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 Nov 2, 2006, 1:16 AM   #191
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Ok I nailed a 35mm f/2 for 500 bucks including shipping. Not sure if it was good or bad to buy this lens (I have yet to find out if its RS). But it is so rare and I was so in need of another lens high that I said, you know what, fudge it. Its all your fault, I was fine before I joined this forum
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 10:17 AM   #192
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Ok I nailed a 35mm f/2 for 500 bucks including shipping. Not sure if it was good or bad to buy this lens (I have yet to find out if its RS). But it is so rare and I was so in need of another lens high that I said, you know what, fudge it. Its all your fault, I was fine before I joined this forum
That sounds like a lot of money but it is a rare lens. Where did you get it?


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 11:17 AM   #193
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

I was looking at the stores listed on this page: http://www.photosecrets.com/links.stores.html and ran into a canadian store (Send me a PM if you want to know who). They also have a 20mm f/2.8 and 24-85mm new in box.

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Ok I nailed a 35mm f/2 for 500 bucks including shipping. Not sure if it was good or bad to buy this lens (I have yet to find out if its RS). But it is so rare and I was so in need of another lens high that I said, you know what, fudge it. Its all your fault, I was fine before I joined this forum
That sounds like a lot of money but it is a rare lens. Where did you get it?

maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2006, 11:34 AM   #194
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
I was looking at the stores listed on this page: meanstreak wrote: [/b]
Quote:
maxxum7d wrote:
Quote:
Ok I nailed a 35mm f/2 for 500 bucks including shipping. Not sure if it was good or bad to buy this lens (I have yet to find out if its RS). But it is so rare and I was so in need of another lens high that I said, you know what, fudge it. Its all your fault, I was fine before I joined this forum
That sounds like a lot of money but it is a rare lens. Where did you get it?

I was more curious than actually interested in actually buying one. I have a 24-85mm EX+ that I got from KEH and my 20-40mm Tamron 2.7-3.5does a good enough job that I really don't need a 20mm Prime. The 35MM F 2.0 is certainly interesting.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 12:29 PM   #195
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

100% crop
Attached Images
 
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2006, 8:32 PM   #196
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 202
Default

If you look at that crop its at f/2 and its pretty sharp at this aperture. However, I had an opportunity to shoot with both 35mm f/2. and 28-75mm f/2.8 D and at smaller apertures, the 28-75 D was as good as the 35mm! The 35mm also suffers from serious flare. I was using a flash right outside the FOV and it showed up as a purplish spot on my 28-75 shot at 28mm while the 35mm was too hazy. I heard this problem is fixed in the RS version of this lens, but thats even rarer from what I know.

I think the main advantage of the 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 is on FF sensors, because all things being equal, at f/4 and smaller, D lenses give more bang for the buck!
maxxum7d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 8:43 PM   #197
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Default

I have been reading this form for some time and have decided to join the fun and post. I have learned a lot on this form and hope that I can contribute.

Man I am glad I am not the only one out their that has the lens addiction thing! :lol: I buy a new one thinking I have everthing I need and then about the time the new lens arrives, I find another one that is needed to complete the colletion. Does this ever stop? :?

My name is MaxImage and I am a Lensoholic.
  • KM 5D[/*]
  • Min 2500D Flash[/*]
  • Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 EX (Still trying to figure this one out)[/*]
  • Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II (Great Lens - Very Sharp, this is a keeper!)[/*]
  • KM 18-70 3.5/5.6 Kit (in storage)[/*]
  • Min 24 2.8 (Nice prime)[/*]
  • Min 24-105 3.5/4.5 (Nice zoom, just not very wide, it was main lens until the Tammy 17-50 arrived)[/*]
  • Min 50 1.7 (Sharp, fast, cheap, portrait)[/*]
  • Sig 50 2.8 Macro (don't use much)[/*]
  • Min 70-210 3.5/4.5 (smaller and lighter than the f4, faster at 3.5, maybe even as sharp, another keeper)
[/*]
I plan to post some information and photos from the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR if anyone is interested. I think this will become a very popular lens. So, if your a Lensoholic, beware!:G








MaxImage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 8:46 PM   #198
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Welcome to the forums.

That Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 should end up being a popular lens.

So, I think the other members here would like to see some pics from it when you get a chance.

The choices in a lens with it's focal range and brightness are somewhat limited right now (i.e., the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is the primary alternative, and reviews of it have been mixed).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 9:38 PM   #199
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks JimC. I just typed up a review of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and attached a sample photo. When I hit send, I got a error, too large, and now the message and all are gone.:sad: I will try again.
MaxImage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2006, 9:45 PM   #200
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You'll need to make sure the filesize of any image you attach is less than around 240KB.

It's a good idea to make it no more than around 720 pixels wide, too. Otherwise, it's not going to display properly in most browsers (it makes the entire thread wider, requiring members to scroll left and right to see it).

If you have photos on a publically viewable web site, and can post a link to the images instead, the restrictions won't apply.

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 1:34 PM.