Recently bought an A900. Widest I have is 50 1.4. It is good normal lens but beauty of full frame lies in w-i-d-e. So planning to buy a wide and normal zoom. I don't want to break the bank so, my options are
Minolta 17-35, Minolta 35-105(old)
Minolta 20, Minolta 28-135
Between 28-135 I have many choices like 28-135, 28-105, 28-75, 28-85, 24-105
People seem to have high regard for 35-105.
I went to Dyxum and can't decide much. Help appreciated.
Ayan
Wide and normal lens for A900
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Wide and normal lens for A900
Sony A900, A77, SAL-1680Z, SAL-70200G, SAL-135F18Z, SAL-50F14, HVL-58AM
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Here are the results of some tests that David did and posted on Dyxum in 2008 -
I remember that he did a test with the 17-35 on the A900 and showed the results and seemed quite pleased with it but I am at a loss for where that is. If you are looking for wide, it would probably be your best bet. I had the 28-75 and can attest to it's performance. I also had the 24-105 and didn't consider it quite as good.
Ed
From here - http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a900-some-s ... page3.htmlRe lenses - at the press conference I tested:
17-35mm D
28-75mm D
70-300mm SSM
50mm f1.4 Sony
28mm f2.8 Sony
135mm f1.8 CZ
20mm f2.8 Sony
16-35mm f2.8 CZ
24-70mm f2.8 CZ
24-105mm KM D
70-400mm SSM G
Results:
Superb - 135mm, 50mm, 24-70mm, 70-400mm SSM G
Excellent - 28-75mm D
Excellent but with strong distortion - 16-35mm, 70-300mm SSM
Excellent with strong distortion plus extreme-corner softness/vignetting - 17-35mm D
Good centrally but strong distortion and severe CA - 24-105mm, 20mm
Mediocre across the whole frame - 28mm f2.8
I await my A900 and when it arrives, I'll be able to check out many more lenses. But - I am happy with the results from the 28-75mm and 17-35mm which I have kept aside for this. I can live with the soft dark corners on the 17-35mm at 17mm, they are no different from the 16-105mm on the A700. The 16-35mm has slightly better corners but otherwise there's not a lot in it, the distortion is very similar. The 70-300mm SSM is disappointing because of heavy distortion and vignetting at 300mm although it is sharp and CA free, and the new 70-400mm kicks in into touch.
David
I remember that he did a test with the 17-35 on the A900 and showed the results and seemed quite pleased with it but I am at a loss for where that is. If you are looking for wide, it would probably be your best bet. I had the 28-75 and can attest to it's performance. I also had the 24-105 and didn't consider it quite as good.
Ed
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Between 28-135, 28-85, 35-105 which one to pick based on image quality only? If I buy 17-35 I am covered extreme wide part to 35mm.
Sony A900, A77, SAL-1680Z, SAL-70200G, SAL-135F18Z, SAL-50F14, HVL-58AM
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5985
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
- Location: Kelso, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
I had the 24-105mm and 28-105mm (dismissed the 35-105mm, I never got a single good one) and eventually ended up with the 24-85mm as the best overall choice including 24mm which I wanted.
But I don't use it much now as the 28-75mm is so good - just in a different class.
David
But I don't use it much now as the 28-75mm is so good - just in a different class.
David
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Yes, I forgot the 24-85 was a good one. I had that one also but the 28-75 outclassed it. It's only problem was that it didn't go to 24mm which I really like. I only do APS-C now and have the CZ16-80 and like that range better than any of the others, otherwise I would still probably have the 28-75. I sometimes wonder if I should have sold it but have started to get a little more practical in my old age. But the fond memories are still there.
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
How wide is wide enough for you?
the KM 17-35 is good (300 to 350 $) As David said, the 24-85 (140 $) is also a good lens.
the KM 17-35 is good (300 to 350 $) As David said, the 24-85 (140 $) is also a good lens.
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Oligarch
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: Peterborough, U.K.
- Contact:
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
When travelling (relatively!) light with my A900 I find the 24-85 more than satisfactory. The 28-75 may be even better but (obviously) it doesn't go quite as wide and it's heavier. Incidentally I also have the 28-75 SAM which uniquely in the Minolta/Sony range takes 67mm filters - I bought it as a kit lens with Jessops' very last A850 at £999.
For my full landscape kit work I carry Minolta primes 20mm, 28mm and 35mm (both f2.0) and 50mm. The f2 lenses are sharp. I don't need the 35mm as well as the 28mm but it doesn't weigh much or take up much room in the bag and has less colour fringing. It's a lovely lens. I am currently debating with myself whether to prefer f1.4RS or f1.7 for the 50mm. The f1.7 needs 49mm filters which some seems to be losing some support from filter manufacturers.
I have tried the 28-135mm. It's very good optically but heavy and won't focus very close. Also, I personally find the extra reach compared with a 28-70 is largely wasted as I need a longer telephoto anyway.
For my full landscape kit work I carry Minolta primes 20mm, 28mm and 35mm (both f2.0) and 50mm. The f2 lenses are sharp. I don't need the 35mm as well as the 28mm but it doesn't weigh much or take up much room in the bag and has less colour fringing. It's a lovely lens. I am currently debating with myself whether to prefer f1.4RS or f1.7 for the 50mm. The f1.7 needs 49mm filters which some seems to be losing some support from filter manufacturers.
I have tried the 28-135mm. It's very good optically but heavy and won't focus very close. Also, I personally find the extra reach compared with a 28-70 is largely wasted as I need a longer telephoto anyway.
Wes Gibbon
http://www.WesGibbon.com
http://www.WesGibbon.com
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests