Which Sony Lens do I go for???

W

WilliethePimp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own a Sony Alpha 350 with Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 lens (for everyday shooting), a Sony 4.5-5.6/75-300 lens (for zoom shooting), a Sony Macro 2.8/50 lens (which I intend to keep), and a Sony DT 1.8/50 Sam lens (which was bought as a Xmas Present, though I find I hardly use). I think the Sony A350 is a good camera body for the price, even though I considered Canon and Nikon at the time of purchase.

I was thinking of upgrading, however I am undecided which way to go in upgrading my lenses. The upgrades I would like are the SAL-70400G lensClick Here, or the SAL-35F14GClick Here. I know that both these lenses are in the £1200 region, so are obviously not going to be a cheap purchase, and therefore I am wanting to do as much research as possible, so that I make an educated rather than impulse purchase.

Does anyone on here have either or both of the above lenses, and are they a suitable upgrade, to get the quality of photo I am searching for. I intend to sell on all the above lenses apart from the Macro, and whichever second choice lens remains i.e. If I go for the SAL-70400G lens I will keep the with Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 lens, and vice versa.

If I had to choose only one, which would give the most improvement over my current lenses.:thinking:
 
Hmm you want either a 400mm zoom or a 35mm prime? :bonk:

What kind of shooting do you do the most?
There's no competition for me personally, I'd choose the 70-400mm and it would probably become my most used lens.

But to be honest, in your situation I would consider replacing the standard zoom (kit lens) first. The A350 can actually produce some fantastic detail even when viewed at 100%, but you need a good lens - the 18-70mm doesn't do it justice.
 
I might not have made myself clear, the lenses I have, IMO, allow me to take photographs over the whole focal length, from close up with the Macro, to distant shots, using the zoom. The Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 lens allows for wider views of landscape. The G lenses are I belive, the best Sony lenses, which is why I have chosen the two above, as possible upgrades.

I do a bit of everything, but mostly landsape shots.
 
Can't comment on the 35mm f/1.4 (never seen it), but it doesn't really strike me as thing you'd buy just because it has a "G" label unless you really need a very fast semi-wide prime for landscape?!

The 70-400 is an excellent lens, probably the better than Canon and Nikon's alternatives (certainly the Nikon). Can't quite tell from your post why you'd chosen these two..

I think you are looking at this all backwards - don't buy a lens on a label, whether it be Sony "G" or Canon "L", as labels are just labels - if its not a focal length you need, don't buy them :)
 
puddleduck said:
Can't comment on the 35mm f/1.4 (never seen it), but it doesn't really strike me as thing you'd buy just because it has a "G" label unless you really need a very fast semi-wide prime for landscape?!

The 70-400 is an excellent lens, probably the better than Canon and Nikon's alternatives (certainly the Nikon). Can't quite tell from your post why you'd chosen these two..

I think you are looking at this all backwards - don't buy a lens on a label, whether it be Sony "G" or Canon "L", as labels are just labels - if its not a focal length you need, don't buy them :)
Click to expand...

Very valid what you say. I am looking at the "G" lenses, as they are in the opinion of the local Camera shop assistant, and the blurb I've read, the best in the Sony range. Therefore I am looking for the best lens to do the job.

You can probably tell, I'm a newbie here.;)
 
Willie, do you have any idea what you use the most (apart from the 50/1.8 you don't use much?) As Andy said, the two lenses you have suggested are totally different.

It's like saying should I buy a land rover or a ferrari? Potentially, they're both very good cars. It depends on what you want to use them for. If you spend most of your time off road driving, then no point in buying a ferrari :)
 
There are also Carl Zeiss lenses to consider, which I personally think are just as good if not better than the 'G' lenses. It sounds like you're not sure what you really want. In any case here's my 2 pennies

35mm 1.4- looks small, but deceptively quite heavy. Not that impressed by this lens, as the performance wide open isn't dazzling- which is disappointing in regards to it's 'G' series grading and more importantly price

70-400- real beast to hold. Def needs to be either on a tripod or being constantly held in by one hand. The A350 has a plastic front mount body which tends to flex a bit with heavier lenses.

Personally I think it would be more worth while to invest in either the CZ 16-80 or the 70-300G. I would pitch for the former as it'll probably give you more joy to use on day to day shooting.
 
I have the 35mm, my pictures in the mendip meet thread in landscapes were taken with it. It's really rather good and I like the focal length on the crop sensor of my camera - not for motorsport but for "walkabout" photography. Like most of the Minolta originated lenses the colours are lovely.

It's not sharp at f/1.4 though, although I think it might miss the focus slightly (my ZA 85mm is spot on and sharp wide open) and I should experiment with it a bit more. It's fine from f/2 and the tree picture in ther landscape thread is very sharp f/8 I think that was taken at.

Don't have the 70-400, I have other options for that range. Can't really justify another long lens.
 
I am probably confusing people here with my previous choices of lenses, i.e. the SAL-70400G lens, or the SAL-35F14G :thinking:. I suppose I should have asked -
Are the Sony "G" series lenses better than the Sony Carl Zeis lenses. (Not according to evo456).
Of the lenses I use the - Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 lens (for everyday shooting), a Sony 4.5-5.6/75-300 lens (for zoom shooting), what would be the best lens up to the £1k mark to improve on what I already own/use. I hope this sounds clearer.
 
WilliethePimp said:
I am probably confusing people here with my previous choices of lenses, i.e. the SAL-70400G lens, or the SAL-35F14G :thinking:. I suppose I should have asked -
Are the Sony "G" series lenses better than the Sony Carl Zeis lenses. (Not according to evo456).
Of the lenses I use the - Sony 3.5-5.6/18-70 lens (for everyday shooting), a Sony 4.5-5.6/75-300 lens (for zoom shooting), what would be the best lens up to the £1k mark to improve on what I already own/use. I hope this sounds clearer.
Click to expand...

If you are looking to replace the 75-300 then one option may be the 70-200G. A superb lens and, if you are willing to go second hand, can be had for around £1k. Add a 1.4X TC and you have an quality f4 lens with pretty much the same reach as the 75-300 kit lens.
 
fabs said:
If you are looking to replace the 75-300 then one option may be the 70-200G. A superb lens and, if you are willing to go second hand, can be had for around £1k. Add a 1.4X TC and you have an quality f4 lens with pretty much the same reach as the 75-300 kit lens.
Click to expand...

I've just done a quick comparison of the lens you mention on the Sony website,Here. The only main differences I can see, are the Focal Length 70-200mm 105-300mm compared to 70-400mm 105-600mm on the SAL-70400G. The Aperture F2.8 - F2.8 compared to F4.0 - F5.6 on the SAL-70400G. Correct me if I am wrong, but for £100 difference in the new price, would the SAL-70400G not be the better option, as a new SAL-14TC Teleconverter would be an extra £400 on top. I don't particularly want to go second hand, as they can be bought new for £1k.
 
WilliethePimp said:
I suppose I should have asked -
Are the Sony "G" series lenses better than the Sony Carl Zeis lenses. (Not according to evo456).
Click to expand...

If you look at the current focal lengths available in both ranges they complement each other rather than compete.

G:
35/1.4
70-200/2.8
70-300
70-400
300/2.8

ZA:
16-35/2.8
16-80 (APS-C only)
24-70/2.8
85/1.4
135/1.8

Only direct comparison I can think of is an old Minolta 85mm/1.4 G (Sony did not put this lens back into production when they took over, preferring a Zeiss alternative) vs the new ZA. Have a read of this:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/zeiss-85mm-f14-za-vs-minolta-85mm-f-14g_topic59103_post654792.html
 
WilliethePimp said:
I've just done a quick comparison of the lens you mention on the Sony website,Here. The only main differences I can see, are the Focal Length 70-200mm 105-300mm compared to 70-400mm 105-600mm on the SAL-70400G. The Aperture F2.8 - F2.8 compared to F4.0 - F5.6 on the SAL-70400G. Correct me if I am wrong, but for £100 difference in the new price, would the SAL-70400G not be the better option, as a new SAL-14TC Teleconverter would be an extra £400 on top. I don't particularly want to go second hand, as they can be bought new for £1k.
Click to expand...

Where can the 70-200 or 70-400 be bought new for £1k? I assume you mean from reputable UK based companies supplying Sony UK stock, rather than getting stuff sent over from China and paying another ~25% in VAT and import duty when it arrives.

I use f/2.8 on my 70-200 a lot. The 70-400 would be of limited use to me as it is too slow for a lot of what I do. Your requirements may be very different though - only you can know.
 
another vote for the 70-200 G...fantastic lens IMO.i've also had the 70-400G until recently which was an amazing lens,but unfortunately,it rarely got used as wildlife isn't my main interest in photography.

as been said,you need to decide where you want to take your photography and tailor your lens to this.the 35 1.4 would be a great lens for low light photography...weddings,gigs etc..with the 70-400 being great for wildlife,but also good for landscapes,motorsports,people etc...but it's not a fast lens[wide aperture] so will struggle in low light.
 
As others have said, it really comes down to what you want to use the lenses for.

The entry level lenses are fine for photos in good conditions, but start to show their weaknesses when you try to be more demanding of them.

Do you need wider apertures?
Do you find you get CA in your shots?
etc.

If you can identify what it is that your existing glass lets you down on, then you can make a better decision on what to replace it with (or what lens to get in addition).

The 'like-for-like' upgrade woudl be to but both the CZ 16-80 and the 70-300G - the pair would cost about £1k, and be significantly better in general use.
But you might be wanting longer reach (look at the 70-400G), or f2.8 across a range, or macro, or extreme wide angle.

There are a lot of options for the money you have to spend, but it is also far short of being enough to buy the best to cover all possibilities.
 
I've got a few Sony fit lenses, and my favorites are probably the CZ 24-70 f/2.8 and the Minolta 50mm f/2.8 "RS" macro.

The Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 HS APO is also super. The 70-400 "G" is also excellent, not shot with it enough to really comment further, but its an impressive optic - 400mm wide open is much better than it should be for a variable aperture zoom.
 
[B said:
onomatopoeia;2456480]Where can the 70-200 or 70-400 be bought new for £1k? I assume you mean from reputable UK based companies supplying Sony UK stock, rather than getting stuff sent over from China and paying another ~25% in VAT and import duty when it arrives.[/B]

I use f/2.8 on my 70-200 a lot. The 70-400 would be of limited use to me as it is too slow for a lot of what I do. Your requirements may be very different though - only you can know.
Click to expand...

Although show out of stock, perhaps Here:shrug:
 
I have done a bit more research on t'internet, and by some stroke of fate, I was in a local branch of Jessops today, when a Sony Rep., was waiting to be seen. Striking while the iron was hot, I pounced on him for advice. According to him, the "G" lenses and Carl Zeis lenses, although there is no comparable lens done by both, they are much the same for quality, only that the "G" lenses are made by Sony, and the Carl Zeis lenses are made by Carl Zeis. After a lengthy discussion between us, and a Jessops assistant, the conclusion is what was suggested by above by Marc (Fabs). The SAL-70200G, Here, would seem to be the best option for me to give the best results in low light, with a F2.8 across the range, resulting hopefully in sharper better photographs of wildlife etc. :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top