FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Advice on standard zooms

Author
JamesD View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 620
Post Options Post Options   Quote JamesD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Advice on standard zooms
    Posted: 08 November 2012 at 14:45
I recently took possession of an A99. This is my first foray into FF territory and I could use a little advice. I currently own the Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 as well as the Minolta 24-85mm. Both of these seem to be well regarded lenses, but I know the Zeiss 24-70 is the gold standard in this range. I would like to add a 70-200/2.8 as well as possibly a 300/2.8 for wilflife, but my budget is not limitless. So my question is this, since the 24-70mm range for me, is pretty much landscape work with tripod, small aperture, and all the time in the world to focus, how much am I going to gain in IQ over my current options? I guess the same question could be asked about a long landscape lenses. I own the 70-300mm G SSM. Would the 70-200/2.8 be a worthwhile addition?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Just for fun.

Jim
 



Back to Top
Blame View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 October 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Posts: 2546
Post Options Post Options   Quote Blame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2012 at 16:20
The Zeiss 24-70 is not at it's best for small aperture landscape. It doesn't gain as much in sharpness stopped down and lags a bit in the corners. It's virtue is at f/2.8 and with it's acceptable bokeh.

The usual advice is to go for a tamron 28-75/2.8 which pulls ahead of the Zeiss above f/4 and has truly great corners stopped down. It's bokeh is not something to write home about. Sony make an optically more or less identical lens at a rather higher price which has a motor rather than tamron's screw drive. It isn't faster on an a900 but on an a99 I don't know.

You could think about the minolta 28-135 which has great sharpness but perhaps not the greatest contrast. It is also rather heavy which can count more than you might expect.

My favorite is the Sony/Minolta 24-105mm which has decent bokeh and a very useful range. A little more CA. It is small, light and cheap. It does as well as my tamron 28-75/2.8 stopped down to f/8 but I wouldn't want to use it in low light. No matter how much you stop it down it is always going to vignette a bit. The good thing is that the size and price means you should still have room for another faster lens.

I had the minolta 24-85mm and found it unconvincing but it has its fans. Perhaps I had a bad copy.

I doubt that a 70-200/2.8 will give you much that you want. The sony 70-300mm was never the most exciting of lenses at the long end but between 70-200mm and well stopped down it should do the job as well as any.   

A900, Min 24-105, 35-105, Samyang 14/2.8, 35/1.4, Sig 70/2.8 Macro, ISCO Ultra 125/2, Tam 180/3.5 Macro, Sig 400/5.6 TeleMacro
Back to Top
ifreedman View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 24 January 2012
Country: United States
Location: Hudson ValleyNY
Status: Offline
Posts: 3348
Post Options Post Options   Quote ifreedman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 04:46
+1
I don't use a FF lens, but most of the advice I've seen in the past runs pretty similar to what Blame said. Maybe you've done this already, but I suggest that you look at sample pictures taken with the different lenses and decide for yourself which you like best.

I know you said your budget is limited, but on FF, I have a hard time finding lenses that take nicer photos than either the 135 STF or 135 Zeiss. I drool over images taken with those lenses. Whether those lenses are right for you also depends what your photographing.

Ian
Back to Top
dumbasadoorknob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 August 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 539
Post Options Post Options   Quote dumbasadoorknob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 05:58
Lens selection is a very personal matter. My views are different from Blame's.

The Tam 24135 is a "slow" lens (although that won't matter with an A99 and the ability to push the ISO.) It has a zoom lock, a most useful range, a hood: it is relatively light, and short in the wide mode, and my copy is free from the tammy yellows.   it is most inexpensive for a quality lens.   it's a great and under-appreciated fullframe lens.

I prefer the Tam 241235 to my Min 28135 (no lens shade and strong flare) or my Tam 2875/2.8 (a little too short at the long end, and yellow) or my 24105 (very bad chromatic aberration at the edges.)

It is difficult to find a better telezoom than the 70300G. I prefer my 100300APOD, but that is just orneriness on my part. The 70300G is a bazooka with its lens shade, but the image quality is very high indeed, the colors are Minolta, and again, while it is "slow", it can be pushed on your A99.

People will tell you about the 70200G and the 70400, and they are phenomenal lenses, but the first is heavy and the second is gynormous. The 70300G is too big for my taste, but if you've got it, use it to the fullest!
David
More lenses than brain cells
Back to Top
JamesD View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 620
Post Options Post Options   Quote JamesD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 07:05
Thanks all for the comments. As I suspected, for my usage there is a diminishing return on the Sony 24-70/2.8. I guess I'll do some testing to compare the 28-75 and the 24-85. I think too, I'll wait and see how the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 pan out. I surely do wish Sony would come out with a constant F4 like the Nikon 24-120 or the Canon 24-105L. It seems there would be a big demand for it among Sony FF users. Maybe there's just not enough of us to justify the cost to produce it.
Just for fun.

Jim
Back to Top
livinginparadise View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 February 2011
Country: Australia
Location: NSW
Status: Offline
Posts: 277
Post Options Post Options   Quote livinginparadise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 07:27
Constant f4 would be the beercan - apart from CA it isn't that far behind canon or nikon.

I've been enjoying my minolta 20/2.8 and samyang 14/2.8 on my99
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 4547
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 09:22
Why not add one or two primes for the focallengths you use the most. The Zeiss 24mm seems to be ideal for landscapes (good corners). A zoom always is a compromise. The 24-85 and 28-75 are good lenses stopped down, Assuming you're using them at f/8-f/11 you want to take a look at primes to get a noticeable improvement. If you think the Zeiss is too much money, the old Minolta 24mm still is a good lens!

Re. The 24-105 vs. 24-85: the 24-85 is considered to be ever so slightly better, but sample variation may mean that some copies of the 24-105 can be better then most copies of the 24-85.
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 4547
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 09:24
Oh, almost forgot, the Canon 24-105 has lousy corners, not at all a landscape lens..... The new 24-70/4L might be better in this regard.
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
Back to Top
MichelvA View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group
Knowledge Base Contributor

Joined: 26 April 2008
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12635
Post Options Post Options   Quote MichelvA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 09:58
Originally posted by JamesD JamesD wrote:

I recently took possession of an A99. This is my first foray into FF territory and I could use a little advice. I currently own the Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 as well as the Minolta 24-85mm. Both of these seem to be well regarded lenses, but I know the Zeiss 24-70 is the gold standard in this range. I would like to add a 70-200/2.8 as well as possibly a 300/2.8 for wilflife

It all depends how much light you expect. If you shoot wildlife in the early morning or evening, and want a high(er) iq, go for the CZ 24-70.
Same for the 70-200. If you intend to shoot at f/2.8 - f/4 often, go for the 70-200, otherwise the 70-400. I don't find these lenses are heavy, but the 300 f/2.8 is.
Back to Top
Blame View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 October 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Posts: 2546
Post Options Post Options   Quote Blame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2012 at 12:05
Originally posted by JamesD JamesD wrote:

Thanks all for the comments. As I suspected, for my usage there is a diminishing return on the Sony 24-70/2.8. I guess I'll do some testing to compare the 28-75 and the 24-85. I think too, I'll wait and see how the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 pan out. I surely do wish Sony would come out with a constant F4 like the Nikon 24-120 or the Canon 24-105L. It seems there would be a big demand for it among Sony FF users. Maybe there's just not enough of us to justify the cost to produce it.


Hey. It's a bit difficult to give advice if you keep changing the requirements. We have been assuming that you are after sharp landscape lenses to use stopped down without spending more than you need. Those new Tamrons are high priced fast glass. Great lenses but not exactly a good fit to the original specification. They lack the focal range, modest weight and price while they will probably have no better IQ well stopped down.
A900, Min 24-105, 35-105, Samyang 14/2.8, 35/1.4, Sig 70/2.8 Macro, ISCO Ultra 125/2, Tam 180/3.5 Macro, Sig 400/5.6 TeleMacro
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.

Links monetized by viglink VigLink