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 31, 2006, 10:56 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Tazzie wrote:
Quote:
I paid $269 as I remember from B&H used in the box with original papers and invoice. It's Mint.A real value.

Sometimes itgives a 3-D likephoto that caninduce vertigo, even though viewing a horizontal scene. Maybe its just my inner ear.

I use it continuously.
It's my favorite lens, but in all fairness, I haven't gotten to play with the rest of my collection much yet. I wish it had a little more range at both ends, if it did, I would probably have little need to change lenses.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

So far I have to agree. Just bought this lens last week and took it on our trip to Arizona last weekend. Here's a some shots unedited just resized. Also used a 5600 flash in some shots.
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:05 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

Also I did not remember that myAS switch was turned off during these shots.
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:08 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

with flash
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:09 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

Gila River
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

Dusk in AZ with my new KM 28-75 f/2.8 D
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 7:22 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Same lens (lovely bokeh)
Attached Images
 
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 7:39 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

That definitely sounds like a great lens to get. However, quite honestly, none of the posted shots needed a 2.8 aperture, except possibly for lomitamike's dusk shot (which I love!). They were mostly shot in bright sunlight where even f22 would not produce any shake or blur. So, while they are nice shots, I don't see anything I could not have easily done at the same quality with my Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 lens.

Where the 2.8 constant aperture comes in handy is in low light indoor shots. The reduced Depth of Field at wide apertures also creates a quite desirable effect at times (undesirable at others of course)

Here is a shot I took indoors in low light with theMinolta 50mm 1.7 fixed lens at f1.7.

My point is that the shots displayed here should represent what makes this lens differentor unique from others. Takingdecent shots on a sunny day certainly is notit.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries





Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 9:24 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,295
Default

Rduve: I agree with your explanation on DOF, low light and a small f number I also use a 50mm f1.7. But I think the point thats being made here is that meanstreak, maxxum7d, nooner and myself are reporting on our experiences with this lens. Someone may be thinking about buying oneand every bit of info you can find helps in your decision. I'm sure the Tamron is a great lens too but I don't have one to do any comparisons. Here's a 2.8 shot in low light.
Attached Images
 
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:14 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
That definitely sounds like a great lens to get. However, quite honestly, none of the posted shots needed a 2.8 aperture, except possibly for lomitamike's dusk shot (which I love!). They were mostly shot in bright sunlight where even f22 would not produce any shake or blur. So, while they are nice shots, I don't see anything I could not have easily done at the same quality with my Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 lens.

Where the 2.8 constant aperture comes in handy is in low light indoor shots. The reduced Depth of Field at wide apertures also creates a quite desirable effect at times (undesirable at others of course)

Here is a shot I took indoors in low light with theMinolta 50mm 1.7 fixed lens at f1.7.

My point is that the shots displayed here should represent what makes this lens differentor unique from others. Takingdecent shots on a sunny day certainly is notit.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries





Rduve, the first picture I posted of the flowerand the butterflys were not taken in bright sunlight. The flower was taken without any sun at all. For the butterflys,there may have been some sun out, but it was mostly overcast.

I didn't start the threadwith the intent to show what makes it unique. I was making a statement based on the pictures that I have taken about how pleased I am with this lens and I posted some recent fun shots that I liked. Yes it does great indoors, but it does well outdoors as well.

I am especiallypleased that thelenscost me 50 dollars more than the 7D body only price. If you recall, I have the Tamron 28-300 also and while I am happy with the purchase,in all honesty, I have taken sharper pictures indoors and out with the KM lens and AF seems to respond better than the Tamron. Why it seems to focus more on the money I don't know... I'm no expert.The obvious reason I bout the Tamron was for the 300mm range and the low price since it is the older model. Yes that Tamron was some buy at 150 bucks, despite the fact that it cost methree times the price of the KM.:-) Now being that I made that statement... at some point I'llhave to post some fair camparison shots to show you why I like the Maxxum over the Tamron. All that being said, they are two differnent lenses that serve two different purposes and I would never expect the same results. If I thought the Tamron could do everything the Maxxum could... I would sell the KM lens in a heart beat and enjoy that extra cash.

As for everyone else who posted... I thought they were making a statement that they were happy with the lens also. Most or all of the people who posted pictures, just got this camera and or lens recently and I think they just wanted to post some their shots. I didn't think anyone here was under the impression there was a requirement"that the shots displayed here should represent what makes this lens differentor unique from others." If someone flat out made that statement, then by all means they should back it up. I think the intent here was excitement, fun and sharing pictures. Anyway... I always enjoy your shots regardless of which lens you take or which camera. Speaking of which, did you sell that FZ30 yet? I still have my TCON-17, but I intend to keep it to use with myPanasonic camcorder.
meanstreak 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 2:18 AM.