Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
heidfirst said:
I'm not sure that I agree with you - the 70-300mm & 70-400mm Gs are probably class leading for what they are & e.g. a constant f4 70-400mm would be massive & considerably dearer (Nikon's 200-400 f4 is now just a shade under £6000 @rrp).
Click to expand...

That's my point. In this instance it's irrelevant whether you lead the class or are just an also ran. The important thing is the class.
Sony have been been busily filling their lens range from the bottom up, which makes sense because they've been pulling in the consumers upgrading from the P&S market. They've reached the prosumer level now with some fine quality lenses in a segment for which they have tried to create a unique visual identity.
But they have a conspicuous gap at the top of the range which your Nikon example validates.

The CZ lenses they have produced recently fit into that gap. Not just class leading but leading the "most elite" class. They even have their own section on the Sony website. CZ has it's own unique selling point. G lenses have to bunk up with the riff-raff :lol:
My theory is that those fabulous Minolta made G's will eventually be replaced by products in the CZ range and something maybe of the Beercan ilk will arrive in a silver finish?
(The jury is still out as to whether the 70-400G is class leading. I bought one at Focus but haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces yet. ;))

springtide said:
......... It's only downfall for me was it wasn't f2.8........
Click to expand...

Again, my point exactly.
 
spannerdude said:
springtide said:
Originally Posted by springtide
......... It's only downfall for me was it wasn't f2.8........
Click to expand...

Again, my point exactly
Click to expand...

I think what we are saying is that G or CZ does not need to mean constant aperture, it just means that the lens is of a particular quality.

Is it the constant aperture or just the fact that the lens should be fast if it's a G/CZ? And what do you consider fast? f2.8, f4?

I'm happy to read the specs to give me the vital statistics of the lens, and all I want is a label to tell me know it performs at the specs - and thats where I see G and CZ being useful.


I see the CZ1680 as an equivalent to the 24-105G f4 in FF land and so a different market to the 17-55 (24-70) f2.8

If I'm honest, I sold the CZ16-80 on (to a friend) and kept the Tamron 17-50. It was a tough decision at the time, and my decision was biased as I already have a set of 67mm filters. Looking back on it I wish I'd kept the CZ and sold the Tamron. The Tamron did have f2.8, but it wasn't that sharp. The CZ was very sharp wide open and I really (really) regret selling that lens.

But yes, I would have prefered Sony to release a 16-55 f2.8 before the 16-80 f4(ish).


Talking about lenses (as I seem to be sticking up for Sony in this post so far), how disapointing was the PMA annoucement? I wish they'd just put up a sig saying NTR, rather than showing us a few concept lenses of what might be possible (which didn't exactly look like rocket science). What a joke, and more to the point, where's the rumoured 24-105G f?. I know this was only a rumour, but there were a lot of lens rumours and Sony released zero lenses at PMA. Time to start saving for the CZ2470.
 
spannerdude said:
That's my point. In this instance it's irrelevant whether you lead the class or are just an also ran. The important thing is the class.
Sony have been been busily filling their lens range from the bottom up, which makes sense because they've been pulling in the consumers upgrading from the P&S market. They've reached the prosumer level now with some fine quality lenses in a segment for which they have tried to create a unique visual identity.
But they have a conspicuous gap at the top of the range which your Nikon example validates.
Click to expand...
but they don't really have the right body for those very high end teles to go onto & hence virtually nobody would buy 1. I'm sure that particularly in the present climate the return on investment projections for that wouldn't be favourable (& of course they have shown the concept Super tele so that when they do launch a body that would complement well I'm sure that something will be available then too).
By contrast they do have a very good body(ies) for the 24-70 etc. to go on.

My theory is that those fabulous Minolta made G's will eventually be replaced by products in the CZ range
Click to expand...
whereas I think that if anything it may go the other way, ZAs replaced by Gs.
Don't forget that again not all Minolta Gs were outstanding - there were 1 or 2 that were by their class standards average or slightly below.
Just today it was again mentioned by someone that may have an inside track that Sony make very little profit from the ZAs, apparently the licence fees are significant.
 
Talking about 3rd party lens partners and Sony - I knew Sony had a share in Tamron but didn't know how much:

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/investors/ir/index.html

#2 Sony Corporation : 11.08%

And this foot note:
The 3,130 thousand shares owned by Sony Corporation are fiduciary assets trusted to Mizuho Trust & Banking Co., Ltd. In regard to the execution of voting rights and jus disposition of the shares, Sony Corporation reserves the right to instruct pursuant to the provisions of the trust contract between the two parties.

What would be interesting is knowing whether this percentage has been growing over the years or not.
 
Gazbag said:
If this has been covered before, my apologies.

I notice on some people's signature they own and use the sigma 75-300 APO. Now I have been out and looked at one of these lens and quite like the reviews as far as IQ is concerned but..........

is there a compatability problem with the alpha series camera's. I have the a200 and really enjoy messing about with it. I have heard that the AF motor in the camera strips the threads in this particular lens causing loads of problems. Can anyone comment on this and set my worries at ease. Thank you in advance :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I sent an e-mail of to Sigma UK regarding this issue and this is their reply.......

Thank you for your E-mail.

Few lenses have had this stripping problem and it is usually related to the Sony cameras force, on a conventional camera the lens will hit the stop at infinity with small force with the Sony it will be a thud and can cause damage to the gears. On the camera itself there is a fast and slow setting, the majority of people choose to use the slow ( standard AF on usual camera) to avoid these sorts of problems.

Kind regards,

Ricky

........ can anyone point me to this setting on the a200:thinking:
 
Gazbag said:
I sent an e-mail of to Sigma UK regarding this issue and this is their reply.......

Thank you for your E-mail.

Few lenses have had this stripping problem and it is usually related to the Sony cameras force, on a conventional camera the lens will hit the stop at infinity with small force with the Sony it will be a thud and can cause damage to the gears. On the camera itself there is a fast and slow setting, the majority of people choose to use the slow ( standard AF on usual camera) to avoid these sorts of problems.

Kind regards,

Ricky

........ can anyone point me to this setting on the a200:thinking:
Click to expand...

Can't say for the A200, but for the A700 it's in the settings menu (cog) and called AF Drive Speed. Don't see why we should have to sacrifice AF speed when using Sigma lenses though. As the problem doesn't happen with other 3rd party lenses (ie, Tamron) it's suggests a quality issue at Sigma.
 
fabs said:
Can't say for the A200, but for the A700 it's in the settings menu (cog) and called AF Drive Speed. Don't see why we should have to sacrifice AF speed when using Sigma lenses though. As the problem doesn't happen with other 3rd party lenses (ie, Tamron) it's suggests a quality issue at Sigma.
Click to expand...

marc...is there a noticeable difference in the AF speed between the two settings?

i agree though.....why should we have to sacrifice AF speed when using sigma lens,christ..they'll be telling us to use MF on sony cameras next :bang:
 
stan the man said:
marc...is there a noticeable difference in the AF speed between the two settings?

i agree though.....why should we have to sacrifice AF speed when using sigma lens,christ..they'll be telling us to use MF on sony cameras next :bang:
Click to expand...

Just did a quick test and couldn't see any difference myself. Try it and see if you can.

As for MF, well that's what they used in the old days and before all this digi lark and none of this new fangled................................:D
 
fabs said:
Just did a quick test and couldn't see any difference myself. Try it and see if you can.

As for MF, well that's what they used in the old days and before all this digi lark and none of this new fangled................................:D
Click to expand...

will go and try it shortly..see if there is any difference.old days....i'm not old enough to remember those :suspect: :lol:
 
but your 70-200mm is SSM so it won't make any difference to it ...
 
I must admit, I've played with the slow and fast AF settings and have never been able to tell the difference, but have always put it down to my lenses.

In fact, I am (famious last words) very careful with my Sigma 105mm macro, and I always switch to Slow AF (but usually forget to switch it back to fast!)
 
Oh well it would appear that the a200 does not have this additonal setting so the Siggy APO is a no go area :nono:. I wanted it because it has the macro facility so I guess I will just have to save and buy the SAL 75-300:) and not worry about macro at the moment.
 
fabs said:
2 bids in the last 2 minutes pushed it up to £93, still a very good price though. There's another one here with a Buy it Now price of £175!
Click to expand...

I expect the dust mentioned was nothing to worry about, so someone had a pretty good deal.
 
I missed the auction as I was with a client at work!! Oh well I am wondering if it is worth me getting the beercan seeing as I got a load of lenses already then again it is better than my Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
 
BalSanghera said:
I missed the auction as I was with a client at work!! Oh well I am wondering if it is worth me getting the beercan seeing as I got a load of lenses already then again it is better than my Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Click to expand...

I understand that the IQ on the Beercan is supposed to be very good but, other than that, the only trues advantage would be the constant f4.
 
Im tempted at £175 but I think I might just hold of a little while to see if another one goes on auction.
 
Added em to my watch list... but still undecided whether I really need another lens... Could save the money and put it towards a new point and shoot :thinking:
 
The Beercan is considered to be pretty sharp at f4, but very sharp from f5.6. So from an IQ point of view, the beercan is a lovely lens and the constant f4 is a real bonus as it's very usable wide open. Colours and bokeh are also very nice.

It's downside is the AF isn't very fast I guess due to it's age (used on my a700) and did used to 'hunt' a little in low light.

The beercan was a Leica design (or so I've read) hence is considered a bit of a classic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top