Quick Guide to Affordable A Mount Lenses
Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Dyxum Community
Forum Name: Knowledge Base
Forum Description: Improving photo techniques & getting more from Dyxum
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24981
Printed Date: 21 May 2025 at 22:56
Topic: Quick Guide to Affordable A Mount Lenses
Posted By: Turerkan
Subject: Quick Guide to Affordable A Mount Lenses
Date Posted: 30 December 2007 at 08:46
|
This list is an introduction to widely known and affordable A Mount lenses. This is by no means a complete list, however is a great place to start your search for lenses. For further reference see http://www.dyxum.com/dforum//forum_posts.asp?TID=13972 - The Cheap Lineup and http://www.dyxum.com/dforum//forum_posts.asp?TID=3141 - The Lineup discussion topics. Also, you can ask for opinions in http://www.dyxum.com/dforum//forum_topics.asp?FID=1 - Lens Talk Forum .
Sony Era Zooms http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=318 - Carl Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 : The zoom that everyone is talking about, already a legend with prime level sharpness. ($650) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=417 - Sony 16-105/3.5-5.6 : Sharp zoom with exceptional range ($550-600) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=374 - Tamron | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=415 - Sony 18-250/3.5-6.3 : Best hyperzoom by a very big margin, focus faster than Tamron version ($400-$450). KM Era Zooms In this time period KM didn't produce a lot of lenses. Instead they opted to rebrand Tamron lenses. These Tamron-made lenses are meant to do the job right. They have no serious flaws and perform remarkably all around and they remain well-regarded among Sony/Minolta users. The 18-70 and 75-300 were basic kit zooms of KM lineup. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=191 - Tamron | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=203 - KM | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=311 - Sony 11-18/3.5-5.6 : Good image quality with good geometry ($450-$550) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=204 - KM | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=312 - Sony 18-70/3.5-5.6 : the Kit lens. very good range, decent optics for price ($75). http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=374 - Tamron | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=205 - KM | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=313 - Sony 18-200/3.5-6.3 : Optically OK, great range ($300-350). http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=113 - Tamron | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=27 - KM 17-35/2.8-4 : Good optics, decently fast and FF compatible ($275-350) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=114 - Tamron | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=33 - KM 28-75/2.8 : Already became a classic. Fast, sharp standard zoom. Tamron still makes this lens ($275-350). http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=55 - KM | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=316 - Sony 75-300/4.5-5.6 : Decent optical quality, slowish AF ($100-$150) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=65 - Minolta 100-300/4-5.6 APO D : Sharpest 300mm you can buy for the price ($275-450). Also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=63 - Non-D and http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=61 - Non-APO (lesser image quality) Minolta RS F3.5-4.5 Zooms These are fast and reasonably sharp lenses made by Minolta. Listed as a group because they share a similar quality and price. They are very good bargains in terms of price/performance. Similar focal lengths were also produced as F3.5-5.6 in this generation, those lenses mostly perform bad and are not included here. Aperture values are all f3.5-4-5: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=30 - Minolta 24-85 : Very good lens. Also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=29 - Non-RS ($150) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=31 - Minolta | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=314 - Sony 24-105 : Very good lens, versalite FL ($250-300) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=92 - Minolta 28-85 | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=37 - 28-105 | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=45 - 35-105 : Decent quality ($50-$100). Variants: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=91 - 1st Gen 28-85 | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=36 - Non-RS 28-105 | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=264 - xi 28-105 http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=338 - Minolta 35-200 f4.5-5.6 Xi : good image quality, odd range. ($100-$150) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=49 - Minolta 70-210 : Lighter than beercan, comparable image quality ($120-$160) Minolta 1st Generation Zooms These are the zoom lenses from the first generation of Minolta A Mount. They have very good sharpness and special Minolta color rendition. Beercan is the most famous and popular lens of Minolta history. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=79 - Minolta 24-50/4 : Rare, known for very good sharpness esp. at wide. Also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=80 - RS ($100-$150) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=39 - Minolta 35-70/4 : Range odd on APS-C. Does close ups very well. Also There is a http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=40 - RS F3.5-4.5 ($50-$100) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=44 - Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 : Good lens, odd zoom range ($50-$100) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=48 - Minolta 70-210/4 The Beercan: A legend, you can't go wrong ($120-$200) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=52 - Minolta 75-300/4.5-5.6 The Big Beercan: Bigger brother of the beercan, not constant aperture. also very well regarded lens. ($150-$250) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=60 - Minolta 100-200/4.5 : Very compact telephoto with acceptable quality. Close focus only 1.9m ($50-$100) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=38 - Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5 : Legend, people call it G level. sharp at all apertures, big and heavy. ($150-300) Minolta Budget Prime Lineup These Prime lenses were meant to be the entry level for Minolta system (excepting the Sigma 24/2.8). All are very good bargains today and deliver great image quality. Only 28/2.8 might be a mediocre performer, the rest is quite respectable. %3ca%20href= - Sigma 24/2.8 : Not a minolta but it deserves a place in this list, great performer. ($50-$100). http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=303 - Sony | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=12 - Minolta 28/2.8 : reasonable wide prime. ($100) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=17 - Minolta 50/1.7 : excellent lens, great bargain, makes a great portrait lens. Available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=18 - RS ($75-100) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=96 - Minolta 50/3.5 Macro : 1:2 only, very rare, Exceptional image quality. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=75 - Minolta 135/2.8 : smooth bokeh and sharp wide open ($225-275) Walkaround Zooms Walkaround zooms cover a range that starts in wide angle, ends in telephoto. They offer great flexibility to the user. Because of that, most photographers tend to own one. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=204 - KM | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=312 - Sony 18-70/3.5-5.6 : the Kit lens. very good range, decent optics for price ($75). http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=318 - Carl Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 : The zoom that everyone is talking about, already a legend with prime level sharpness. ($650) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=417 - Sony 16-105/3.5-5.6 : Sharp zoom with exceptional range ($550-600) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=268 - Tamron 17-50/2.8 : Followed the great 28-75/2.8. Deserves a place here. Excellent image quality ($450) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=241 - Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 : Decent zoom, a step up from the kit lens ($300-$400) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=352 - Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro : Great sharpness, 1:3 magnifaction, F2.8 ($400) also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=193 - Non-macro http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=128 - Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro : great sharpness and good closeup capability ($300-400). Also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=211 - Non-macro http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=30 - Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 : good glass and found commonly. Macro Lenses All macro lenses are sharp -- the real difference between them is bokeh, tonal rendition, speed, build quality and such. Don't get confused, cheap options are by no means bad in those aspects. They are just a bit behind the class leaders. Also don't forget that macro lenses make good replacements for premium short telephoto lenses with super fast aperture values. F2.8 is enough for most occassions and macros tend to be sharp wide open. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=306 - Sony | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=93 - Minolta 50/2.8 : Excellent lens ($200-$250) with variants: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=94 - RS and http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=173 - D . http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=155 - Sigma 50/2.8 EX : Excellent lens ($100-$150). also available as http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=154 - EX DG http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=117 - Tamron 90/2.8 Di (272E) : Exceptionally good and reasonably priced ($400-$450). variants: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=367 - 172E , http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=366 - 72E http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=236 - Cosina 100/3.5 : Great optics, lousy build, excellent value for money ($75-$150) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=200 - Sigma 180/5.6 : Excellent optics, slow aperture ($100-$200) Budget Telephoto Lenses Telephoto primes from 3rd party manufacturers (plus one Minolta lens). Don't expect zooms in here as super telephoto zooms have a higher average price point. Following lenses are generally known for good build quality, not stellar but very acceptible image quality and usually a little sluggish AF that requires extra skill on photographers side. An exception is the only in history AF mirror lens Sony/Minolta 500/8 that is claimed to have quick AF. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=201 - Sigma | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=288 - Tokina 300/4 : Competetive telephoto lenses ($300-400) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=196 - Tokina | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=224 - Sigma 400/5.6 Telemacro : Highly regarded optics ($200-$350) Sigma has older variants: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=407 - APO and http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=397 - non-APO http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=228 - Sigma 500/7.2 : might be very slow but has decent optics ($200-$300) http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=25 - Minolta | http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=310 - Sony 500/8 Reflex AF : Mirror tele with AF, only from the Mind of Minolta ($500-$650) If you spot an error or have a suggestion, please post below. Also see http://www.dyxum.com/dforum//forum_posts.asp?TID=39640&PID=425112#425112 - Underappreciated gems? ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Replies:
Posted By: artuk
Date Posted: 30 December 2007 at 15:36
|
The obvious missing lens is the Minolta 35-200 f4.5-5.6 Xi
Power zoom may have fallen hopelessly out of fashion, but it was one of the first "super zooms" that was optically very good, and was very expensive when launched. It gives very good performance on full frame (film) and seems to give good results on digital too. ------------- Art |
Posted By: csiems
Date Posted: 30 December 2007 at 16:12
I seem to agree here, and I would add the Tamron SP180mm/3,5 Macro Good work! ------------- www.siems.dk Sony A580+A700- A77 – Min 24 – 50/1,7 –24-105 - 28-85 - 28-105xi – 70-210/4 – 70-400G - 400/4,5 – Tamron SP11-18 - SP90 -SP180– SP200-500–TC 1,4 – Sony 4200 HS flash + many film-Minoltas |
harveyzone wrote:Posted By: artuk
Date Posted: 30 December 2007 at 17:21
Well, don't forget: Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX Tamron 28-105 f2.8 SP Sigma 12-24 EX Sigma 15-30 EX Personally, I wouldn't "recommend" the Minolta (Tamron) 11-18 and 17-35 as from what I hear or personal experience, they are good but not exceptional. ------------- Art |
Posted By: MEANSTREAK
Date Posted: 25 January 2008 at 04:37
I love the 11-18mm ------------- The more clowns, the better the circus. |
Posted By: marlon127
Date Posted: 25 January 2008 at 05:10
|
If your going to include the 650 dollar CZ 16-80 I think you should revisit and make additions to all areas. You've excluded some of the best glass available.
For Instance: Sigma 10-20 - 500 USD Mn 100 2.8 Macro 500 USD new at B and H Tam 90 2.8 Mn 35 2 - I think its within range as well |
Posted By: samdry
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 00:25
|
sir i have a minolta 28X100 3.5 D zoom? that i cant id are find info on the main thing is thats a silver lens
can you help id sam dryden ------------- semper fi |
Posted By: Kirk
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 00:30
|
Is this it?
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=35 - link ------------- Kirk Check out my galleries at kmcmenamin.smugmug.com (CC always welcome) |
Posted By: samdry
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 02:59
|
yes that was it, i live in a ruarl aera in s.e. kansas and i was in the local gasstation with my 350 slung over my shoulde last week well any way a box showed up in my mail box, yup it was a silver28x100 d minolta lense in it, love being home after so long away
thank you so much for helping me R/S samuel dryden.semper fi! ------------- semper fi |
Posted By: jvandegr
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 03:56
|
Thanks for your efforts, but I don't agree with some of the qualitative descriptions. For example, the Minolta 100-200 f/4.5 has "acceptable quality"? It's sharper than the Beercan and as sharp as the G zooms throughout most of its focal range and aperture range. On the other hand, the Sony 18-70mm kit lens most certainly does not have "decent optics."
With such biased descriptors, I vote for removing this list because it could cause more harm than good. We have a lens database so that users can research lenses in depth and draw their own conclusions. ------------- Jon Van de Grift Photojournalist and Educator |
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 04:08
i had both lenses in my posession and i can tell you 100-200 is most certainly inferior to beercan. it has huge PF and CA issues, plus it's soft on the long end. You should see the lens database comments for these two lenses as well. the reason why this list was compiled is; comparison of basic lenses comes up on the forums all the time. and the responses are the same all the time too... this topic is merely a simple FAQ. it can be a reference point to start your research and nothing more.. and i agree people should consult the lens database before deciding on any purchase. ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: jvandegr
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 04:14
|
Wow, you had a dud 100-200mm! I've tried several copies of both of these lenses and the 100-200mm beats the beercan every time, at every focal length and every aperture. In any case, this is the problem with this list - it is written from the bias of one perspective. It is also noticeably incomplete. So again, it should be probably be deleted and the database should stand alone. Please don't take my comments too harshly - I do appreciate your efforts. ------------- Jon Van de Grift Photojournalist and Educator |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 04:21
|
I think it's actually quite useful. It's not an exhaustive list by all means, but it has most of the main feasible choices. It covers those basic lenses that repeatedly come up.
Irrespective of some of the actual descriptors, the Dyxum links to the database help offset the effect of personal experience. For instance, Jon's own detailed review of the old Minolta 24-85 helped me to decide on getting that lens for my film cameras. I wouldn't do so only on Turerkan's list  .------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 04:30
|
well... if database is a safe source of knowledge, you should take note of these:
AF 100-200 F4.5 details sharpness: 4,26 color: 4,56 build: 4,35 distortion: 4,51 flare control: 3,98 overall: 4,33 total reviews: 43 AF 70-210 F4 (beercan) details sharpness: 4,56 color: 4,76 build: 4,81 distortion: 4,65 flare control: 4,02 overall: 4,56 total reviews: 203 and besides, the real showstopper for 100-200 is the minimum focus distance: 1.9m.. otherwise i wouldn't get rid of it myself. current crop of 55-200 zooms should do much better at a bargain price. (note to self: update the list with tamron 55-200 etc) chthoniid's reply is also important.. he mentioned that the links are useful. and indeed, the main attraction of this list is, when you are looking for cheap and good glass, you can find their names listed here, with links to their pages and short comments about them. btw, the comments were derived from the lens database itself. i carefully noted the score of respective lenses according to their class, read the reviews by experienced users and came up with those words. ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: Happy Hour
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 05:23
I understand this is not a complete list but don't you think the Minolta 100mm f2.8 should be listed under Macro? It doesn't seem fair to list the 50 and not it's big brother. Just curious why the Cosina was listed over the Minolta. 
|
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 09:11
|
this list is supposed to only cover the cheap alternatives. there are some complaints why 16-80 and alike are included, the reason is simple: these lenses are usually compared to other lenses in the list for cost/performance. People into buying their first or second lenses commonly consider these. so it makes sense to add them to the list.
expanding the list to contain premium lenses would be a tiresome work because the number of lenses to be added would be quite high, possibly even more than the current list. besides it might entirely miss the purpose of the list. that doesnt mean every logical lens is already covered. i'm sure there are many missing ones out there. i update the list according to the requests here, whenever a suggested lens matches the scope of the list. ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: Turerkan
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 09:13
|
topic renamed to "Quick Guide to Affordable A Mount Lenses". putting emphasis on affordability constraint should make it easier to justify the list.. ------------- http://tinyurl.com/chaokc - Self moderate. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic45171&get=last.html - Use Gimp. http://tinyurl.com/cj4qq8 - View My Photos. |
Posted By: Happy Hour
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 15:47
I got it. Sorry.i was just wondering. |
Posted By: skyhook78
Date Posted: 10 April 2009 at 00:59
|
I find this list really useful as a newbie to the world of Sony/KM mounts (and DSLR photography in general), it gives me some direction for upgrading my kit gear.
Thanks very much for compiling! |
Posted By: nigelbrooks
Date Posted: 10 April 2009 at 14:19
|
Welcome to Dyxum skyhook78. ------------- I've been away! |
Posted By: alanscape
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 11:41
|
If people are comparing lenses @ 100% crops I'd ask how often do you print so big?
We all want the best IQ we can get but would it be an idea to qualify tests with 'when cropped to ##%' or 'It's fine up to an A4 print when viewed at 8"-10"'... just a thought... ------------- alanscape |
Posted By: Combatmedic870
Date Posted: 03 September 2009 at 07:03
|
You really should add the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 apo macro(VERY decent performer) cost $189-210
Also, the Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 ld di macro $140-160(also a very decent performer. Though, I dont believe its as good as the Sigma.) Both of these lenses are better then the SAL70-300(not as much CA)! Plus both have 1:2 Macro unlike the Sony! ------------- Ryan |
Posted By: Gancherov
Date Posted: 03 September 2009 at 08:03
I assume you mean the Sony 75-300 and not the 70-300G because the 70-300G has absolutely zero CA. And as far as the Sigma 70-300 goes I wouldn't waste any money on it because the chance of the gears stripping is EXTREMELY high on this lens. In this price and mm range the Big Beercan (Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6) is also very popular and costs around $175-225. ------------- There is no problem in the world that can not be solved with the proper application of explosives. |
Posted By: bluecapsule
Date Posted: 19 January 2010 at 02:23
| What about the Sony 30mm macro? Seems like it would be a good budget option for a walk around prime + macro lens. |
Posted By: yannick
Date Posted: 25 February 2010 at 14:39
|
I would like to add one important point I discovered in my 8 months of Lens buying:
AVOID EBAY, I made the mistake twice to buy Ebay lenses, (the first time I got the money back, the second time I did not, so it was my last Time) there are loads of Minolta lenses in mint conditions stored in cupboards out there... FIND THEM Or here, thanks Eric, I got a good 50mm lens for 85$, I think it was a fair offer, on Swiss Ebay they are listed to "Buy now" for $150+ (And I trust a Dyxum member more than an Ebay reseller who probably does not even own an alpha mount body and never shot a single image with the lens) Or, "as for vegetables" ;-) Shop local... near where I live there is a nice shop who sells used lenses, in good condition, I would say dyxum-like price... and you can test them, for example, last time I was there he had a 28mm f 2.8 for 100$ (Ebay like price, with warranty) ------------- A850 | A55 | SAL1855 | 17-35 mm | Beercan | 50mm f1.7 | Sigma 28mm f1.8 | m42 135mm f2.8 Dynax 800si |
Posted By: captjoe06
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 15:22
From what I'd heard about it I thought it would be on this list too. Is there a reason for it not to be? ------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/8427660@N02/" rel="nofollow - MY Flickr Account |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 19 June 2011 at 22:54
it was released after this list was composed. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: captjoe06
Date Posted: 20 June 2011 at 13:04
ahh, good to know. Hopefully folks are made aware so they don't think this list is the be-all end-all easy peasy list to go by. Respectfully It should be labeled as not-up-to-date or updated. or pulled til it is up-to date. love the forum and database. thanks for this wonderful resource. ------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/8427660@N02/" rel="nofollow - MY Flickr Account |