Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TurnipFarmer said:
just wondering if anybody knows of a guide or can advise me on how to HDR photos with my A200?
Click to expand...
pretty much the same way that you can on most DSLRs which is by taking several shots at different exposures & combining in pp.
the A200's bracketing doesn't really allow wide enough differences so you'll have to change them manually & of course a tripod will be very useful.
 
puddleduck said:
Just got back from my first job using my A900 for some promotion work for small local market town. Left all my Nikon stuff at home, while I've been bringing it along "just in case" up til now.

Delighted with the quality and detail from the files - 2 or 3 of the images will be used within the town on bus stop size posters, so the extra resolution should show, while the rest will be used to decorate tourist handouts (no need for 24 megapixels for those).

The KM 17-35 is proving itself to be excellent, and with wide near-middle-far compositions, the detail pulled out on distance objects is excellent - the extra accuity over the D700 really shows here. Given the quality of the 17-35 (just a rebadged Tamron 17-35) I really can't see myself going for the CZ 16-35 right now either.

Very pleased I re-bought into Sony :)
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that it was a good decision buying th a900 again.

Yes the KM 17-35 is a great lens for the price. The KM versions (so I've been told) are supposed to be a little sharper than the standad Tamrons (just like the Sony versions today).

The only thing I find wrong with the 17-35 is the CA's under harsh conditions, but these do clean up easily (and are usually a non issue).

But, since getting the CZ2470 - it would now be great to partner it with the CZ1635, and I'm slowly convincing myself into a purchase. But I have had my KM1735 over 6 months, so have done well! [fo me LOL]

As for the lens tagging in LR, this is a common problem. Not sure why, but Sigma and Tamron seem to have used the same 'code' on some of the lenses.
 
By luck I just found the A700 for under £500, shame it's not available to collect in store though HERE.
 
Won't let me add one to the basket, must have sold out already:thinking:, probably a good thing, would need new camera, new grip and new glass all at the same time.:bang:
 
Hi folks
Took a trip to St Fagins today, anyway to get to the point I wanted to take a photo of a flower with the flowers in the background oof, I tried to select f4 in M but the camera would not let me, the a300 kit lens is f3.5 to f5.6 what am I doing wrong :thinking:
 
rhonddaboy said:
Hi folks
Took a trip to St Fagins today, anyway to get to the point I wanted to take a photo of a flower with the flowers in the background oof, I tried to select f4 in M but the camera would not let me, the a300 kit lens is f3.5 to f5.6 what am I doing wrong :thinking:
Click to expand...

alan...turn the camera off,remove the battery and re-insert...turn camera back on and try again.also,what ISO are you using?it could be a case that to high an ISO will hit the max shutter speed,not allowing you to select the aperture you wanted :shrug:
 
rhonddaboy said:
Hi folks
Took a trip to St Fagins today, anyway to get to the point I wanted to take a photo of a flower with the flowers in the background oof, I tried to select f4 in M but the camera would not let me, the a300 kit lens is f3.5 to f5.6 what am I doing wrong :thinking:
Click to expand...


It may be because you were zoomed out to much to use f4 try going to 18mm and try agiain.. :thumbs:
 
Thanks for the replies ISO 200 tried different zoom lenthgs no difference :bang:
 
springtide said:
Glad to hear that it was a good decision buying th a900 again.

Yes the KM 17-35 is a great lens for the price. The KM versions (so I've been told) are supposed to be a little sharper than the standad Tamrons (just like the Sony versions today).
Click to expand...

Not sure about that... I had the Tamron first time round and I can't really spot a difference. Both punch well above where you'd expect for the price point.

springtide said:
But, since getting the CZ2470 - it would now be great to partner it with the CZ1635, and I'm slowly convincing myself into a purchase. But I have had my KM1735 over 6 months, so have done well! [fo me LOL]
Click to expand...

I might still end up with a 24-70, but the Tamron 28-75 I have is spectacular on the A900. Sharp edge to edge at f/8 which is all I need. I tried a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Tamron trouced it on the A900. Night and day. So the only possible upgrade path would be the CZ 24-70...

One thing - all the lenses that performedgreat on the D700 ie 17-35, 28-75 and 24-135 Tammy's all just as well on the A900, so the extra res. isn't doing them any harm at all. Maybe the 24-135 is suffering a tad at the edges.. but its still very good.

springtide said:
As for the lens tagging in LR, this is a common problem. Not sure why, but Sigma and Tamron seem to have used the same 'code' on some of the lenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah... looks like they must have reverse engineered a 24-105 I suspect and used that chip ID. Bit annoying!
 
civicboy40 said:
Well thats annoying I coud have got that for 450 with my staff discount....damn it!!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can do some digging to find out when they'll be back in stock. At that price it'd be hard to resist.
 
puddleduck said:
Not sure about that... I had the Tamron first time round and I can't really spot a difference. Both punch well above where you'd expect for the price point.

I might still end up with a 24-70, but the Tamron 28-75 I have is spectacular on the A900. Sharp edge to edge at f/8 which is all I need. I tried a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Tamron trouced it on the A900. Night and day. So the only possible upgrade path would be the CZ 24-70...

One thing - all the lenses that performedgreat on the D700 ie 17-35, 28-75 and 24-135 Tammy's all just as well on the A900, so the extra res. isn't doing them any harm at all. Maybe the 24-135 is suffering a tad at the edges.. but its still very good.


Yeah... looks like they must have reverse engineered a 24-105 I suspect and used that chip ID. Bit annoying!
Click to expand...

The comment about the Minolta versions being better are just what I had 'heard on the grapevine', whether there is any truth in this is anyones guess. I assume no one knows for sure (as they uses to fetch a slight premium). [I seem to remember LCE offering me the KM 17-35 for around £400 when I was buying my Minolta 7D]

The new Sony 28-75/2.8 looks interesting, but the price appears to be OTT if it's just a rebadged Tamron lens with SAM. Minimum focus difference of the Sony and the Tamron are different (the Sony being about 5cm closer I think). I guess if it's not the same design, then with Sony's shareholder status in Tamron, it's probably a slight redesign of the Tamron.


OK, now onto my question :) ....

Have you had the pleasure of using the Tamron 70-200/2.8?

Thinking about this for the a900, as I have a beercan (which gives me 70-200/4) but could do with f2.8 on occation - but it seems little point in getting the Tamron if it's not that sharp until you've stopped down, as my beercan does that already. The other thing that f2.8 would give me is slightly better focusing (due to the 2.8 focusing points - so I've read). My beercan is pretty sharp at f4, very sharp by f5.6, and the colours and contrast (I think) are excellent. It's just for those occations that I want f2.8.

Reading the reviews on DPR, the Tamron appears that it's sharper than the Sigma (wide open), but AF is slow (compared to the Sigma). I had decided to wait and get the Sony, but your comments about how other Tamrons perform had got me thinking again. If you have tried this, I would be interested in how you think it performs 'wide open' compared to the Nikon 70-200/2.8 etc.
I'm not a sorts shooter, so AF speed is slightly less important to how it performs wide open.

I guess I see the Sony as a lot of money compared to the gains I'd get over my Beercan, and I'm trying to work out whether the Tamron is a good 'half way house'.

Thanks again
 
I've used the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 in Nikon fit, and optically its a stunner.

However certainly on Nikon AF is basically broken - I have no idea if Tamron's relationship with Sony has resolved this. Even then I suspect the motor will be slow.

However wide open it absolutely top notch - easily a match for the Nikon 70-200 VR on optical performance - again I've only used this lens in Nikon fit.
 
I've used the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 in Nikon fit, and optically its a stunner.

However certainly on Nikon AF is basically broken - I have no idea if Tamron's relationship with Sony has resolved this. Even then I suspect the motor will be slow.

However wide open it absolutely top notch - easily a match for the Nikon 70-200 VR on optical performance - again I've only used this lens in Nikon fit.
 
puddleduck said:
I've used the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 in Nikon fit, and optically its a stunner.

However certainly on Nikon AF is basically broken - I have no idea if Tamron's relationship with Sony has resolved this. Even then I suspect the motor will be slow.

However wide open it absolutely top notch - easily a match for the Nikon 70-200 VR on optical performance - again I've only used this lens in Nikon fit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, very useful.

The Sony version (and Pentax) of the Tam 70-200/2.8 uses the internal body AF motor (screw drive) rather than an internal lens motor like used on the Nikon and Canon versions, and is supposed to be better. How much better is anyones guess, but it's good to know that optically its good wide open.
 
Thats interesting - in that case I'd be interested in the Tamron myself!
 
heidfirst said:
David Kilpatrick reckons that the Sigma HSM II is the best on the A900 http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/07/10/the-sigma-70-200mm-f2-8-ex-dg-hsm-macro-ii/
Click to expand...


Hmm, yes that review...

I read that review and almost placed an order for the Sigma + x1.4 TC - since he implies that the Sigma is both sharper and has faster AF on the a900 then even the Sony.

But then I read a thread on Dyxum regarding the Sigma, and people's opinions didn't seem to match what David had wrote.

There are reviews on DPR for both the Sigma and Tamron, and DPR implies that the Tamron has much better corners on FF wide open (and David implies that the Sigma has much better corners than the Sony). DPR also implies that the Sigma isn't a match for the Canon, which would then imply that the Sony lens is pretty pants compared to Nikon/Canon's. But people who have used both Canon/Nikon and Sony, imply that the Sony 70-200 is very well regarded and comparable to the Nikon/Canon lens.

So it appears that only David seems to regard the Sigma highly, and I don't understand why. Given my past experience with Sigma, maybe David was one of those people who managed to get a copy of the lens that performs as well as it was designed, rather than the rest of us who seem to send up with the 'Friday Afternoon' copy.

I said I wouldn't buy another Sigma lens. I'm still worried about using my Sigma 105 macro due to gear stripping -so far it has been fine but it's out of warrenty. 4 months ago I decided to get the Sig 50/1.4 as it had good reviews, but my first copy fell to bits in the shop, including th front element that ended up smashing on the floor. I am now saying (almost for definite) that I will not buy another Sigma lens, although the 100-300/4 that you have is supposed to be a cracker (and much sharper btw than the Sony70-200+Sonyx1.4 TC)

heee, hee, heee.... someone will be along soon sticking up for Sigma. sorry, I didn't mean what I said, I'll take it all back :)
 
hey guys..how good is the 70-400 G SSM in IQ/AF terms?

if my motorbike sells later on today,i'm looking at getting one of these lens,but i'm also considering the tamron 200-500,or the sigma 120-400 or the 150-500.

i'll be using one of the above for my wildlife shots,but may occasionally use it for motorsport.
 
springtide said:
Hmm, yes that review...

I read that review and almost placed an order for the Sigma + x1.4 TC - since he implies that the Sigma is both sharper and has faster AF on the a900 then even the Sony.

But then I read a thread on Dyxum regarding the Sigma, and people's opinions didn't seem to match what David had wrote.

There are reviews on DPR for both the Sigma and Tamron, and DPR implies that the Tamron has much better corners on FF wide open (and David implies that the Sigma has much better corners than the Sony). DPR also implies that the Sigma isn't a match for the Canon, which would then imply that the Sony lens is pretty pants compared to Nikon/Canon's. But people who have used both Canon/Nikon and Sony, imply that the Sony 70-200 is very well regarded and comparable to the Nikon/Canon lens.

So it appears that only David seems to regard the Sigma highly, and I don't understand why. Given my past experience with Sigma, maybe David was one of those people who managed to get a copy of the lens that performs as well as it was designed, rather than the rest of us who seem to send up with the 'Friday Afternoon' copy.

I said I wouldn't buy another Sigma lens. I'm still worried about using my Sigma 105 macro due to gear stripping -so far it has been fine but it's out of warrenty. 4 months ago I decided to get the Sig 50/1.4 as it had good reviews, but my first copy fell to bits in the shop, including th front element that ended up smashing on the floor. I am now saying (almost for definite) that I will not buy another Sigma lens, although the 100-300/4 that you have is supposed to be a cracker (and much sharper btw than the Sony70-200+Sonyx1.4 TC)

heee, hee, heee.... someone will be along soon sticking up for Sigma. sorry, I didn't mean what I said, I'll take it all back :)
Click to expand...

His is the only opinion I've read the puts the Sigma ahead of the Tamron on optics.

He is also flat out wrong with his comments on the Nikon AF system.

BTW I've been offered a mint Minolta fit 100-300 for £550. Not sure if I will go for it.
 
re. 70-200/2.8s - the Sony is known like the Nikon to be optimised for APS-C usage so it's perhaps not surprising that it's a bit soft at the edges.
& quite possibly David has a good example of the Sigma - we all know that Sigmas vary quite a bit so maybe DPR got 1 going the other way as well.
having said that if I was buying a 70-200/2.8 I would probably try the Sigma first as apparently the Tamron's AF is really pants & for my needs i doubt that I could justify the price of the Sony.
btw David has used the Canon, Nikon & Sony - he certainly owns a Nikon system & his son is mainly a Nikon shooter. He's also reviewed a lot of Nikon gear for the BJP - most recently the D300s.

springtide said:
, although the 100-300/4 that you have is supposed to be a cracker (and much sharper btw than the Sony70-200+Sonyx1.4 TC)
Click to expand...
& yet I don't rate it - so perhaps I have a bad example of Sigma QC.


stan the man said:
hey guys..how good is the 70-400 G SSM in IQ/AF terms?
Click to expand...
IQ wise it's superb & imo it's the best allround aviation photo lens going ahead of the Canon 100-400 IS L, Tamron 200-500mm etc..
It's also pretty handy for taking shots of butterflies, dragonflies etc. when they won't let you get close enough for a Macro lens.
AF wise it varies a bit with focal length & it's still a bit slower end to end at 400mm than I would like. It does have a focus limit switch which is definitey useful although for my needs I would argue with the values that they chose ...

Kev M said:
Anyone want tilt/shift for their Sony?
Click to expand...
you can already get tilt-shifts for MAF/Sony - Hartblei & some other 3rd party.
what I do find interesting about this & other recent announcements is that Sony is obviously considered a major player now along with CaNikon by plenty of other manufacturers.
 
heidfirst said:
you can already get tilt-shifts for MAF/Sony - Hartblei & some other 3rd party.
Click to expand...

You learn something new every day don't you.

what I do find interesting about this & other recent announcements is that Sony is obviously considered a major player now
Click to expand...

That's what struck me about the article too, no mention of mounts for Oly/Pentax etc who have arguably been in the game longer than Sony (and disregarding the KM history).


Out of interest is there any market for the kit lens? My local argos has the body&kit lens for £549 which is cheaper than most body only deals so I could try to flog the lens and make it even more of a bargain. This find might just push me over the edge.:naughty:
 
Kev M said:
Out of interest is there any market for the kit lens? My local argos has the body&kit lens for £549
Click to expand...
which body (A700?)?
there is a market for the 18-70mm but you won't get a lot for it.
if it's the new 18-55mm kit that's an altogether different animal as are of course the 16-105 & 16-80.
 
WooHoo! just ordered my Sigma 18-50 f2.8:D
Will be here 2moro, cant wait to have a play with it!!
 
heidfirst said:
re. 70-200/2.8s - the Sony is known like the Nikon to be optimised for APS-C usage so it's perhaps not surprising that it's a bit soft at the edges.
& quite possibly David has a good example of the Sigma - we all know that Sigmas vary quite a bit so maybe DPR got 1 going the other way as well.
having said that if I was buying a 70-200/2.8 I would probably try the Sigma first as apparently the Tamron's AF is really pants & for my needs i doubt that I could justify the price of the Sony.
btw David has used the Canon, Nikon & Sony - he certainly owns a Nikon system & his son is mainly a Nikon shooter. He's also reviewed a lot of Nikon gear for the BJP - most recently the D300s.

& yet I don't rate it - so perhaps I have a bad example of Sigma QC.

IQ wise it's superb & imo it's the best allround aviation photo lens going ahead of the Canon 100-400 IS L, Tamron 200-500mm etc..
It's also pretty handy for taking shots of butterflies, dragonflies etc. when they won't let you get close enough for a Macro lens.
AF wise it varies a bit with focal length & it's still a bit slower end to end at 400mm than I would like. It does have a focus limit switch which is definitey useful although for my needs I would argue with the values that they chose ...
Click to expand...

The Tamron is supposed to be a bit slow focusing but the reviews I've seen have been based on the focusing of the Nikon/Canon mounts, which has the AF motor in the lens. I haven't seen any reviews yet about the Pentax/Sony version that uses the cameras AF motor in the body. People who have the lens have stated the AF speed is reasonably good, but how it compares I'm not sure.

It's funny you say about your Sigma 100-300/4. There is a lady on the DynaxDig forum that owns the Sigma100-300 (as well as a LOT of others), and tested the Sigma against the Sony 70-200 and it looked like it performed pretty well.

It does seem that with these 3rd party lenses, it's a bit of hit and miss to whether you get a decent copy or not - and this uncertainty drives me a bit bonkers. And the problem is, unless you try a few copies and compare them, how on earth are you supposed to know whether the lens performs as expected, or whether you have a poor example.

puddleduck said:
BTW I've been offered a mint Minolta fit 100-300 for £550. Not sure if I will go for it.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the Minolta lens you stated, I assume it's this one:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=65

If I'm honest, I would probably go for the Sony 70-300G. I owned a copy for a little while and it performed very well on the a900. Think the 70-400G is better (both G lenses have got good reviews), but the 400 is much more expensive. Jessops were doing the 70300G for £499 not so long ago.
Reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/388-sony_70300_4556?start=1
http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-70-300g-ssm-lens-review
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_70_300mm_f_4_5_5_6_gid224.html

edit.. here you go:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store.../70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM Lens-74819/Show.html

WHE shows the 70300G as being ~ £670
 
springtide said:
The Tamron is supposed to be a bit slow focusing but the reviews I've seen have been based on the focusing of the Nikon/Canon mounts, which has the AF motor in the lens. I haven't seen any reviews yet about the Pentax/Sony version that uses the cameras AF motor in the body. People who have the lens have stated the AF speed is reasonably good, but how it compares I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I'm going from what people have siad on Dyxum - quite a few of them have tried both Sig & Tammy if not all 3.

It's funny you say about your Sigma 100-300/4. There is a lady on the DynaxDig forum that owns the Sigma100-300 (as well as a LOT of others), and tested the Sigma against the Sony 70-200 and it looked like it performed pretty well.
Click to expand...
IQ-wise mine isn't much better than my 100-300 APO (again these seem to vary so maybe I have a good 1 of those) but it AFs quicker & of course it has f4 at 300mm

I don't know much about the Minolta lens you stated, I assume it's this one:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=65
Click to expand...
I think that he meant a Minolta fit Sigma 100-300/4.
A Minolta 100-300 APO certainly isn't worth £550
 
heidfirst said:
I'm going from what people have siad on Dyxum - quite a few of them have tried both Sig & Tammy if not all 3.
Click to expand...

That is interesting as other reviews have implied the other way around. It does seem that everytime I try and look into the cheaper 70-200/2.8 options, I end up not making a decision and sticking with my beercan.
Maybe I'll keep an eye out for both on the secondhand market, and ask for sample test images before buying.

I did see someone selling the KM 80-200/2.8G on Dyxum, but he wants £900 (and no offers). I've seen the Sony version sell for £1100 secondhand, so £900 seems more than I'd like to pay. I'm sure 6 months ago these were more like £600, but there again all lens prices have gone through the roof.

@puddleduck : My bad, sorry didn't read the thread properly. £550 seems a good price if it's a good (and mint) copy. The only thing to check is it's age, as the older ones might need to be chipped to work on the Sony cameras. I asked Sigma UK about this and they said only the very old lenses need to be chipped. Think they said the costs was around £70.
 
springtide said:
I did see someone selling the KM 80-200/2.8G on Dyxum, but he wants £900 (and no offers). I've seen the Sony version sell for £1100 secondhand, so £900 seems more than I'd like to pay. I'm sure 6 months ago these were more like £600, but there again all lens prices have gone through the roof.
Click to expand...
there never was a Sony 80-200 G in fact I don't think that there was a KM version either.
& of course there is the 80-200/2.8 & the 80-200/2.8 High Speed, Mifsuds recently sold an 80-200/2.8 for £699.

@puddleduck : My bad, sorry didn't read the thread properly. £550 seems a good price if it's a good (and mint) copy. The only thing to check is it's age, as the older ones might need to be chipped to work on the Sony cameras. I asked Sigma UK about this and they said only the very old lenses need to be chipped. Think they said the costs was around £70.
Click to expand...
I would try it first to see if it's a bad/good copy.
If it's a DG & a good copy the £550 is imo a very fair price for a mint example (new they are now more than a 70-400 G since Sigma's 40% price rise).
I don't think that either version of the 100-300/4 will need rechipping as it's not an old enough design. Mine is the older, non-DG version & it works fine.
 
heidfirst said:
there never was a Sony 80-200 G in fact I don't think that there was a KM version either.
& of course there is the 80-200/2.8 & the 80-200/2.8 High Speed, Mifsuds recently sold an 80-200/2.8 for £699.
Click to expand...

Making lots of errors today, it's the KM 80-200/2.8 HS that is £900 on Dyxum:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/minolta-af-80200-f28-hs-apo-g-uk-sale_topic52513.html

Although [n my defense] he has listed it as:

For sale, used immaculate Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G lens (white).
This is the High Speed G version of the lens. One of the faster focussing AF lenses available.

Maybe I need to look for the NON HS version (as it's cheaper). Will keep an eye out on Mifsuds as it's a place I don't usually check. Thanks.
 
heidfirst said:
I would try it first to see if it's a bad/good copy.
If it's a DG & a good copy the £550 is imo a very fair price for a mint example (new they are now more than a 70-400 G since Sigma's 40% price rise).
I don't think that either version of the 100-300/4 will need rechipping as it's not an old enough design. Mine is the older, non-DG version & it works fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its the DG. I won't get a chance to try first but I trust the seller. Its "as new" apparently.

Not sure I really need it though - still got a 300mm f/4 in Nikon fit.
 
heidfirst said:
which body (A700?)?
there is a market for the 18-70mm but you won't get a lot for it.
if it's the new 18-55mm kit that's an altogether different animal as are of course the 16-105 & 16-80.
Click to expand...

Yep, A700 and 18-70 for £550. I don't need the kit lens as I've already got one. I'm just waiting to hear back from digital depot to see if we can do deal on a body and grip, if not it might be a trip to Argos.
 
Cheers Stan, I saw that the other week when Bal posted it. I hate my local Jessops though which is why I was hoping I could get a resonable deal with Digital Depot who have a better price on the body than Jessops. Seems my local Argos have sold the cheap kit in the last 24hours. Might have to shop around branches further afield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top