Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I've just bought the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 that just came up in the Classified.

I now have two Sony fit lenses :)
 
puddleduck said:
Well I've just bought the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 that just came up in the Classified.

I now have two Sony fit lenses :)
Click to expand...

I am gutted i missed that bargain! Hope it gets some good use and give me a shout if you want to sell. lol.


Right, im in a bit of a dilemma, im tempted to replace my kit lens but im not sure what to do, ive got the 35-105mm minolta and a 70-210mm, so do i get something like a 10-20 or a new zoom lens along the lines of a 18-50 etc..? And which ones? Any suggestions?
 
PDub said:
Thats well funny, how old are you, i'd laugh if i knew you as well. :)
Click to expand...

Oh no, the Rhondda Boyos!!!

See, I'm an Aberdare boy.... and Rhondda and Aberdare boys don't mix very well from what I can remember!

Mind you, it's been a few years since I lived there!

Hello fellow welshmen :)
 
chrism_scotland said:
Does anyone know if the Tamron 10-24 is available for the Sony yet?.
Click to expand...
it's due out in Japan this Friday.
The UK importer I believe is expecting first stock towards the end of July.

Not happy with your Sigma 10-20mm?
 
heidfirst said:
it's due out in Japan this Friday.
The UK importer I believe is expecting first stock towards the end of July.

Not happy with your Sigma 10-20mm?
Click to expand...


Yeah I like it I was just looking around for something with a tiny bit more range, I've read a couple of reviews of the Nikon version of the Tamron 10-24 and they don't seem any better than the Sigma 10-20.
 
strumstrum said:
im looking at getting a 70-300mm and on the new side both Tamron & Sigma are around the same £120-£130 price mark, or should I be looking on ebay for a Minolta??

Ta
Click to expand...

If you are going to get the Sigma, the APO version is significantly better but it goes for £170+
 
for a first lens, the sony 75-300 is a good lens. can be had for around £150. i just sold mines when i got the sigma 70-200:D


1.4x Teleconverter ordered today, give it a try at the weekend:D:D:D
 
Another quicky question regarding flash...

whats the best settings to get a fill flash on sunny days, thats not over powering? never really used the flash much.
was thinking 105mm 1/32... or would auto be best?:thinking:
cheers
 
Hi folks

I'm not really that impressed by Sony's anti-shake. In fact I'm not 100% convinced its even working... I've turned it on or off, and tbh I can do just as well off half the time...

Is there anyway - short of sending it to Sony - I can see if its actually doing anything..?

I posted this Ad here with the A900. Shutter speeds were about 1/4 of a second.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140826

And tbh given I'm shooting with a wide angle (and I have good technique), I can do just as well with SSS Off...
 
I'm tempted to try going the Lee / Hightech Grad route - its the price of the C-Pols that puts me off!
 
puddleduck said:
I'm tempted to try going the Lee / Hightech Grad route - its the price of the C-Pols that puts me off!
Click to expand...

I thought about the Hitech Grads, and I'm planning on adding Soft Grads and some ND filters to my kit, I will probably go down the Hitech route for them due to the cost of Lee Stuff, will put off a CPL just now, your right very expensive!
 
puddleduck said:
I'm not really that impressed by Sony's anti-shake. In fact I'm not 100% convinced its even working....
Click to expand...
unless yours is faulty it definitely works & is usually good for at least a couple of stops.
Lik eeverything though it has it's limits & also some people are capable of holding steadier than others anyway.
 
The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 that was in the Classified arrived today, and its a lovely performer on the A900. I feel as if I'm getting where I want to by glass-wise already... I've ordered a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 from Jessops, and am still considering a CZ 24-70 too..!
 
Its superb to be very good, but a very good chance of a soft left or right hand side.

Don't buy used unless the seller is willing to send shots upfront (or someone here sent me one to test first)
 
puddleduck said:
Hi folks

I'm not really that impressed by Sony's anti-shake. In fact I'm not 100% convinced its even working... I've turned it on or off, and tbh I can do just as well off half the time...

Is there anyway - short of sending it to Sony - I can see if its actually doing anything..?

I posted this Ad here with the A900. Shutter speeds were about 1/4 of a second.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=140826

And tbh given I'm shooting with a wide angle (and I have good technique), I can do just as well with SSS Off...
Click to expand...


Hmm, seems to work for me - but 1/4 at 17mm wouldn't be far off my 2 stops SSS :(

I don't tend to use it down that low a shutter speed, not because it's not a valid way of using it, just because.
 
puddleduck said:
Its superb to be very good, but a very good chance of a soft left or right hand side.

Don't buy used unless the seller is willing to send shots upfront (or someone here sent me one to test first)
Click to expand...

I've been pondering it to replace my 10-20, I love my 10-20 but I just wish it was a little longer sometimes, I guess just about any Sigma lens you seem to be taking a risk on, I liked the look of the Tamron 10-24 the range is excellent and it is reputed to be a very good lens but the build quality is said to be a bit "plasticky" whereas I quite like the kind of almost rubbery texture to the Sigma lens.
 
springtide said:
Hmm, seems to work for me - but 1/4 at 17mm wouldn't be far off my 2 stops SSS :(

I don't tend to use it down that low a shutter speed, not because it's not a valid way of using it, just because.
Click to expand...

TBH I'm probably in the danger area anyway, and I suspect that with the high pixel density on the A900 the anti-shake is always going to be less than effective, purely as there are more pixels to record the blur.

Trouble is - in good light, its not needed, and in borderline light, it really doesn't seem to do very much! Maybe its more effective with longer lenses.

Without wanting to start an inbody vs in-lens IS / VR debate.. too be honest from what I am seeing a Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens is far more effective than Sony's SSS though if I can be honest here!
 
chrism_scotland said:
I've been pondering it to replace my 10-20, I love my 10-20 but I just wish it was a little longer sometimes, I guess just about any Sigma lens you seem to be taking a risk on, I liked the look of the Tamron 10-24 the range is excellent and it is reputed to be a very good lens but the build quality is said to be a bit "plasticky" whereas I quite like the kind of almost rubbery texture to the Sigma lens.
Click to expand...

David Kilpatrick who writes for BJP and PhotoclubAlpha doesn't really like the 10-24mm and prefers Tamron's earlier 11-18. He slated it...

I've never used the 10-24, but I thought the 11-18 was excellent.

Do Tokina make their 12-24 in Sony mount? - as that is my favourite wide angle for crop cameras.
 
puddleduck said:
David Kilpatrick who writes for BJP and PhotoclubAlpha doesn't really like the 10-24mm and prefers Tamron's earlier 11-18. He slated it...

I've never used the 10-24, but I thought the 11-18 was excellent.

Do Tokina make their 12-24 in Sony mount? - as that is my favourite wide angle for crop cameras.
Click to expand...

Sadly not at the moment, although I have heard rumours as I've heard the Tokina is excellent, I may take a look at the 11-18 and 10-24 Tamron, the main thing that puts me off the Sigma is the large front element which makes using filters difficult, should have bought a Nikon for a good Tokina wind angle hehe.
 
puddleduck said:
TBH I'm probably in the danger area anyway, and I suspect that with the high pixel density on the A900 the anti-shake is always going to be less than effective, purely as there are more pixels to record the blur.

Trouble is - in good light, its not needed, and in borderline light, it really doesn't seem to do very much! Maybe its more effective with longer lenses.

Without wanting to start an inbody vs in-lens IS / VR debate.. too be honest from what I am seeing a Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens is far more effective than Sony's SSS though if I can be honest here!
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on the in-body vs in-lens, think the in-lens is more effective especially when you start making the sensor bigger. It does do the job and there are advantages of having it with every lens (such as primes), but really the solution is to have both.
I'm pretty sure the a700 was better on this front, maybe it was because the sensor was smaller (so easier/quicker to move). Like all things at this time in my life, I owned the a700, I sold it to switch to the a900 about 6 months ago, and can't for the life of me really remember to compare the two cameras.

So both would be nice.. 'In body' to give you that little bit extra with every lens, and 'in the lens' for a specialist application, like a long zoom, etc. I did read somewhere that Sigma were looking at this lens based OS on Sony and Pentax mounts, which have in-body. I wonder whether having both will be here sooner than we think!
2008 was the year for LV. 2009 looks like it's the year for HD video. Maybe 2010 is the year for hybrid OS/IS/VR/SS/SSS.
Also, it's SS on the A900, NOT SSS (Super Steady Shot). Not sure why they dropped the 'Super' :lol:

BTW, I upgraded my version of DXO last night (as Elite is needed for a900) after your comments about Capture One being better than ACR, but got a bit of a green surprise (or should I say green tint!). Wondering what I was doing wrong, I gave up and went to bed. Checked DXO's forums this morning and guess what? Looks like I'm not the only one! It's a known bug which is being worked on, but I wish I knew that before I handed over my cash. But I guess, the lens correction modules seem to have much better support nowadays for the new Sony range - pretty much every G and CZ is now covered.
Shadow noise also looks like better/smoother, at errr, those ISO's you'd not expect shadow noise. (Sssshhh)! Is is me, or does Adobe seem to turn the Sony noise pattern into grains of rice? [do Nikon files have that same rice grain texture?)

Anyway back to DXO, apart from the green tone that is rather annoying, I'm kind of liking it, and also like their attempt at intergration into Lightroom (you can see the Lightroom library from within DXO, so you can select the RAWs, edit and convert, and push back to LR in with Jpg, TIFF, or DNG (converted RAW)
 
springtide said:
Is is me, or does Adobe seem to turn the Sony noise pattern into grains of rice? [do Nikon files have that same rice grain texture?)
Click to expand...

Yes, its pretty normal.

If you want a nice tight grain pattern then Capture One with noise and luminance sliders set to 0 is nice. Adobe still does some sort of under the hood NR. You used to be able to trick in into turning off the "undeatable" NR by change the EXIF of an ISO800 file to ISO100....

I also really like RawTherepee too.. this is the 100% view from the previous:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1606451&postcount=868

Not bad for a £160 Tamron lens tbh:

rtcrop.jpg


(I know from my D700 ownership the Tamron 17-35 is really good)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top