Looking for another lens for Sony Alpha

[kopite]

Sony Alpha lens Question
Hey everyone,

I got my camera on christmas day (sony a200) and love it I got the 18/70mm Kit lens with it and have started looking at getting a 70-300 lens to go with it (I have money to burn atm which from what i`ve read around here seems to be a bad thing with Stan the man around )
I dont want to spend more than 200 quid on the lens and the better the bargain the happier i`ll be I was looking at the
Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Lens SAL-75300

but noticed that there is also a similar lens called

Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 DT Lens

Whats the difference between these 2? They both look pretty similar in spec to me only difference being the SAL and DT parts.

I`ve read about Sigma and Tamron lenses. Are they better quality than the sony ones mentioned? I read the Sigma is supposed to have plastic gears which can cause issues but which lens will give the best picture quality?

Thanks

[brammers]

They're the same lens, the 2nd one is simply mis-labeled. DT means that the lens is only for APS-C sensors, but neither of Sony's 70/75-300 lenses (the cheaper one or the more expensive G) are APS-C only - both work on full frame.

As to which one you should get... Skip the Sigma - although it's very cheap and reasonably sharp, in fact very sharp from 70-200mm, the plastic gear issue is a killer. Sure, they'll fix it under warranty - with more plastic gears... So all you're doing is waiting for it to fail out of warranty and then you're left with a repair of a 50p part where the repair bill will cost you more than the lens is worth.

The Tamron is ok, so is the Sony, Tamron does a bit of macro. But they're both only OK, neither are great, or even good really. At 300mm (which is why you're buying a 300mm lens isn't it?) you'll want to stop both down a fair amount to even approach optimum quality - that means slow shutter speeds. Slow shutter speeds and long focal lengths don't mix, even with IS. IIRC the Sony 70-300 is at optimal sharpness at f11- anything less than high-noon and you're struggling for shutter speed, and don't even think about isolating the background.

TBH I'd reccomend against a cheapo 70-300 because as soon as you get serious you'll realise it's inadequecies and stick it on ebay at a loss. If you do want one I wouldn't get one new - here's a few Minoltas on ebay (same lens as the Sony, different paintwork):

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MINOLTA-AF-75-...3A1|240%3A1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-75-...3A1|240%3A1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Boxed-Minolta-...3A1|240%3A1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MINOLTA-DYNAX-...3A1|240%3A1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MInolta-AF-75-...3A1|240%3A1318

Figure 60-80 quid for those, maybe less.

Also - do you know how zoomy 450mm is (remember the 1.5x)? It's zoomed in a long way - other than taking pics of animals at the zoo the uses are a bit... It's almost too much. At f5.6 at the long end you're not going to be stopping much action, add that to the cheap build and you rule out fast AF so no birds in flight. A lot of people get them as their first lens after the kit and a lot of people sell them on fairly quickly. Tbh if you really want to be waving around 450mm I'd go for a good one - 70-300 G at 500quid plus is the best slow zoom for any mount, for speed you've got a pair of Sigmas at f4 and f2.8, both way over 200quid.

But really I'd look elsewhere. 200 quid will get you:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-100...3A1|240%3A1318

100-200 - better IQ at 200 than the 70-300s have at 300, smaller, lighter, better build quality, faster AF. The 2x TC will be absolutely useless on that lens, stick it straight back on ebay for 50quid.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-fit-10...3A1|240%3A1318

Plastic fantastic macro - I think Bobster uses one of these on his 5D? Unfortunately that one comes without the 1:1 adaptor, so maybe worth shopping around for one that has it, but 1:2 macro is still very decent.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/minolta-28mm-f...3A1|240%3A1318

Lovely little walkaround prime which will really make you appreciate good glass - the difference in quality between that and your kit zoom will open your eyes the first time you nail a shot. Works out as a wide/normal lens on APS-C and is good enough that I'd happily put one on my a900.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-100...3A1|240%3A1318

If you really want 300mm this might be ever so slightly better quality - EVER so slightly though

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-70-...3A1|240%3A1318

The beercan. It's not spectacular but it is very decent, especially for the money. Pay no more than 120 for it. Constant f4, ok autofocus, decent bokkeh, decent centre sharpness through the range, decent macro performance, lovely old fashioned rendering. I've had 2 and sold them both, but they're alright!

I'd also be on the lookout for the Sigma 1.8 threesome - 20, 24 & 28mm. They're quite fun - ok wide open and cracking stopped down.

[kopite]

Thanks for the advise mate.

Someone on another forums said i`d be better off getting the 70-300 G SSM sony one but its well out of my price range atm

I am a totaly beginner and So far only have the kit lens so thought a 70-300 would be a good option to go with the lens I already have but I think it would be a mistake to buy a cheaper lens that if I do really enjoy taking photos i would trade in down the line.

Bearing in mind that I am going to leave off getting the 70-300 mm lens for now I am starting to look at the prime lenses you mention. From what I understand becaus eits got a lower stop value its going to let me getting crisper images.

A lens I`ve seen mentioned around is a 50mm f1.4 lens. would a lens like that be a good investment or would getting the smaller length ones that you mention give me a better experience?

[brammers]

Yeah, a Sony or Minolta 50 1.4 is a really, really good choice. I'm using the Minolta RS version on my a900 and stopped down it's just as sharp as the CZ glass I use. It's just such a simple lens to make that no-one can make a bad one. On an aps-c sensor it acts as a medium telephoto lens - that'll give you enough magnification to fill a frame for a portrait without having to ram the lens in the subject's face (leads to perspective distortion, blocks light and annoys people). Few examples at and around 50mm on aps-c:








With the jessops bargains on the board you can easily get it under 200 - link here:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...5805/Show.html

Another shop to call is RGB Tech:
http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/browse?cat...=plh&commit=Go

They're not listing the 50 1.4 on their webby at the moment, but they do have excellent prices on the Sony stuff. I know it's hardly relevent to you, but you'll save 1500 pounds there over Jessops on a 300 2.8 - crazy... Anyway, a 50 1.4 would last you (almost) a lifetime.

A 70-300 G would also last you a lifetime - it's as good as it gets for that lens type (focal length/speed), but if it's too much then fair enough.


Prime lenses give crisper (sharper) images because they're so simple to design. Instead of having to provide sharp images at 17mm all the way through to 50 or 125 or 250mm, they have to provide sharp images at one focal length. They also have none of the excess glass that lives in zoom lenses and sucks up light - they can be optically faster without being huge.

As to your focal length - that's purely a matter of preference. Some people like to take wide-angle shots, some people like to zoom in and isolate subjects. If you don't know what you like yet I strongly suggest you find out that you do before you put down the money! Maybe shoot for a month then look at your shots to see what focal length your favourite ones were shot at - if this is a focal length you feel like exploring then put down the money for a prime.

Also, don't write off a tele-zoom, just maybe go for one that's less of a compromise than a 70-300 at 100pounds. The 55-200 in Sony or Tamron flavour is very highly rated, as are the 100-200 and 70-200/4 I linked you.

[YorkieBen]

I've just got the Sony 70-300mm G SSM and it appears to be alot sharper than my Tamron 70-300mm (which is being ebayed at the moment lol)

If you aren't looking for a 70-300 you could go for a second hand minolta 50mm f/1.7, you should be able to pick one up for c £70 ish. Or maybe the Sony/Tamron 55-200mm? A more manageable length of zoom.

The beercan is a nice lens but just way too big and heavy for what it does (at least for me).

[BUFF]

another s/h Minolta lens to look at in the 100-300mm region would be the 100-300mm APO.
It's a noticeable step up quality wise from the Minolta/Sony kit 75-300 in a very light & compact form.
the newer 75-300mm G SSM is a better lens again but heavier & of course dearer.

A good resource is http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp which has user feedback on most of the common Minolta AF/Sony Alpha mount lenses.

[Whiternoise]

I've been looking at telephotos for my Nikon (in regards to what focal length you're thinking of rather than specific lenses) and the two that inevitably crop up are the 55-200 or the 70-300. Both have VR/IS and whilst the 55 would work better with the 18-55 kit lens, i could probably live with the gap between 55-70. The trouble comes when you look at the price, 70-300 is pretty dear compared to the 55-200 and you're not really getting much extra.

Tamron have a nice tool on their website whereby you can compare focal lengths from 18-500mm to see just what sort of view you're going to get through your lens. The difference to me, a total amateur, between 200 and 300 isn't worth the extra to be honest. At that level of zoom, you're probably focusing on some central point, and you may as well just crop from 200mm. The 200 also stops up(?) more than the 300mm so you win there as well.

Another lens that's often called up is the 18-200mm, there's a Sony variant of this and looks to be about £380. It's one of the only complete all round lenses, covering you from wide angle to zoom (but not macro). However, the reviews are mixed - the Sigma lens is said to be better performing and all variants suffer from fall off, un-sharp images and a fair bit of fringing. At the price point though, it's cheaper just to get the "components" ie a 18-55/70 and a 55-200.

The 50 will no doubt be a great lens, i think almost all the 50mm primes get great reviews so that will be a good bet if you're stuck for a cheap lens. Personally i have a f/1.8 variant, works wonders - so a 1.7 or a 1.4 will be excellent (1.4 should give you double the light that the 1.8 does). If you can get one of these and a 55-200, then that would do you much better than getting the 70-300. 50mm is preferred by so many photographers partly because it's, or so i'm told, the same focal length the eye uses. This becomes apparent if you look through the viewfinder and then at what you're shooting, you'll find there's basically no "zoom" (compared to say 18mm and you can see the whole damn room through the glass!), you're basically cropping what you can see. It's thus a very natural focal length to use.

However, to come to your point about crisper images - using a prime lens will generally give you sharper images, but bear in mind that when you're shooting wide open, your depth of field is going to be incredibly narrow. In practice this means that your subject will be very crisp, but the rest of the image will be blurred - to good effect no doubt. It's worth bearing in mind when you're shooting, i found this out at London Zoo, it's entirely possible to take a superb picture of a snake's head - only to find out that the rest of the body is out of focus. With subjects at longer distances this won't matter so much, but just remember (since one of the main reasons you buy a lens that's wide open at 1.4 is the low light performance, so you'll be using it wide open a lot!).

[brammers]

I've been looking at telephotos for my Nikon (in regards to what focal length you're thinking of rather than specific lenses) and the two that inevitably crop up are the 55-200 or the 70-300. Both have VR/IS and whilst the 55 would work better with the 18-55 kit lens, i could probably live with the gap between 55-70. The trouble comes when you look at the price, 70-300 is pretty dear compared to the 55-200 and you're not really getting much extra.

It's just one of those things - lenses are very easy to design around 50mm. Primes are also very easy to design, especially at longer telephoto lengths - it's simply a bit magnifying glass, no crazy bending of light rays required.

The sweet spot for APS-C zooms seems to be 50-200mm - there's a whole raft of very good lenses with this range, Tamron, Sony, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, even the ancient Sigma is reasonably well regarded. The tough bit is designing a lens that can go from 50/70mm all the way up to 300 - you're suddenly designing for fairly radically different focal lengths and things get tricky. That's why I can't really reccomend any of the really cheap 70-300s - they're 70-200s with an extra 100mm tacked on. The Canon and Nikons make you pay a bit more for a bit more quality, the Sony makes you pay a bit more again for yet more quality, then you've got stuff like the Sigma 100-300 which is a bit nuts but very good.

Tamron have a nice tool on their website whereby you can compare focal lengths from 18-500mm to see just what sort of view you're going to get through your lens. The difference to me, a total amateur, between 200 and 300 isn't worth the extra to be honest.

Remember to factor in the crop - 200mm and 300mm lenses give 300mm and 450mm FoVs respectively.

At that level of zoom, you're probably focusing on some central point, and you may as well just crop from 200mm. The 200 also stops up(?) more than the 300mm so you win there as well.

Remember that APS-C pixels are more densely packed than FF pixels - the lens has to work harder, even if it's working harder in its best spot. Cropping is more detrimental to APS-C IQ than to FF IQ.

Another lens that's often called up is the 18-200mm, there's a Sony variant of this and looks to be about £380. It's one of the only complete all round lenses, covering you from wide angle to zoom (but not macro). However, the reviews are mixed - the Sigma lens is said to be better performing and all variants suffer from fall off, un-sharp images and a fair bit of fringing. At the price point though, it's cheaper just to get the "components" ie a 18-55/70 and a 55-200.

Don't get the Sony 18-200 - it's been replaced by the 18-250.

The 50 will no doubt be a great lens, i think almost all the 50mm primes get great reviews so that will be a good bet if you're stuck for a cheap lens. Personally i have a f/1.8 variant, works wonders - so a 1.7 or a 1.4 will be excellent (1.4 should give you double the light that the 1.8 does).

Bit pendantic, but it's actually less than double - the stop sequence goes f1.4, 2, 2.8 etc. 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop from 1.4

If you can get one of these and a 55-200, then that would do you much better than getting the 70-300. 50mm is preferred by so many photographers partly because it's, or so i'm told, the same focal length the eye uses. This becomes apparent if you look through the viewfinder and then at what you're shooting, you'll find there's basically no "zoom" (compared to say 18mm and you can see the whole damn room through the glass!), you're basically cropping what you can see. It's thus a very natural focal length to use.

Remember your crop factor again! That might be the case on full frame, but on APS-C it's actually a very slight telephoto - cracking for 'just' standing off a little bit.

[kopite]

Just been looking on tamrons website after someone advised they have a tool to show u the type of zoom you get .

The difference between 200-300 doesnt seem that huge compared to the differences at the smaller end of the scale although that could just be my interpretation of it.

I am hoping to go out shooting tomorrow and Wednesday so i`ll put some pics up after that

[Bobster]

depends on what you want to do with ur zoom, 200 is useless for birding / aircraft / racing but is ok for portrait/candid stuff
300 is ok for birding / aircraft / racing, but really need to be looking 400mm+

[Whiternoise]

@Brammers: ta for the corrections

Just been looking on tamrons website after someone advised they have a tool to show u the type of zoom you get .

The difference between 200-300 doesnt seem that huge compared to the differences at the smaller end of the scale although that could just be my interpretation of it.

I am hoping to go out shooting tomorrow and Wednesday so i`ll put some pics up after that

I think it's more interpretation, whilst i can't see much difference either i think it's because there's not as much in the frame to tell apart. I see this like special relativity - as a physicist - it's easy to get to 0.8c (c = speed of light) but it takes more and more energy (exponentially more) to get from 0.9c to 0.99c to 0.999c. In photo terms, energy is mm and the speed of light is ultimately 0 degrees of viewing. So once you get to 200, 300, 400mm you have to put a fair bit more mm in to get an appreciable difference in "zoom" - of course this could be bunk, and it's probably just an optical trick, but it sounds right!

Actually, if you look at the tool, it tells you your viewing angles for each focal length.

If we take a look at the figures, you get a massive shrinking of your field of vision up to around 200mm (where telephoto starts i guess) and that goes down slowly but surely to 500mm. The jumps early on from mm to mm are in degrees, by the time you're at 300 we're measuring in 1/10ths of degrees. This is why you're not likely to see anything over 500mm in common use.

At 50mm, it takes 100mm to get twice as far in (50mm difference) at 100mm, it takes 200mm and so on. The higher up the focal lengths you go, the more it takes to double your zoom - it's just not that practical!

To pick up the original point, you see the difference because if you have, say, a 18-135mm zoom - you've got 18-36 (doubled), 36-72 (doubled) and 72-135 (roughly doubled). So you're seeing quite a large difference in picture, the subject can be increased by 6x! If you have a 200-300mm lens, your subject is only increasing by 1.5x in total, it doesn't seem like much at all. In actual photo terms you do get quite a bit more than you think, though it doesn't look like much.



Sod the money, just buy a Bigma

[BUFF]

Sod the money, just buy a Bigma

wouldn't recommend it for an A200/300/350/700/900 as they have a habit of stripping their (plastic) AF gears. I have a friend who had that happen twice even on his A100 (which has a far weaker AF motor).

[Whiternoise]

I meant that semi seriously

It's a shame that a lens that could be so good is crippled with poor construction. Same for a number of Sigma lenses iirc. Surely it can't cost that much more to use decent materials?

[BUFF]

I meant that semi seriously

I realised - but just in case kopite semi seriously was considering it

[brammers]

I meant that semi seriously

It's a shame that a lens that could be so good is crippled with poor construction. Same for a number of Sigma lenses iirc. Surely it can't cost that much more to use decent materials?

They've learnt - all the new Sigmas come with HSM focusing - including the 150-500 which is both very tasty looking and way over the OP's budget

I don't get a couple of things though - firstly we've had Dynax 7s and Dynax 9s for donkeys' years which have way more powerful motors than the A100 - why didn't these strip gears? Maybe they did and we just didn't hear about them

And secondly, how much could it really cost Sigma to replace those plastic gears with metal ones? Less than the damage to their rep? The line now is 'don't buy cheap Sigmas unless it's HSM/micro-motor - the gears are rubbish'. Surely an acknowledgement and a bit of action would save that? There was also that rental house in the US that stopped stocking Sigma because they failed so often...

[Whiternoise]

They've learnt - all the new Sigmas come with HSM focusing - including the 150-500 which is both very tasty looking and way over the OP's budget

How about the 300-800? Sure, you can't turn around in a corridor with it, but shove a 2x tele on that and 1600mm here we come