Do you need to educate the "S.O." for a decent Christmas gift?

[DonSchap]

Are you tired of trying to get a decent shot out of that awful 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit" lens you swear someone
probably dropped into your box with your DSLR camera?

Well, here is an appropriate layout in lenses to make up for that faux pas and will make for a pretty well-rounded, "third-party" lens selection, that is going take serious money to beat.



Dear __________________, "love of my life" ... please consider these lovely lenses BEFORE anything else you may be considering for my Christmas gift.

|_| SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX HSM
|_| TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
|_| TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)
|_| TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF)
|_| TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Print this and just "accidentally" slip this little list of suggestions on the table ... one or two of them will be nice, ALL five ... priceless.

Merry Christmas!
bag off.gif click on this LINK for "All I want for Christmas."

[BryanC]

And, until you do upgrade, use the kit lens! The continuous statements made that it should be just thrown away without using it is just irresponsible. If the kit lens is your only option right now, use it. Is it the best lens on the market? No. But, is it unusable? No. I'll give Don the benefit of the doubt that the one he got was maybe damaged or defective. But, I have seen many examples of images by many different people using this kit lens with some pretty darn good results. I just don't understand what seems to be a personal, over the top, hatred of this lens by someone who presents themselves here as a Sony equipment expert. Upgrade? Sure, when you can. But, "Don't use it, throw it away!"...is just simply wrong. Use it!

Four of my examples taken with the kit lens:









I prefer having taken these images over not using the kit lens and throwing it away.
See what others have done with the kit lens at this flickr group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/452739@N23/

[kgb224]

I agree with you.Yes it is nice to have top qaulity lenses,but do not forget ones kit lens.It surprised me as well the good qaulity prictures one can capture with ones kit lens.I wouldn't mind to have one good quality zoom lens but i am not going to slip a notice asking a lens for a present as i know nobody i personaly know can afford to buy me a lens.

[DonSchap]

Bryan ... I wouldn't even give my "kit" lens away ... it is so awful. The only word that came to mind when I first used it on the a100, back in 2006 was ...

Sorry, even I cannot believe it.

[narayanasharma]

Don, you have a nice list of glasses.

I do now use a 7000 SLR and would be graduating to Sony DSLR maybe few months later. Is A700 a good pick, as production has stopped?

I have the following glasses: Minolta 50mm 1.7, 35-70mm (macro)1:4, 70-210 4.5-5.6, Tamron 2x teleconverter and Kinko Extender set (3 nos)- all for US $ 250.

I planning to add wide lens and long lens as when available.

ciao

Narayana Sharma

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by narayanasharma

Don, you have a nice list of glasses.

Narayana Sharma

Thank you for your appreciative comment, Narayana. It has taken a couple of years of picking and choosing.

For the current cost and its overall value, the α700 DSLR is a very sensible choice. You will find yourself very comfortable with its operation, after having owned a Maxxum 7000. Also, you will save a substantial amount in developing costs (paper and film) with every 36 shots you take. It adds up quickly, if you do the math. That good feeling of savings makes it a lot more fun to take images and also have instant feedback from the camera on how the image turned out.

Keep an eye on the Minolta 35~70mm f/4 MACRO when you do finally use it on the DSLR. I think you will not be impressed with the result. It may look fuzzy and in need of a tune-up. I have it listed in my gear list as a 35mm-film lens only for that very reason.

When you can make the change, may I suggest a solid replacement for that lens is the TAMRON SP AF 28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO ... providing very sharp and excellent color images. Sell the 35~70mm f/4 lens to someone that may still be shooting film ... and get some money out of it. Like I mentioned, I feel that it is much better on film than a digital sensor.

Better yet, instead of the 28~75, the first lens you might want to consider is the TAMRON SP AF 17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF). Because the α700 is a crop sensor (APS-C) camera, it multiplies the focal range of your lens by a factor of 1.5x.

Doing the math ... the 17~50 x 1.5 = 28~75 ... so that's what your images wind up looking like they were shot through.

If you did go ahead mount the actual 28~75 lens on the α700, "the math" says your images will look like they were shot with a 42~105mm lens. That focal length is excellent, outdoors, whereas the 17~50 excels indoors..

I mention this just in case you were not familiar with this digital crop factor change when you switch from film to an APS-C DSLR camera. As always, get what you practically can out of your existing glass, but also be prepared to make some basic changes in it to get your digital work looking "spiffy."

For some further discussion on digital glass for the SONY DSLRs, please check this LINK.

Good luck on your transition

[OsmosisStudios]

alright, I'll feed the "troll" a bit.

Why would you get the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 when the 4-5.6 is considerably better in the edges and corners? Admittedly, you loose out on 2/3-1 1/3 stops of aperture, but most use of the UWA lens is on a tripod, and the tradeoff in sharpness is considerable. It'll also save you a few bucks.

Why double up on the 28-50 range with both the 17-50 and 28-75? Seems like overkill.

Also, what do these lenses offer that the Sony equivalents dont?
Sony make both a 28-75 f2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8; a 70-200 f/2.8, 11-18 f/4.5-5.6 and (if we're doubling up on focal lengths) a 16-35 f/2.8. Admittedly, the Sigma/Tamron offerings will likely be less expensive, but they likely wont be any better.

And while we're at it, what about a few primes in the mix? Sony make both a 50 and 85 f/1.4 that would be perfect for portraits and low-light.

And then again, what about a flash? Sony make no less than 3 fully-features speedlights as well as a macro kit.

I jsut think that "Get these lenses and you'll do great" is terribly misleading and shortsighted. I'll agree with BryanC: there's no need to outfit yourself with a gaggle of lenses before you know what youre doing with the body first. It is for this reason that I feel that dSLRs should come with a faster 50 like they used to instead of these consumer-level zooms.

[DonSchap]

WHY is it being a "troll" to have a very informed and strong opinion to offer? I wasn't asking for permission or contending someone else's opinion ... I was offering a very cost-controlled, quality-inspired solution that might meet the needs of the masses. Of course there are those who would NEVER be satisfied with anything less ... but then, what if they could be? I believe it is worth exploring.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Why would you get the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 when the 4-5.6 is considerably better in the edges and corners? Admittedly, you loose out on 2/3-1 1/3 stops of aperture, but most use of the UWA lens is on a tripod, and the tradeoff in sharpness is considerable. It'll also save you a few bucks.

Okay, as per your insight, I have edited the 10-20mm lens suggestion down to an f/4-5.6 version (which I do own), saving the audience a few bucks and sharpening their corners.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Why double up on the 28-50 range with both the 17-50 and 28-75? Seems like overkill.

To achieve a smooth f/2.8 aperture choice, splitting the 16-80 range in half has been a boon for myself. The 17-50 works exceptionally well in an indoor environment ... while the 28-75 does a great job on an APS-C as "walk-around", outdoor lens. The cost of owning both these rather bright lenses is just $100 over the darker CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT. Overkill, hardly. Select-ability, absolutely. Both lenses are under 18-ounces.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Also, what do these lenses offer that the Sony equivalents don't?

Sony make both a 28-75 f2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8; a 70-200 f/2.8, 11-18 f/4.5-5.6 and (if we're doubling up on focal lengths) a 16-35 f/2.8. Admittedly, the Sigma/Tamron offerings will likely be less expensive, but they likely wont be any better.

LESS EXPENSIVE? This is a very strange way to express the difference in the relative costs of the SONY lenses


Sony SAL-1635Z 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* (1.9 lb) ....... $1,899.99 (Wide-Angle Zoom)
Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* (2.2 lb) ................... $1,599.99 (Normal Zoom)
Sony SAL-70200G Zoom AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM (3 lb) ...................... $1,799.99 (Telephoto Zoom)
Sony SAL-70400G Zoom AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G(D) SSM (3.4 lb) ...................... $1,799.99 (Super-Telephoto Zoom)


Total .................................................. ............................................. (10.5 lb) ...$6.899.96

versus the much lighter and more controlled costs of using SIGMA/TAMRON.

SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX HSM (1 lb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ($499) (UWA)
TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (1 lb) . . . . . ($429) (Wide-Normal Zoom)
TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (1.2 lb) . . . . . ($389) (Normal-Short Tele Zoom)
TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) (2.5 lb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .($649) (Telephoto Zoom)
TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (2.6 lb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ($849) (Super-Telephoto zoom)


Total .................................................. ............................................. (8.3 lb) ...$2,815.00

I suggest anyone reading this please type in the various lenses into a shopping search engine and get the cost for each one ... and then reach in their respective wallet, extract what you find and then determine reality from fantasy ownership of the aforementioned glass. If you should happen to have an extra $7000 for lenses ...then SONY-glass is the "choice of champions." If you are limited to something $4000 less than that ... I suggest we stick with TAMRON-glass and be happy. It can also deliver a very good shot.

BTW: Can you imagine how many different PRIME lenses you could possibly get for that extra $4000 you just saved? You know, to fill in any light gaps? Hmmm, what's in YOUR wallet?

I am truly sorry if this appears to be a pitiful argument to a long time veteran of photography, but it is what they provided me with ... nothing but air in front of my camera, until I decided to put something there.

let me tell ya about it.gif

I do have a question ... "How come no one ever did this kind of examination for me when I was starting out?"

[narayanasharma]

Thanks Don.

Since Tamron is for APS-C sensor, can it be used with A900 or A850. I want to graduate directly to a FF camera, maybe a longer waiting period- 6 months.

Yes, its expensive to work with film. This teaches us patience and to wait for the correct composition to shoot.

I am going against the current trend - opting for CANON or NIKON. I have opted for Mount A and slowly building my pile of glasses.

ciao

Narayana

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Thank you for your appreciative comment, Narayana. It has taken a couple of years of picking and choosing.

For the current cost and its overall value, the α700 DSLR is a very sensible choice. You will find yourself very comfortable with its operation, after having owned a Maxxum 7000. Also, you will save a substantial amount in developing costs (paper and film) with every 36 shots you take. It adds up quickly, if you do the math. That good feeling of savings makes it a lot more fun to take images and also have instant feedback from the camera on how the image turned out.

Keep an eye on the Minolta 35~70mm f/4 MACRO when you do finally use it on the DSLR. I think you will not be impressed with the result. It may look fuzzy and in need of a tune-up. I have it listed in my gear list as a 35mm-film lens only for that very reason.

When you can make the change, may I suggest a solid replacement for that lens is the TAMRON SP AF 28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO ... providing very sharp and excellent color images. Sell the 35~70mm f/4 lens to someone that may still be shooting film ... and get some money out of it. Like I mentioned, I feel that it is much better on film than a digital sensor.

Better yet, instead of the 28~75, the first lens you might want to consider is the TAMRON SP AF 17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF). Because the α700 is a crop sensor (APS-C) camera, it multiplies the focal range of your lens by a factor of 1.5x.

Doing the math ... the 17~50 x 1.5 = 28~75 ... so that's what your images wind up looking like they were shot through.

If you did go ahead mount the actual 28~75 lens on the α700, "the math" says your images will look like they were shot with a 42~105mm lens. That focal length is excellent, outdoors, whereas the 17~50 excels indoors..

I mention this just in case you were not familiar with this digital crop factor change when you switch from film to an APS-C DSLR camera. As always, get what you practically can out of your existing glass, but also be prepared to make some basic changes in it to get your digital work looking "spiffy."

For some further discussion on digital glass for the SONY DSLRs, please check this LINK.

Good luck on your transition

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by narayanasharma

Since Tamron is for APS-C sensor, can it be used with A900 or A850. I want to graduate directly to a FF camera, maybe a longer waiting period- 6 months.

Narayana,

you need to be aware of TAMRON's lens designations in their builds.

Only those lenses marked as specifically "Di-II" are APS-C-only glass, all other glass is Full Frame or 35mm-film.

The only Di-II glass that TAMRON currently has on the market for the SONY mount is:

SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (Model A16) ........ effectively 26-75mm on APS-C
SP AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II LD Apsherical (Model A13) .............. effectively 17-27mm on APS-C
SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (Model B001) ...... effectively 15-36mm on APS-C
AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di-II LD (Model A15) ...................................... effectively 83-300mm on APS-C
SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II LD (IF) 1:1 MACRO (Model G005) .................. effectively 90mm on APS-C
AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (Model A18) ....... effectively 27-375mm on APS-C
AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (Model A14) ....... effectively 27-300mm on APS-C

Here is the list of Full Frame (Di) lenses:

AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical (IF) Macro (Model A031) ... effectively 42-300mm on APS-C
AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (Model A061) ........ effectively 42-450mm on APS-C
SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (Model A09) ............ effectively 42-107mm on APS-C
SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (Model A001) ... effectively 105-300mm on APS-C
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 (Model A17) ......................... effectively 105-450mm on APS-C
SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) (Model A08) .............................effectively 300-750mm on APS-C
SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro (Model 272) .................................. effectively 135mm on APS-C
SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD (IF) 1:1 Macro (Model B01) ..................... effectively 270mm on APS-C


Now, the a850/a900 Full Frame DSLRs have a feature which allows them to mount and use "APS-C only" glass on them, but you have to use the camera's menu screen to select the "APS-C size capture" Mode,



which crops them to their APS-C size image, so you do NOT lose the use of this glass, if you have it. Effectively, you can use ALL the TAMRON lenses with either the a700 or the a850/a900 DSLR (as well as the entire SONY DSLR family of cameras)

I hope you find this helpful in your decision.