FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Cheap Lineup

Page  <1 424344
Author
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2042
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 March 2018 at 15:33
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:


It certainly nice to have wider than 35 mm for a full-frame normal zoom. And the 35-105 is not even as wide as the other 35-x zooms. The 24-85 is the best full-frame normal zoom deal.

Do you prefer it to the 24-105mm?
Does it vignette as much in the corners? One of the snags with Minolta was their insistance on using too small a front element on so many of their wide-angle lenses. Comparable Sigma lenses always have a bigger front element (though they also need bigger filters, hoods, etc.)

I keep re-evaluating things and trying new copies. I like the ergonomics of the 24-50 the most. I had thought it was the best at 24 mm, but I was comparing them, and the 24-85s seem to be better at 24 mm--better than the 24-50 and the 24-105. And it is reliably cheaper than those. It is a really good deal right now.

So I bought copies of both the 24-85 and 24-105, and they are both pretty good copies. They are optically better than the 28-105 Xi I recently got for $18. I am tempted to say a better copy of that lens would be the best deal, but the Xi stuff is annoying, and the non-Xi 28-105s seem to be going up in value. I don't miss the RS I sold a few months ago. I definitely don't miss the 28-135 or 28-85 either.
Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:

QuietOC, I'm surprised to hear you say that. There's a world of difference between 35mm and 55mm at the wide end. There's also a whole lot of difference between 24mm and 35mm, for example, even though it's "only" 11 mm extra. At the wide end, every mm counts.

Sure, I just find the 55-200 better than the 35-105, and it is about the same price. I'd be interested in something like a 40-400 APS-C zoom. It seems like there is too much compromise to try and get 16 mm or 18 mm on the wide end. Even for something like the 16-80.

Edited by QuietOC - 09 March 2018 at 17:00
A68 30M 35 50 60M 16-50 16-80 18-55 18-70 18-135 55-200 55-300
A6000 LA-EA1 6.5 16 20 30 50 60 16-50 18-55 55-210
600si: 20 24 28 50 100M 135 24-85 24-105 28-105 35-70 35-105 70-210 75-300 100-200
 



Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2889
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 March 2018 at 09:26
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I'd be interested in something like a 40-400 APS-C zoom. It seems like there is too much compromise to try and get 16 mm or 18 mm on the wide end. Even for something like the 16-80.


Well, you have the 55-300mm which is almost there!
I find that a bit too big to leave on the camera, plus it misses out the wide end I like so much. I got the Sony 18-250mm recently, and I have been most impressed with it. The wide end isn't perfect, as seems to be the case with most wides, frankly, but my copy is impressively sharp over most of the frame at all focal lengths and apertures, and I don't have to worry about keeping it above f8 (though of course it's not that much faster most of the way). It covers the important 20-ish to 100mm region very well, and is sharp enough at 250mm to stand some quite hard cropping which was a big surprise. I guess copies vary a lot at this end of the market, but the more recent hyper-zooms do seem to be getting better and better (I tried various 28-200mm film-era zooms and they were all unspeakably horrid!)
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 629
Post Options Post Options   Quote macronut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 June 2018 at 21:24
The 70-210 f4 beercan is selling so cheap itís an insult to its legacy. Iíd say itís one of the true bargains out there and so easy to find mint or even new in the box. Love the bokeh and colors for outdoor portraiture.

I could go on and on about the bargains found throughout the cheap lineup. A few that instantly come to mind...

28-105 (prefer the original over the RS. Better build quality. such a solid lens all around. One of my favorites to grab when I donít have much time to spend thinking about my selection)

35-105. (What more can be said about this one that hasnít been said repeatedly by its admirers? Original version of course.)

100-200. (As cheap as 15 dollars Iíve seen it. Limited range. but itís lightweight, has a constant aperture, and decent optics. Not my favorite, but anyone on a tight budget would love it)

100-300 APO D (compares favorably against others in its range because of its small size and weight, and decent optics. Not critically sharp, but none of the cheap linuep in its range are. at its current price point, itís one of the best choices for any causal photog. D version sells for same money as earlier version. )

24-50 (slight preference for the RS version. typical Minolta colors. Acceptable sharpness. nice upgrade from the lousy kit zooms Sony stuck us with... especially the 18-70 turd)

50 1.7 (prefer original version much much more than the RS. this may be the best deal of all. A reliable performer that really canít be faulted much, especially for 25 dollars)

50 2.8 RS macro (a no-brainer for anyone looking into macro. Great price these days. Easily the best bang-for-your-buck macro.)

135 2.8 (not typically in the cheap lineup but has gotten plenty cheap enough in the last few years)

24-105 D (small. Light. Useful on cropped or full frame. D lens. Possibly the Most logical lens In The cheap lineup to swap out your kit lens. And easily found for about 100 dollars.)

28-135 f4-4.5 (this lens seems to have lost its mythical allure for the most part. But I disagree with those that donít like it. Mine is sharp, focuses really fast, and has all the saturated Minolta color that I love. Years ago it would never have been mentioned as being in the cheap lineup. It was overpriced then, but these days itís worth every last penny. Iím seeing them for 100 dollars. This lens is durable. Imagine if Sony were to make a new 28-135 f4-4.5 that is built to last. Probably would sell for 700-1000 dollars.)

500 Reflex (not as affordable as the others, but for what it can do, itís in the cheap lineup in my opinion. I LOVE this lens and will never be without it. So small for its range, and it autofocuses. Reasonably sharp considering what it is. Fun lens.)

Iím sure Iím forgetting several. Iím not in front of my collection right now.






Edited by macronut - 12 June 2018 at 18:42
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2889
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2018 at 09:57
Most of Macronut's suggestions work well on APS-C too, though possibly not the 500 reflex.

I guess the 35-105 he's referring to is the early metal one and not the later smaller plastic one which is nothing like as good (though it has a rather atmospheric soft haziness at full aperture which can give a really nice 1970's portrait effect).

The 50mm f2.8 works very well on APS-C as a nature lens, for flowers, leaves, and so on, where it is really sharp close up but doesn't need the excessive distance of the 90-100mm macro lenses.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  <1 424344

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.