What other lenses would be best?

[m18nye]

Hi, right im looking for some direction on what other lenses I need to buy. The main type of photography I enjoy doing is portrait. I already have a Minolta 50mm 1.7, a Sigma 18-55mm 2.8, Tamron 28-200mm 4-5.6, Sigma 70-300mm 4.5.6 and a Sigma 10-20mm. What other lenses would be a good investment?

Many Thanks

 

[m18nye]

Need to be a Sony fit lens by the way.

 

[Photo Plod]

It doesn't really look like you need *more* lenses, since you've already covered the usual focal lengths used for portraiture. What do you want another lens to do?

 

[m18nye]

Proply just more of a question of better image quality, I have seen some minolta 28mm af? Would be a slightly sorter focal length that I feel I sometimes feel I need.

 

[m18nye]

And also some faster lenses, I do also enjoy doing wildlife and landscape.

 

[topcatproduction]

Looks like you have all bases coverd twice already

Don't know about Sony stuff but if you're on a lens buying whim then I guess all you could benefit from would be some fast primes.

 

[failingretina]

sell the 28-200 and 70-300 and get a 70-200 f/2.8 of some sort!

 

[onomatopoeia]

If you want better image quality, I think the Zeiss 85/1.4 is hard to beat (haven't tried the 135/1.8 though). On aps-c it's pretty much head and shoulders only in a normal living room though. Very much like that it's sharp wide open, lovely defocused effect and autofocuses spot on as I can't manual focus.

If you want a fast telephoto zoom, the Sony 70-200/2.8 SSM is fab. I've also got an old Minolta 300/4 which is lovely.

If you want more range I know puddleduck likes his Sony 70-400 a lot, but that's slower (f/4-5.6).

 

[m18nye]

hmm was looking at the 70-200mm ssm but was also looking looking at the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 whats the real difference in image quality?

Thanks

 

[puddleduck]

hmm was looking at the 70-200mm ssm but was also looking looking at the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 whats the real difference in image quality?

Thanks

Have a look at DPReview as they just did a review of the Sony.

TBH its unlikely anyone here will have first hand experience of both, and first hand experience is required to answer this.

Certainly in the Nikon world, the Tamron was just as sharp (if not sharper) than the Nikon 70-200 VR (never seen the newer VRII)

 

[puddleduck]

And also some faster lenses, I do also enjoy doing wildlife and landscape.

Sigma 50-500, Tamron 200-500 or Sony 70-400 SSM.

In order of optical quality:

1) Sony 70-400 SSM (but can't do 500mm obviously so if you need 500mmm..)
2) Tamron 200-500
3) Sigma 50-500

 

[onomatopoeia]

hmm was looking at the 70-200mm ssm but was also looking looking at the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 whats the real difference in image quality?

Thanks

Have a look here

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/3-70200s-on-ff-compared-sigma-sony-and-tamron_topic60527.html

for a comparison of all three (Sony, Sigma, Tamron)

 

[mastertrinity]

for portraiture, you could get a sony 50mm f1.4 (sell your minolta 50) along with getting a tamron 90mm f2.8 macro or 100mm f2.8 macro, which would give you two lenses adequate for most portraiture and you'll also have a macro lens for macro photography.

 

[m18nye]

Is there much difference between the Sony 50mm F1.4 and the Minolta 50mm AF F1.7?

Thanks

 

[puddleduck]

Is there much difference between the Sony 50mm F1.4 and the Minolta 50mm AF F1.7?

Thanks

I had a Sony f/1.4 and wasn't really that keen on it.

I'd probably get a Minolta f/1.7, as the f/1.4 doubles the price, but the lens isn't really usable at f/1.4.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 would be the one to go for if you needed f/1.4 - expensive though at £300+