35-200xi

[David Kilpatrick]

I just failed to sell my 35-200xi on eBay for £99 with a leather case, box, cards, caps, hood - the lot!

Tonight I sat down to edit and save pictures not processed from the last month. Amongst these was a set from the 35-200xi on the Alpha 900. I'm very glad it did not sell, because they are probably the best all-round set of shots from any zoom I have used on the camera, including the 28-75mm f2.8 D which I normally use. If ONLY this lens had been made in a non-xi form! Or if it had gone down to 28mm.

Even so, I think it stays now and may become my regular lens for the Alpha 900. It has almost no CA at the wide end, some barrel distortion; no CA in the middle, and no distortion around 50-100mm; pincushion from 100 to 200mm increasing, along with correctable sharp CA. Very sharp, high resolution achieved at one stop down from full aperture (f6.3 wide, f8 at the longer settings). No real corner fall off at all.

David

[Javelin]

Good news and a nice range. What is it you don't like about the motorized zoom ? or is there more about the xi lenses than that thats different?

[aster]

I just failed to sell my 35-200xi on eBay for £99 with a leather case, box, cards, caps, hood - the lot!
........

... because they are probably the best all-round set of shots from any zoom I have used on the camera, including the 28-75mm f2.8 D which I normally use.

David

Hello David,

Would it be possible to see a sample shot taken with this lens, please?

Thanks
Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

Here's an example at 60mm, f6.3, close sort of focus - my regular subject. Interestingly, most lenses if they have a softer 'end' of the image have a soft right hand side and this is no different, but that could be down to how I perceive alignment when shooting subjects freehand, maybe I just don't aim parallel to the subject and consistent angle my view a bit.



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/105568122

Examine the big file. Count the spider web threads. No CA correction applied at all. I've got another shot where single strand spider web is caught against a background at full aperture, at 135mm - again, no CA correction used, and the lens is just autofocused for a hand held snap at 135mm. The bokeh is nice enough, the coverage is good corner to corner, and I would really expect f/11 to be the optimum stop at this focal length:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/105568925

The unsharpness, where you see it, is due to the minimal depth of field not to any lens faults.

The motorized zoom does use camera battery power, it's not all that easy to control precise framing, but on the other hand the lens is very compact and light.

David

[bfitzgerald]

The samples look pretty good to me. Never tried that lens, I knew that there were a few decent sleepers out there, that would work pretty well on this new sony. A lot of people say most film lenses are not that good, but this is not always the case.

[01af]

The motorized zoom [...] it's not all that easy to control precise framing ...

Still easier than with a prime lens

And unlike most AF-xi lenses, with the AF-xi 28-105 mm and the AF-xi 35-200 mm lenses you can zoom manually just like with any regular zoom lens. Simply push the AZ/MZ switch to the MZ position and turn the thin rubberized ring at the lens' front. That ring looks like a focusing ring but actually is the zoom ring.

The most annoying issue about the AF-xi lenses is that you cannot really focus them manually. Or actually you can, but only indirectly so. In manual-focus mode, turning the focusing ring will make the in-lens motor move the focusing mechanism for you. Impossible to focus precisely that way, even though you can vary the focusing speed---the slowest speed still is too fast for precise focusing.

-- Olaf

[Greg Beetham]

Just wondering David, if that first photo is your favourite lens test subject, do you have equivalent photos taken with other lenses on the A900? ie the 28-75, 55-200, 24-105 set at 60zoom @ f8 too compare, pref off a tripod.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

And unlike most AF-xi lenses, with the AF-xi 28-105 mm and the AF-xi 35-200 mm lenses you can zoom manually just like with any regular zoom lens. Simply push the AZ/MZ switch to the MZ position and turn the thin rubberized ring at the lens' front. That ring looks like a focusing ring but actually is the zoom ring.

With the nearly-useless lens hood fitted, it's almost impossible to grip that ring at 35mm, and turning the entire front unit (the filter rim rotates) is not quite the same as a manual zoom. Actually, the motorized zoom is very controllable on the A900, and not as bad as I thought.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Just wondering David, if that first photo is your favourite lens test subject, do you have equivalent photos taken with other lenses on the A900? ie the 28-75, 55-200, 24-105 set at 60zoom @ f8 too compare, pref off a tripod.
Greg

No, and I've sold the 24-105mm now. I may perhaps have taken that shot (it just happens to be as I walk out of my yard) but not under controlled conditions. Can't use a tripod, the position for shooting is in the lane outside and vehicles come through too often to be able to set up and change lenses. I know the subject well enough that whenever the sun is in the right position and I'm walking out with a new lens and camera, I squat down and compose a shot or two. It just helps me see whether everything is right with the gear, I don't use it as a regular test target.

I have been shooting a lot on the 28-75mm and it's excellent at the 28mm end, but from around 50 to 75mm the corners soften - it would be a bad decision to shoot at 75mm, instead of switching to the 70-300mm SSM. Funny you mention the 55-200mm because the little Tamron Di II version covers full frame on the A900, at all focal lengths. It is not supposed to, but it looks very sharp and the geometry is not bad wide open. It has a bit of light falloff at 200mm to the corners, but no wonder it is a good lens on APS-C given the reserve of coverage it clearly has.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Oops, I was forgetting the 55-200 is an APS-C lens...sold the 24-105, dang that's a shame, I was hoping for a few A900 shots. How was the 100-300APO...just so so?
Greg
ps It's a wonder that you haven't been spotted, habitually photographing the same spot on the wall in the lane...you know, by non photographer type persons.

[Winston]

...I have been shooting a lot on the 28-75mm and it's excellent at the 28mm end, but from around 50 to 75mm the corners soften...David

Do the corners tighten up stopped down? If so, how far do you have to stop down?

[aster]

Thank you David,

The photos look very nice. I just arrived where my computer is so I'll take a good look at your full-dimension photos and study them closely.

Thanks
Yildiz

Edit: Examined the photos. Very nice details indeed. Thanks.

[David Kilpatrick]

Oops, I was forgetting the 55-200 is an APS-C lens...sold the 24-105, dang that's a shame, I was hoping for a few A900 shots. How was the 100-300APO...just so so?
Greg
ps It's a wonder that you haven't been spotted, habitually photographing the same spot on the wall in the lane...you know, by non photographer type persons.

Well, it's my wall... though if I had the money right now, it would be knocked down and a new one built, seems a pity but we have permission to enclose the entire courtyard again and put up a 2.3m wall with gates, and the building costs would be very low this winter - loads of builders laid off work, supplies at half price. I like the old wall but it's dangerous now, traffic and rain have eroded the bottom metre or so of stone, and it would just crumble if a car hit it.

The 24-105mm is almost useless on the A900 although they are selling kits with it. It is sharp - no doubt about it - but has really strong CA and the worst barrel distortion at 24mm.

Here's a shot I took with mine when first trying the A900 at the press conference:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/105578168

If you open the full size image you'll see why (one stop down, here, at 24mm and f4.5) I was not interested in this lens for full frame. I did a test shoot later on, and confirmed what I thought - just too much distortion (pincushion at the long end plus strong vignetting at 105mm).

The 100-300mm APO is nearly as good as the 70-300mm SSM and I maybe should not have sold it, it was a convenient lens to have; I must keep up with the system though. If anyone owns a 100-300mm APO and thinks that the A900 would be a bad buy without also upgrading to a 70-300mm SSM, I'd say that is wrong. It would be safe to buy an A900 and assume the 100-300mm was going to be OK.

David

[Dr. Harout]

I see clearly what you mean, David. Purple fringe at the corner and an overall cyanotic fringe all over the picture on highlighted edges (or am I seeing things on my screen?).
By the way, that window needs a cleaning, so could that fringing thing be a refraction thing?

[Greg Beetham]

Okey dokey, the 24-105 isn't up to snuff,
I wonder where they got those curved glass pane's from? would have cost an absolute fortune. tinted around the edges too.
Dang I would have paid extra (double even) for a lens of those dimensions and specs, AND free of that stuff...oh well, at least the 100-300 does ok.
Greg
Sorry about the wall thing, it's just my overdeveloped sense of the ridiculous.
btw that hatch thingy in the wall sort of looks like the one the one's in a TV program recently about the beginning of the industrial age, (it began in the UK), and the door, I think if I remember correctly had too do with coal deliveries for the winter...back when they used coal for everything, heating, cooking, factory furnaces, steam engines etc....