FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Lens Conundrum

Page  12>
Author
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 808
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Lens Conundrum
    Posted: 28 March 2019 at 10:51
Originally posted by wesleysa wesleysa wrote:

Thanks for all the helpful replies!

The 100mm macro:
Yes all all fair points, I'm actually not sure what I want to do with it. I'd like to be tighter on plants, but find using the 50 difficult to get into angles I want and almost always with too much background. Tough with smaller species.


You could try extension tubes to increase magnification with your 50mm, or the 100mm if you get one.

The main differences between the two is not magnification (both are 1:1) but focus distance (more stand-off with the 100mm), slimmer DOF (100mm) and perspective (the 100mm has tele foreshortening). From your description I suspect that these latter effects may be what you seek.

The 100mm macro is a great lens, I have the Minolta D version and it is my favourite lens. It is far more than just a macro, I love it for portraits, landscapes and detailed architectural shots. Along with the 200mm it could solve the enigma of the too short / too long 135mm. I know exactly what you mean and avoided 135mm for years because I felt the same - then I tried again and now I enjoy my 135mm on digital.

 



Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11356
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2019 at 01:45
A wide rubber band placed just right will stop most zoom creeping.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
wesleysa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2008
Country: South Africa
Location: Cape Town
Status: Offline
Posts: 837
Post Options Post Options   Quote wesleysa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2019 at 22:50
Ah! Duh!

Showing my zoom experience there. My 28-75 creeps from 28mm through to around 40mm then stops. Minor irritation but irritation nonetheless.

Thanks Rob.
Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11356
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2019 at 22:22
It's an internal zoom design, it doesn't extend.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
wesleysa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2008
Country: South Africa
Location: Cape Town
Status: Offline
Posts: 837
Post Options Post Options   Quote wesleysa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2019 at 21:58
One question for 80-200 owners (black version and/or white version) - Does it creep at all? If I held the camera face down while walking or if it was momentarily slung onto my hip via a shoulder strap.

Weird specific question I know, but I like to go out without a bag at times and the lens would be 'exposed' as it were.

Apologies if this is easily available info elsewhere, I'd rather an owners experience in any case.

Edited by wesleysa - 27 March 2019 at 22:04
Back to Top
wesleysa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2008
Country: South Africa
Location: Cape Town
Status: Offline
Posts: 837
Post Options Post Options   Quote wesleysa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 March 2019 at 10:53
Thanks for all the helpful replies!

C_N_RED_AGAIN: The CA, as noted by others in review may be a stumbling block for me as I'd (at least at first) probably just shoot at f1.4 as often as possible. I'd like to think I'd revert to stopping down after the 'honeymoon phase'.

Sönke Henning: All in line with what I would expect from the shortlist. The 14 may have to wait. It's just too niche at this point.

All arguments for the 80-200: I think my main hesitation is it's a zoom. My experience is only with the mid-range and cheaper zooms (in addition to the above I've had/have a beercan and 2 35-70/4s), which have been 'fine'. But not as sharp/fast/satisfying as my non-G primes. Which I admittedly don't often use wide-open.

So in my head (wrongly or rightly) I'd think a G prime would be better ito absolute IQ than the 80-200. But given I've never had a G zoom I may find that is better than all my current lenses for what it does. plus flexibility.

Still the bulk. Mainly because for me that would affect my decision to take it out if I was doing a decent walk/hike and up to now weight isn't an issue with my gear, all very lightweight.

sybersitizen: Yes all fair points, my lenses in there own right are great I find. I don't feel constrained by CA in that sense. But maybe a factor with the 85 as I suppose it's raison-de-etre is low-light to an extent. But then again, its idiosyncrasies (from what I've read/seen) make up for technical shortcomings.

The 100mm macro:
Yes all all fair points, I'm actually not sure what I want to do with it. I'd like to be tighter on plants, but find using the 50 difficult to get into angles I want and almost always with too much background. Tough with smaller species.

Hezu: Laowa is completely new to me. I didn't know they made that one in A-mount. I'm not sure if I be compounding my 'issues' with the 50.

2manycamera: 'Settled' for a 100/2! :)! I don't see many of these up for sale., It was actually one I hadn't thought of though in the same vein/length/speed of the macro and the 85. I guess if I boil it down to a shorter prime this must be on the list.

pegelli and Roger: The 70-300 I have thought about, I do find I don't 'max-out' my current glass at 2.8 very often. But then always the option is there.

momech: This as well I hadn't thought of. I suppose this could cover what I'd want the samyang for and be better than my 24 for more general use... Conudrum compounded! Expensive though.

Miranda F: This is correct! My girlfriend has an older Nikon DSLR that she 'wants' to replace. I have been lobbying for her to get an A6000 in particular, I have a decent argument too with my lenses, but it remains to be seen if she's going to jump.

Thanks again to all for indulging my stressful problem. Probably one of the nicest problems to have. I hope to report back soon.



 



Back to Top
Roger Rex View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 September 2005
Country: United States
Location: North Florida
Status: Offline
Posts: 7263
Post Options Post Options   Quote Roger Rex Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 March 2019 at 11:58
Of course, what you think you will be mostly shooting should be your guide (along with your budget). Given that, the 70-300G is lightweight, very good IQ, matches well with your 850 (I have used it for years on the a900). Do you need f2.8 or thereabouts frequently or even just a lot? If not, then consider the 70-300G.
Hatred corrodes the container it is carried in. http://rogerrex.zenfolio.com/
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3436
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 March 2019 at 10:48
I'm not going to answer your specific queries, but I have an off-the wall suggestion based on my own experience.
To get back into the swing of photography and revitalise your interest, I would strongly suggest getting a second camera, specifically one which is small, lightweight, and has a small zoom lens on it. You can carry it around on your neck, or over one shoulder, or even in a shoulder bag with other things when you go out casually.
I would recommend the Nex-6 or one of the A6000+ series with an EVF, and definitely get the kit 16-50 with it. The Nex-6 with lens is less than you'd pay for the lenses you are thinking about so is affordable.
Don't dismiss this combo because it isn't a high-quality constant-aperture lens on FF. That doesn't matter for the purpose, which is creativity, and you have the A850 and the fast lenses there for when you need them.

Much of the time you will find you can get pictures you wouldn't have got with the A850 (because you wouldn't have had it with you), and when you find yourself irritated by its occasional limitations, that gives you impetus to get the 850 out again.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, 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
momech View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2890
Post Options Post Options   Quote momech Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 23:52
Not on your list, but replacing the Minolta 17-35D with something newer - maybe a ZA 16-36/2.8 version 1 - would be a huge step forward.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Back to Top
Hezu View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 October 2007
Country: Finland
Location: HKI/KSNK
Status: Offline
Posts: 2188
Post Options Post Options   Quote Hezu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 21:49
Originally posted by stiuskr stiuskr wrote:

Regarding the 100mm macro choice, it will not allow you to get closer to the flower but just the opposite, it will allow you to not have to get as close as you have to with the 50 for the same 1:1 macro results. The most noticeable difference will be that the 100 will have a tighter field of view resulting in less background in the image but as far as subject size in the image with both at 1:1 there will be no difference.
And if one wants to closer to the subject than with a 50 mm macro, I can suggest LAOWA 15 mm F4 Macro lens: all manual control, but at the closest focusing distance (with 1:1 magnification) there will be just a few millimeters between the subject and the lens front element - so close that you usually cannot use the hood with the lens as otherwise it will block you getting close enough. Also with such sort focusing distances it is possible that the lens itself will shadow the subject, so this lens is not necessary the easiest tool for closeup shots.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14244
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 18:55
Originally posted by wesleysa wesleysa wrote:


The candidates:
200mm f2.8
85mm f1.4
100mm Macro
80-200 f2.8

Among my Minoltas are the 24 that you own and the 200 and the 100 macro that interest you. I used to own the 80-200, the 17-35, the 85, and the 135 that you mentioned.

In a basic sense, the entire original Minolta AF lens family has shared characteristics - one of which is observable CA, as you noted. If that puts you off you will have to either avoid the whole family or address the issue in PP. Since you seem happy enough with your current lenses, I assume you are not terribly put off.

I only sold the ones I no longer have because they didn't get much use for my own purposes. Honestly, the choice is all down to personal preference and what you think you'll be using and enjoying most.
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 27635
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 16:50
I sold my 80-200 (white HS version). It's a great lens, really good IQ and pleasant bokeh but too bulky and heavy for me so it hardly came out anymore. I kept my 200/2.8 HS since it's much lighter and has a slight IQ edge, but obviously at the expense of much less flexibility.

However with the newer low light capability of the newer sensors having a 2.8 telezoom became less of a need for me, so that hole is now filled with a 70-300G, also a very good lens albeit at a much smaller max aperture (4.5 - 5.6)

If I need more brightness at focal length below 200 mm I still have some brighter 85's and 100's (and a manual 135/2.8) to help me out in a pinch.

Good luck making your choice, it's both stressful, but also fun
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11356
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 16:48
Regarding the 100mm macro choice, it will not allow you to get closer to the flower but just the opposite, it will allow you to not have to get as close as you have to with the 50 for the same 1:1 macro results. The most noticeable difference will be that the 100 will have a tighter field of view resulting in less background in the image but as far as subject size in the image with both at 1:1 there will be no difference.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
2manycamera View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 November 2005
Location: Cal Motherlode
Status: Offline
Posts: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Quote 2manycamera Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2019 at 16:06
I own both the 200/2.8 HS and black 80-200/2.8 non-HS. The 80-200 is a marvelous zoom, but I use the 200mm far more often. Part of that is weight, as well as focus speed (though the non-HS 80-200 is not slow). It is also better than the 80-200 at 200mm, but the 80-200 holds it's sharpness through almost it's entire range. Both have CA issues, but most older Minolta lenses share this issue, especially when compared to modern lenses. If CA is a deciding issue for you, you should be considering newer designs.

Price wise, the 200mm and black 80-200 should be in similar price ranges, though I haven't looked lately. The HS version of the 80-200 will be more expensive, but you really need to do some comparing before deciding.

Regarding the 85/1.4: For years I looked for one I could afford, but it always was more than I could justify. So I finally "settled" for the 100/2 Minolta. To this day, it is absolutely my favorite lens, ultra sharp with creamy bokah. Plenty of CA, and with the reflections off the sensor showing up a duplicate highlights. But used properly, it is an absolute top tier Minolta gem.
7D a68 a99 a6600 a7 16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 35/2 50/1.4 100/2 200/2.8 24-70CZ 1.8/135 80-200/2.8 24-105 28-135 300/4 16-50DT 70-300G Tam 90/2.8, E55-210 E2/12 FE 28-70 Sig E1.4/16,30 & 56, FE15/4.5V
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.096 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.