The REAL "Dynamic Duo" ?

[DonSchap]

The REAL "Dynamic Duo" ?

Over the past couple years, embroiled discussions have come and gone between the absolute utility of initially having the 18-(200)250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens, over any other.

The complaints abound that it is "not bright enough" for indoor use. The solution … get a flash. The 18-(200)250 is actually “brighter” across its range than the SONY 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT “kit” lens.



But, I say there is still another option that TAMRON has recently released that covers a lot more ground than many others, that can alleviate the use of a flash. That solution is in the form of the …

TAMRON SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II LD 1:1 MACRO (IF) lens

It you pair the 18-250 (most current incarnation of this lens for the SONY-mount) with this 60mm f/2, you have a one-two punch for indoors and outdoors. At f/2, the 60mm takes a terrific shot with your ISO at 1600 and your speed at 1/30th sec. under most indoor ambient light conditions (no flash required). That solves the lighting issue, right there, with one lens.

Not only that, the 60mm mounted on an APS-C sensor camera (if you do not own a a850 or a900 DSLR … yours is one of these) represents a 90mm full frame shot, which for a 1:1 MACRO shot is correct length. So, another hurtle falls to just one lens.

Outdoors, for flexibility, the 18-250 has no match. It can conveniently get the wide stuff and with a quick twist of the zoom ring, instantly reach across the park and zero-in with a 250mm close-up. It totally eliminates the need to change lenses. Again, if you desire to use this wide lens feature, indoors, you will, more than likely, need an external flash (SONY HVL-F42AM) to properly light a room.

So, regardless of the flash, two lenses … that provide an awesome range of capabilities.

I recommend you throw that “kit” lens away and start fresh with the

(Click on the below links to get a peek)

TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di–II LD Aspherical (IF)

&

TAMRON SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II LD 1:1 MACRO (IF)

This is a simple APS-C two lens solution, to start off with, to try and successfully solve life’s little problems.

[OsmosisStudios]

While the 18-200/250 lens is "brighter" across the same range, the image quality it represents is lacking, even for the kit 18-70. That's a matter of PHYSICS, not taste. So don't call me on it: as you say yourself: you didn't create the optical laws, you just deal with them.

The 60mm/90mm difference doesn't do anything for 1:1 focusing. That's apparent focal length, not actual distance.

Finally, You've posted (here and elsewhere) about the "ideal setup" before. And youre doing it again. So which is it? make up your mind.

FInally, I'm starting to consider your posts more advertising than content. Reportable-level advertising.

[DonSchap]

First of all ... lens availability changes.

The TAMRON SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II LD 1:1 MACRO (IF) has only come available as of Sept 2009. It is considerably a better choice than the much simpler SAL 50mm f/1.4 PRIME.

I want to update and make my point about this combination and say for a beginner, a better combination would be hard to find. The "kit" lens, by virtue of its overall mass production and manufacturing line quality calls into question whether it will deliver anything of a quality photograph, concerning overall image contrast, sharpness and lens agility.

The TAMRON's 18-250 image quality is right on par with the 28-75mm f/2.8, despite its compromises at the extreme ends. There is no reason a beginning photographer could not do extremely well with this lens mounted. It eliminates lens change, keeps the interior of the camera cleaner (due to that fact) and offers a zoom range second to none (in the SONY mount.)

If you want to tackle opinion, you are fully entitled, but that is mine, until the cows come home, based on my experiences with these and other optics. There is no money in this ... and no one asked me to do it. I saw you reaching for your wallet, realizing I had made a serious point. This is the beginner way to go!

There certainly are ENOUGH questions about what lenses a person might buy after their initial "kit" purchase. So, I have to humbly ask ... what's your opinion?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by DonSchap

I want to update and make my point about this combination and say for a beginner, a better combination would be hard to find. The "kit" lens, by virtue of its overall mass production and manufacturing line quality calls into question whether it will deliver anything of a quality photograph, concerning overall image contrast, sharpness and lens agility.

Kit lenses, in the right hands, can be VERY good. They need to be shot right, but it's certainly not impossible. This also assumes we're discussing various forms of Sony's 18-55 or 18-70 lenses (not spectacular, but still very very useable) or, as Tamron makes both lenses for other mounts, we can discuss the various forms of the 18-55, 18-70, 18-105, 17-85, 18-135, etc. In which case the kit lenses range from quite good to excellent. The Nikon 18-70, for example, is tack sharp in the centre wide open, gets full sharpness by f/5.6 and whose only real problem is vignetting. It rivals the 17-55 f/2.8, the main difference being a variable aperture (f/3.5-4.5) and the different range. Much can be said about the 18-105 and 18-135 as well. They're NOT pro lenses, but they're still excellent when properly used.

Originally Posted by DonSchap

The TAMRON's 18-250 image quality is right on par with the 28-75mm f/2.8, despite its compromises at the extreme ends. There is no reason a beginning photographer could not do extremely well with this lens mounted. It eliminates lens change, keeps the interior of the camera cleaner (due to that fact) and offers a zoom range second to none (in the SONY mount.)

Im sorry, but if you compare absolute image quality of a superzoom to a semi-prof f/2.8 constant and think theyre "right on par" you need to up the meds. Even the Tamron, which I've tried and absolutely detested (it was no better than my 18-70 and, in some aspects, worse) will perform better than just about any superzoom over the same range. The difference here is that the 18-250 goes wider and much longer. It's fine as a single do-it-all vacation lens, but if we're talking image quality, it's no contest.

Originally Posted by DonSchap

If you want to tackle opinion, you are fully entitled, but that is mine, until the cows come home, based on my experiences with these and other optics. There is no money in this ... and no one asked me to do it. I saw you reaching for your wallet, realizing I had made a serious point. This is the beginner way to go!

You saw me reaching for my wallet? Im sorry, but the only investments i've been discussing on these forums is a body upgrade, and most assuredly not to Sony. I also fail to see your serious point: evangelical-esque ranting and raving, maybe, but no actual point besides "BUY TAMRON". In all-caps, no less.

Originally Posted by DonSchap

There certainly are ENOUGH questions about what lenses a person might buy after their initial "kit" purchase. So, I have to humbly ask ... what's your opinion?

Cameras come as "kits" for a reason: the lens is convenient, offers a decent walkaround range and provides the user with something to LEARN with. I work in retail, in PHOTO retail, and people that are coming in as BEGINNERS (which, as you state, is the targeted audience for this post) don't know focal length from aperture or shutter speed from iso. They're looking for leaps-and-bounds upgrades in the image quality they get; image quality that the 18-2XX lenses cannot provide. Most major manufacturers (including the 3rd party makers) realize that cameras come in kits and have planned the consumer section of their lineup accordingly. For the most part, first party makers use a combination method: "kit" 18-55, 55-200 (or 250, in Canon's case) and a flash. That's what a consumer needs. If we go into anything more complicated, we get maybe an UWA lens (10-20/10-24) and a fast prime (which most have been making for decades). Third party companies, however, go the opposite approach: all a consumer needs is a 18-2xx lens and theyre good. So we sell them that. And nothing else.

There is a reason that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make 1: a superzoom lens and 2: a bunch of f/2.8 constant aperture lenses. Its because they're appealing to the consumer-level and the prosumer/pro level completely separately.

If you ask me, the "kit" for a beginner is just as Canon, Nikon, et al. have proposed it: 18-55, 55-200, flash. And done. A prosumer kit gives that much more flexibility: a ultra-wide, a midrange zoom and a telephoto zoom. No examples because there are SO MANY OPTIONS. The "pro" kit, for the pro that isn't already working with first-party gear, is the f/2.8 constants. Yes, there is some overlap in places depending on the photogapher, but for the most part that's how it breaks down.

You're welcome.

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Cameras come as "kits" for a reason: the lens is convenient, offers a decent walkaround range and provides the user with something to LEARN with. I work in retail, in PHOTO retail, and people that are coming in as BEGINNERS (which, as you state, is the targeted audience for this post) don't know focal length from aperture or shutter speed from iso. They're looking for leaps-and-bounds upgrades in the image quality they get; image quality that the 18-2XX lenses cannot provide.

I agree that a beginner will be TESTED no matter if they had the best glass available, but what I totally DISAGREE with is effectively "crippling" them with an awful lens right from the get go. I guess I am troubled as to why YOU cannot see that aspect of all this.

My biggest question is "Why put an truly inferior optic on the front of your camera, in the first place?" All that does it totally demoralize the user as they try to achieve the unachievable .. a decent, contrasty, well-focused image.

Using a "coke bottle bottom" lens is not the way to go through life.

The rest of your argument falls completely flat in light of this revelation and it not worthy of addressing. Until you come to grips that nothing worthwhile will be achieved by using inferior glass ... there is simply nothing MORE to be discussed. This is a dead end by its own means.

I offer this ... and you can take it to the bank:

The best camera body in the world can not help correct crappy optics!

DO NOT USE THEM ... period!

Your photographic integrity should mean more than that.

Until the user decides to actually USE better "basic" optics ... anything more they do BEFORE that is just academic and effectively pointless. Sell them all the retail claptrap you want to, OZ. You are only delaying the day they make "THE REAL CHANGE" (aka a better lens) to better photography. Start there and begin your climb.

If you take anything else away from DPS ... make sure you take that one.

[OsmosisStudios]

You're ignoring anything I wrote and simply returning to your original argument. Kit lenses arent terrible: you just dont know how to use them. I truly am sorry for you.

I won't bother responding any further to this thread.

[Billy27]

Originally Posted by DonSchap

The best camera body in the world can not help correct crappy optics!

DO NOT USE THEM ... period!

Your photographic integrity should mean more than that.

Until the user decides to actually USE better "basic" optics ... anything more they do BEFORE that is just academic and effectively pointless.

You're confusing me in a previous thread I came away with the idea that, according to you, we should be upgrading our camera bodies, not lenses, if we want to better our skill. Now in this thread I get the impression, from you, that in order to improve as photographers we need to upgrade our lenses not bodies.

I agree with OsmosisStudios a kit lens can be very good in the right hands. Just learn to use it. We shouldn't be running out to buy a "better" lens to try and improve our skills. You can have all the "best" glass in the world, but if you don't have the talent or skills you're just kidding yourself. It's like saying "I can't drive well because I have a Ford Focus but if I go get myself a Ferrari I'll be a good driver".

And don't take this as an attack on your skills. I haven't even seen any of your work.
Just saying that your advice can be very confusing.

[DonSchap]

There are a couple SONY DSLRs that can offer a variety of photographic aspects, but only three, in my opinion, are worth investing more money in:

The a550 (APS-C)

The a700 (APS-C)

The a850 (FF)

Now ASSUMING you have one of these, you have about the best camera available to mount glass on.

When it comes to photography, if you do not have a good lens on the front of your camera, nothing else is all that important. You can fiddle and beg off to all your viewers why you were not able to get a sharp image, but the lens is the place your image STARTS from. Please do not be confused about that. The rest is academic.

Let's say for some far-fetched reason, you actually take my advice and buy a typically decent third-party lens, such as the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (which, for the umpteenth time is a dynamite replacement for the 18-70 "kit" lens) With this lens, you actually have a good chance of taking indoor images and getting added features normally missed with the "kit", things like better contrast, better focus speed, better focus response, and overall sharper images.

"Golly gee, Mr. Peabody, that sounds awesome."

So, tell me where this is falling down, because the 18-70 just cannot do this. Many images, especially indoors, will reveal the awful image qualities this lens has. Save yourself the humiliation and annoyance ... and just make the move to better glass.

I am not saying go with Zeiss glass, although, there certainly is no harm if you can. I mean, why not?

As for the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that has recently been released with the a550, this lens still is still "unqualified", but is reportedly a much improved kit over the 18-70. I have to believe, on a SONY, almost any modern lens might be.

I hope this post has straightened out any confusion. If not, head on down to "Joe Blow's" Camera Emporium, along with your "kit" lens, slap some various A-mount glass on your camera, and just blast away! Try taking similar frames of items, as you switch the glass.

Do not evaluate the shots at the store ... go home, pull them up on the computer and visually inspect the corners and other areas other than the middle. Inspect for contrast with similar settings and them just look at the overall image. If your "kit" lens performs well ... well, consider it a blessing. If not, save your pennies, dimes and nickels for a better glass solution. It is not the camera. Cameras simply add features and some ... bigger sensors.

Have fun with this. Believe me, there is a lot of money to be made (and people know it) by telling you all sorts of things to get you to part with your hard-earned cash. A good lens is the FIRST place to start. After that, one of the three cameras, above, is another.

Once you marry those two aspects together, the one thing you can rest assured of ... perfecting your photography will not be because of the equipment. Its all on how YOU operate it.

Go shoot something.

[Billy27]

Much clearer. Thanks.

I have a question, how would you compare the TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di–II LD Aspherical (IF) to Sony's SAL18250 DT 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 High Magnification Zoom Lens?
Or have you already done that in another thread?

[BryanC]

Originally Posted by DonSchap

When it comes to photography, if you do not have a good lens on the front of your camera, nothing else is all that important. You can fiddle and beg off to all your viewers why you were not able to get a sharp image, but the lens is the place your image STARTS from. Please do not be confused about that. The rest is academic.

Save yourself the humiliation and annoyance ... and just make the move to better glass.

If your "kit" lens performs well ... well, consider it a blessing. If not, save your pennies, dimes and nickels for a better glass solution. It is not the camera. Cameras simply add features and some ... bigger sensors.

Have fun with this. Believe me, there is a lot of money to be made (and people know it) by telling you all sorts of things to get you to part with your hard-earned cash. A good lens is the FIRST place to start.

Ok, and before this, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew.abercrombie88
What accesories are available for this DSLR??

I have a A330 with 18-55mm lens kit. I also have a Minolta 70-210mm lens.

DonSchap
Quote:

If you are interested in accessorizing your DSLR ... get a DSLR that is at least worth doing it to.

Look more toward an A500/A550/A700/A850/A900 ... NOT an introductory camera. If you are looking to spend money, at least put it where it will do some good. Why insist on being crippled from the get-go?

If you are on limited funds, the intro-DSLR may be your only choice to get yourself started. On the other hand, if you actually have a bit of serious 'coin' to add to it (otherwise known as "accessory money" ... just rebox and return the intro-camera ... add this "accessory money" that is apparently burning a hole in your pocket to its refund price ... and get yourself the better, upscale model camera.

I did not mean to be elitist in this posting and I apologize if I came off that way. What I have been trying to convey is IF you have money to toss at a brand new DSLR camera you bought ... just for accessories, use that money to buy a better DSLR instead.

It isn't my desire to engage in any back and forth argument with you. You haven't gained any credibility with me and pretty sure that you won't in the future. I have been around long enough to know that you are a gear collector, more so than a photographer. If there's any technical data that I seek about equipment, that information is readily available with little effort.

Disjointed diatribes and opinions veiled as facts are not what I'm interested in. Making a leap of assumption, I would think most others aren't interested, either. As I said, I have been around long enough to not buy into any of your ramblings. My concern is for the beginners who come here for help and knowledge and think that what you spout is what photography is about. It isn't. At least some, like Andrew (quoted above), spotted that right away.

DonSchap
Member
Quote:

One of the main reasons I put up such a thorough GEAR LIST was to keep track of what I had, so when I went shopping, I always had my list available, quickly, right on the Internet. Then there were questions about what I was shooting with, and the settings, so the GEAR LIST took care of a lot of that, too. There is nothing worse than coming home and finding that you already have something in your bag that you just bought ... AGAIN!

I think that pretty much sums it up. In my opinion, photographers go shopping for gear out of want and/or need. This sounds like you do it 'willy-nilly', needing a list so that you don't buy something that you already have? Wow.