An adventure in Full-Frame

[Birma]

... I do have a 17-35mm KM but it's pretty soft compared to my Sigma 12-24mm HSM II so I prefer that. ...

I've done some shooting with the 50mm f/1.4 Sony and A99, as it's fully compatible with AF-D. But it really needs AF calibration to a better standard than I managed. I can see from some shots that it is stunning sharp wide open - just not on my subject, on the ground a few feet behind!

Thanks DK . I will put the Sigma 12-24 mk II on the list to consider. I had been thinking about whether I needed to upgrade my Minolta 50/1.7, but I will try it out more on the A99 first.

Now you've done it both of you...
So I have to get me a 28-75 ...

... The lens is more than ok IMO it is a lens I find essential for portrait work ...

You're probably right Barry. I haven't given much use yet and I'm sure it will live up to all of it's good reviews.

... At the long end, I do recommend you the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (the SP 70-200MM F/2.8 Di version, I can't tell about the new one) and, if you need more reach, a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter. This lens is also a good performer, corrected for macro and not that slow on A-mount since it is a screwdriver lens (CaNikon version have a built-in motor that is, apparently, slow and not that accurate) ... There is a rare Minolta gem, the 100 mm f2.8 Soft Focus. A good copy goes for about 700$ on eBay.

Thanks Pako . The 70-200 sounds interesting especially considering the TCs.

... I agree with all of what you're saying, except this bit. I've found the purple fringing on this lens very frustrating, especially used for macro work. So much so even, that the LR correction slider for PF wouldn't go far enough to correct it, especially wide ...

I will have to look out for that Mark.

It sounds like you have put a pretty nice kit together with your A99. I see that you have been enjoying it because you have been posting many photos lately. Good going!

Thanks Henry

... I'm off to Norwich but may well give in on my return ...

Why wait? You could visit Wex just outside of Norwich and save on the postage .

[David Kilpatrick]

There's one other 'sleeper' lens - for a brief period, Sigma made an HSM (though not for Alpha, sadly) 17-35mm f/2.8-4 with a 77mm filter thread like the Tamron/KM. They are extremely rare and you normally only find an 82mm filter thread version which is larger, heavier and inferior. We found one of these 77mm thread Sigmas for Nikon, at a ridiculously good price in near new condition (£120). It's SO much better than the Tamron design it's a bit frightening - 17mm wide open is sharp corner to corner.

I keep looking to find one (at this price...) for Alpha, even with the screw drive AF. No luck so far. Usually what's on offer is the 82mm version at over £200.

David

[Birma]

Well, the cat is out of the bag now DK

[sury]

There's one other 'sleeper' lens - for a brief period, Sigma made an HSM (though not for Alpha, sadly) 17-35mm f/2.8-4 with a 77mm filter thread like the Tamron/KM. They are extremely rare and you normally only find an 82mm filter thread version which is larger, heavier and inferior. We found one of these 77mm thread Sigmas for Nikon, at a ridiculously good price in near new condition (£120). It's SO much better than the Tamron design it's a bit frightening - 17mm wide open is sharp corner to corner.

I keep looking to find one (at this price...) for Alpha, even with the screw drive AF. No luck so far. Usually what's on offer is the 82mm version at over £200.

David

Given this is the price on eBay, you got a great bargain, DK.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sigma-17-35mm-f ... 35c0b6e23c

$8461.79 and you paid how much?

With best regards,
Sury

[classiccameras]

David

Kurt Munger reviewed the KM Minolta 17-35 D F/2.8 [made by Tamron] and he found it an excellent performer and he said it was a better performer than the more Expensive 17-35 G F/3.5 model. The only problem he found and I for that matter is a very non effectual lens hood, the lens was prone to flare unless you were carefull with shading. Kurt thus recommended the Tammy 17-50 [non VC version] over the 17-35 and said it was almost on a par with the Zeiss equivalent.

Pete

[bfitzgerald]

As I've used both lenses quite a bit I'll comment on this. The "flare" issue is more likely a problem due to optical design, and I'm not entirely sure it's possible to design a lens hood that is going to help much. As the 17-35mm is a full frame UWA zoom you've a lot less scope for obvious reasons...you're covering a very wide field of view at 17mm on full frame. I've yet to have a major problem with flare on the 17-35mm (yet that is).

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a different beast (though it's similar in performance to the 17-35mm when they are matched aperture wise wide end..17-35mm obviously drops to f4 tele end) I've lot of time for both lenses, and consider them both to be worthy purchases even for APS-C users, bar the obvious that 35mm is a bit short even on a crop body, and the f2.8 across the range of the 17-50mm is useful and makes for a useful standard zoom that doesn't run in low light either.

Back to the 17-35mm the Zeiss looks great, but the price difference is quite massive...for the rather good price of the 17-35mm I'm willing to bet most users are happy to have to deal a bit with the odd flare issue now and then. I'm a mixed user whilst not FF digital I do a bit of 35mm now and then..the 17-35mm covers all your wide angles and does a decent job of it IMO, if you're purely APS-C with 0 interest in FF of any kind then yes the 17-50mm is probably a better choice.