Recent content by Dave W

Depends on the price, the a700 is still better than most of the newer Sony models.

One of the few lenses I really lust after.

Toss a coin or hold them, simple as that really. When I started I went for Sony simply because at the time they offered the most bang for my buck. I love my Sony cameras but I'm sure I'd equally love my Canon, Nikon or Olympus camera too. Yes there are more lens choices if you go for Canon...

Canon and Nikon users will look upon you as a lesser being.:lol: Seriously, Sony SLR's are great. I'm on my second and haven't looked back.

Sony or Minolta 24-105mm. Great lens that has strangely poor reviews (Sony version). I had the minolta version for ages until I got the Sony 16-105mm.

Great feature and used loads for all sorts.

Yep, unveiled (sort of) at PMA.

Thanks for being there and having the full facts to hand and letting us know then......Oh......Hang on.;)

The problem here is that your list is very vague. The macro is easy, bang for buck 1:1 macro goes hands down to the Tamron 90mm f2.8. The others aren't so easy. Something up to 200 could be 70-210mm, 18-250mm or 24-105mm. Same with the 200 to 500. You need to be more specific about your...

You're probably better splitting them, evilbay prices are circa £500 for the bosy and £350ish for the lens.

ebay is an excellent way of telling an items rough value.

Visited the Merry Hill branch today and was informed that they have sold out nationwide as the clearance started on Monday.:'(

What a silly question.:lol: Of course you should.

I had the Tamaron 17-50mm and sold it as it just wasn't flexible enough to be a true walk around kit lens. Don't get me wrong it was a great lens but at f2.8 it was very soft and the f2.8 is sort of the main reason to get an f2.8 lens. I also found the 50mm long end just too short for my...

Well that's why Steven Gerrard elected for a jury trial. He could have murdered someone and his peers from Merseyside would have acquitted.:D