, too.

The used market has gone a little nuts.

You may want to consider the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 as well. It's a newer design, and it's smaller and lighter compared to the beercan.

One of our forum members, nooner has both lenses. See his posts in this thread discussing the differences.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=83866&forum_id=84

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 11:29 AM   #6
Member
 
Ru5tY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Took the plunge. Just bought the 70-210mm f/4 for $192 usd. :shock:


Ru5tY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 12:17 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

I have a similar question. My camera came with the adorama combo 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and I'm interested in knowing about other lenses for portrait photography.

The salesman at adorama showed me a set of 4 filters. One of these was a saturation filter but I'm not sure if I need one. Since the camera produces RAW I can always increase the saturation in photoshop, but he insisted it will look artificial if done post-capture. All I was looking for was a polarizing filter, but here I saw a Warming, UV, Polarizing, and Saturating filter for about $119.00. I thought of doing more research before buying. Any recommendations on what to buy?
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 12:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

50mm 1.4/1.7 does nice protraits. All I buy is a skylight or UV and a polarizer. I plan to get a ND for each filter size.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 12:28 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
I have a similar question. My camera came with the adorama combo 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and I'm interested in knowing about other lenses for portrait photography.

The salesman at adorama showed me a set of 4 filters. One of these was a saturation filter but I'm not sure if I need one. Since the camera produces RAW I can always increase the saturation in photoshop, but he insisted it will look artificial if done post-capture. All I was looking for was a polarizing filter, but here I saw a Warming, UV, Polarizing, and Saturating filter for about $119.00. I thought of doing more research before buying. Any recommendations on what to buy?




I'm no expert on external filters verses post processing in terms of which will look artificial. I do know from working with Paint Shop Pro on images other than photographs, that you can adjust certain portions of the image. With an external filter, you can only adjust the entire image. Also an external filter is not normaly adjustable and post processing is totally varible. I think t he salemen was more concerned with the "artificial commision" he gets when you don't buy accessories. One filter I always buy is a UV, but mostly to protect the lens. I put a Hoya multi-coated on my lens. They are a bit expensive in the 67mm size, but 29 bucks doesn't make me much broker.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 1:24 PM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Ru5tY wrote:
Quote:
Took the plunge. Just bought the 70-210mm f/4 for $192 usd. :shock:
Congrats! Make sure to share some photos you take with it.

Even though that seems terribly high compared to not long ago, that's still one heck of a bargain for a high quality lens with that focal range with a constant f/4 available.

Look at what a Canon 70-200mm f/4L would cost you. :-)


JimC 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 5:17 AM.