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, 10:22 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Beautiful shot, Lomitamike. I didn't mean to knock the lens. I might actually get one myself when I have the extra change. I think my next purchase, however, would be the Sigma 10-20 lens. Between the original 18-70 kit lens, the Tamron 28-300XR 3.5-6.3, the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 2.8-4 and the 100-400 4.5-6.7 of the same series, AND the Minolta 50mm 1.7 lens, I think for now I got myself covered for most situations, other than super wide angle. Great color in the AZ shots, by the way, and I love the river scene.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries


rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 10:38 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

meanstreak, I didn't mean to spoil the party here. The KM 28-75mm f/2.8 D is definitely a great lens to get in the future. And as I stated in the Tamron 28-300 thread, I am NOT happy withthe Tamron's3.5-4.0 aperture range at all, very soft. I took a couple of hundred shots with a dozen or so different lenses that I have here from my ebay dealings (I have been buying old SLR's with lenses and accessories and I am reselling the parts individually). I will post some here as soon as I have a few free hours to catalogue and crop some samples. The upshot is that some of the lenses do not handle wide apertures at the wider angles well, but most are very comparable in all other situations. The Tamron 28-300 XR unfortunately was one of those lenses, and fared quite worse between 3.5-4.0 than a much older Tamron 28-200 lens that I tested. The Tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 and equivalent Minolta both did better than their Sigma counterpart.

I will write a whole article with comparisons once I get a chance. It's a lot of work, but since I have had my hands on all those lenses, I want to make the results available to this community.

By the way, the Vivitar lenses did quite well, too. That 70-210 2.8-4 is a bargain for the $79 I paid for it from Cameta. An ideal lens for indoor sports.

Thanks for the nice words about my pictures by the way. Check out the modeling shots in my galleries if you like.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries


rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 12:05 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Interesting. I've never heard anyone claim to be get the same quality photos with the Tamron 28-300 and the 28-75. I've got both of them and I can't say that. But, what do I know........
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:27 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Nooner, you are right. I am sure the Minolta lens is a lot sharper. I stand corrected.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 9:56 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

hi Rainer,

I took multiple shots with the same lens at 2.8 aperture inside the brooklyn museum. The light was so low in some places that even 1/15 and f/2.8 wasn't enough at 1600 ISO! The shot I posted demonstrates exactly that. I feel hurrrt.....

I will be posting more soon!



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




maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 12:37 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Thanks, looking forward. My point was that I was interested in some comparative crops cause it's hard to see anything on resized shots. Please post when you got some. I am now very curious about this lens.



Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries

rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:14 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
Thanks, looking forward. My point was that I was interested in some comparative crops cause it's hard to see anything on resized shots. Please post when you got some. I am now very curious about this lens.



Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries





Rainer
According to JimC, Adorama had it on sale for 299. It is going for around 379 and up in most places. At 299, it is a steal, but not cheap compared to the real bargains out there. Of course you could buy it attached to the 7D for 899 and sell the 7D for a nice piece of change. Since you are not in NY, you would not have to pay tax. You could also sell the 5D and keep the 7D. Damn.... I like spending your money!


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:45 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

thanks for the financial advise. You actually gave me an idea. If Adorama sells the 7D with the KM28-75 2.8 for $899, I could replace the lens and flip it at a profit. I'll look into it. Or switch out the 5D for the 7D if I like it better...

Thanks again.

PS: I did sell my FZ30. You had asked me previously about that. Still got $500 for it. I don't miss it. the KM5D more than replaces it.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 2:02 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
meanstreak, I didn't mean to spoil the party here. The KM 28-75mm f/2.8 D is definitely a great lens to get in the future. And as I stated in the Tamron 28-300 thread, I am NOT happy withthe Tamron's3.5-4.0 aperture range at all, very soft. I took a couple of hundred shots with a dozen or so different lenses that I have here from my ebay dealings (I have been buying old SLR's with lenses and accessories and I am reselling the parts individually). I will post some here as soon as I have a few free hours to catalogue and crop some samples. The upshot is that some of the lenses do not handle wide apertures at the wider angles well, but most are very comparable in all other situations. The Tamron 28-300 XR unfortunately was one of those lenses, and fared quite worse between 3.5-4.0 than a much older Tamron 28-200 lens that I tested. The Tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6 and equivalent Minolta both did better than their Sigma counterpart.

I will write a whole article with comparisons once I get a chance. It's a lot of work, but since I have had my hands on all those lenses, I want to make the results available to this community.

By the way, the Vivitar lenses did quite well, too. That 70-210 2.8-4 is a bargain for the $79 I paid for it from Cameta. An ideal lens for indoor sports.

Thanks for the nice words about my pictures by the way. Check out the modeling shots in my galleries if you like.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries






I know you didn't mean to spoil the party and I can tell that you really enjoy photography. I'll have to check out that Vivitar.... my only problem with having all these lenses is that means I'll be changing them a lot more often and I am starting to worry about getting dust in the cam.

Speaking of the modeling.... I notice that you favor a certain one. Does she travel to NY?
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 2:21 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
If Adorama sells the 7D with the KM28-75 2.8 for $899, I could replace the lens and flip it at a profit. I'll look into it. Or switch out the 5D for the 7D if I like it better...
For a very short time a while back (March 7th), they actually had the 28-75mm f/2.8 on sale for only $199.95. Now, that was a good deal. They switched it back to something like $399 the next day, though.

Now, it's on sale again for $299.95 at Adorama (still lower than the competition).

They've still got the 7D + 28-75mm f/2.8 kits for $899.95 (as discussed in this thread already).


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 9:21 AM.