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 Jul 12, 2006, 8:16 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

meanstreak;

your 35-70 F4 Macro might be your best lens !

the 50mm f1.7 is what KM used to use for calibration purposes

try it wide open to check focus lock

print target and shoot at 45 degree angle



Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2006, 10:41 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
meanstreak;

your 35-70 F4 Macro might be your best lens !

the 50mm f1.7 is what KM used to use for calibration purposes

try it wide open to check focus lock

print target and shoot at 45 degree angle


I will try to give them a run for their money this weekend. What bothers me about them is that when I put them on a DSLR is the 1.5 factor. I would prefer something as good as both of these, but wider. Maybe a 20, 24, 28 or 35 MM fixed bright lens to compliment the 50mm would do me justice. Why is the 35-70mm such a good lens... for the macro capability? The manual focus part of the macro is annoying, but mostly because of the limits of the viewfinder and of course my eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. I really don't mind manual focus since its what I grew up on.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 9:21 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

the 35-70 is tack sharp all around

asto the 1.5x factor, it let's you shoot through the 'sweet spot' without loss of f stop!

i have heard that the 28mm f2 is excellent (the 28mm f2.8 is so-so)
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 10:57 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Nice shot, Bernabeu!

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 11:12 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
the 35-70 is tack sharp all around

asto the 1.5x factor, it let's you shoot through the 'sweet spot' without loss of f stop!

i have heard that the 28mm f2 is excellent (the 28mm f2.8 is so-so)
I would like something like the 35-70 only wider because of the 1.5 factor. Something like 24-50 which comes out in the ballpark of 36-75 35mm equivalent.

I see Minolta has a 24-50/4, Sigma has a 24-60 F2.8 EX... neither one a macro.

I have to stop this lensbuying madness... I keep saying that, but somehow I'm hooked every time I start talking about different lenses. The difference now, is I'm only gonna look at quality stuff. Maybe not top shelf, but I'm gonna stay away from low end. I was starting to fall into the trap of convincing myself that the low end stuff is pretty good. It is only as good as what your final output is. I now see that if you want large quality prints or see photography as an art and, that the low end lenses don't cut it. When I compare a shot at 5x7 the difference between lenses depending on good ambient lighting conditions is minimal, but the minute we talk about massive cropping, resizing or shots taken in low light, the quality glass makes a vast difference. Of course a lot has to do with how we compose the sceneand how we appreciate and study the photographs. If we just treat them as photos it all becomes mechanical and doesn't seem as important. If we treat the photos from an art appreciation perspective, they take on a whole new meaning.

meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 11:21 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

I feel the same way, I've bought 3 lenses this week myself (including the one from walmart's kit and the 70-300mm zoom, which is almost a piece of crap). I almost bought another 28-75mm from adorama yesterday and couldn't help looking on eBay for the 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 lenses. This camera system is getting expensive really fast! And one of the reasons I bought KM was because it is cheaper than equivalent Nikon or Canon in lens and body price. Man, this is addictive!

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
the 35-70 is tack sharp all around

asto the 1.5x factor, it let's you shoot through the 'sweet spot' without loss of f stop!

i have heard that the 28mm f2 is excellent (the 28mm f2.8 is so-so)
I would like something like the 35-70 only wider because of the 1.5 factor. Something like 24-50 which comes out in the ballpark of 36-75 35mm equivalent.

I see Minolta has a 24-50/4, Sigma has a 24-60 F2.8 EX... neither one a macro.

I have to stop this lensbuying madness... I keep saying that, but somehow I'm hooked every time I start talking about different lenses. The difference now, is I'm only gonna look at quality stuff. Maybe not top shelf, but I'm gonna stay away from low end. I was starting to fall into the trap of convincing myself that the low end stuff is pretty good. It is only as good as what your final output is. I now see that if you want large quality prints or see photography as an art and, that the low end lenses don't cut it. When I compare a shot at 5x7 the difference between lenses depending on good ambient lighting conditions is minimal, but the minute we talk about massive cropping, resizing or shots taken in low light, the quality glass makes a vast difference. Of course a lot has to do with how we compose the sceneand how we appreciate and study the photographs. If we just treat them as photos it all becomes mechanical and doesn't seem as important. If we treat the photos from an art appreciation perspective, they take on a whole new meaning.
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 12:29 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
I feel the same way, I've bought 3 lenses this week myself (including the one from walmart's kit and the 70-300mm zoom, which is almost a piece of crap). I almost bought another 28-75mm from adorama yesterday and couldn't help looking on eBay for the 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 lenses. This camera system is getting expensive really fast! And one of the reasons I bought KM was because it is cheaper than equivalent Nikon or Canon in lens and body price. Man, this is addictive!
To tell the truth, I haven't spent that much but have a lot of lenses. Most of the ones I own I got for under a hundred bucks. As soon as I'm done weeding, I'm gonna sell the stuff I don't want on EBay and on some, I'm going to make a profit. I have yet to sell something on EBay for less than what I have paid regardless of what was and some of that includes stuff I bought on EBay. The ones in red I'm keeping for sure and it covers me from 20-400mm without a lot of overlap except the 28-300mm Tamron. The 200-400 Tamron is a very specialized range and to bulky to cover the high end of the 28-300 Tamron.I want the Tamron 28-300just for the range and convenience, but when the lighting goes dim orif I find it convenient to carry more than one lens, I'll use the 28-75 2.8 and the Beercan to cover most of my needs. If I really need to stretch the the tele end I can boostthe beercan to 294MM by adding a 1.4X Tamron teleconverter I got cheap at KEH for 27 dollars. It will diminish the light and quality a bit, but I'm gonna test it out to see how well it does.

Under $100

35-70 F4 ( $50used including a Maxxum 7000 )

28-75 2.8 D ($50new more than the body only 7D price )

50 1.7 ( $50 used)

18-70 kit ( display model came with 5D for $269)

75-300 ( $59 new )

28-105F3.5-4.5 ( $90 new ) Why I bought this I don't know... momentary lapse??

Over $100

70-210 F4 ( 113 used )

28-300 Tamron ( $140 new )

20-40 2.7-3.5 Tamaron ( $ 169 New )

200-400 F5.6 Tamaron ( $285 used )


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 12:31 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
I almost bought another 28-75mm from adorama yesterday and couldn't help looking on eBay for the 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 lenses.
BTW.... did you ask Adorama about the lens issue?

The 50mm 1.7 should be adequate. They say the 1.4 is better, but might not be worth paying double to get it. Although it is still a pretty inexpensive lens, but a bit scarcer.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 1:40 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
I feel the same way, I've bought 3 lenses this week myself (including the one from walmart's kit and the 70-300mm zoom, which is almost a piece of crap). I almost bought another 28-75mm from adorama yesterday and couldn't help looking on eBay for the 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 lenses. This camera system is getting expensive really fast! And one of the reasons I bought KM was because it is cheaper than equivalent Nikon or Canon in lens and body price. Man, this is addictive!
Quote:
To tell the truth, I haven't spent that much but have a lot of lenses. Most of the ones I own I got for under a hundred bucks. As soon as I'm done weeding, I'm gonna sell the stuff I don't want on EBay and on some, I'm going to make a profit. I have yet to sell something on EBay for less than what I have paid regardless of what was and some of that includes stuff I bought on EBay. The ones in red I'm keeping for sure and it covers me from 20-400mm without a lot of overlap except the 28-300mm Tamron. The 200-400 Tamron is a very specialized range and to bulky to cover the high end of the 28-300 Tamron.I want the Tamron 28-300just for the range and convenience, but when the lighting goes dim orif I find it convenient to carry more than one lens, I'll use the 28-75 2.8 and the Beercan to cover most of my needs. If I really need to stretch the the tele end I can boostthe beercan to 294MM by adding a 1.4X Tamron teleconverter I got cheap at KEH for 27 dollars. It will diminish the light and quality a bit, but I'm gonna test it out to see how well it does.

Under $100

35-70 F4 ( $50used including a Maxxum 7000 )

28-75 2.8 D ($50new more than the body only 7D price )

50 1.7 ( $50 used)

18-70 kit ( display model came with 5D for $269)

75-300 ( $59 new )

28-105F3.5-4.5 ( $90 new ) Why I bought this I don't know... momentary lapse??

Over $100

70-210 F4 ( 113 used )

28-300 Tamron ( $140 new )

20-40 2.7-3.5 Tamaron ( $ 169 New )

200-400 F5.6 Tamaron ( $285 used )


IMO:
Quote:
your 'keepers';
Quote:
20-40 f2.7-3.5 (for landscape use at f11)
Quote:
25-75 f2.8 (D)
Quote:
50 f1.7
Quote:
70-210 f4
Quote:
200-400 f5.6
Quote:
this covers 30-600mm 35 equiv

bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 2:58 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
IMO:
Quote:
your 'keepers';
Quote:
20-40 f2.7-3.5 (for landscape use at f11)
Quote:
25-75 f2.8 (D)
Quote:
50 f1.7
Quote:
70-210 f4
Quote:
200-400 f5.6
Quote:
this covers 30-600mm 35 equiv

LOL.... I knew you were going to toss away the 28-300mm.




Attached Images
 
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 4:24 PM.