Lenses for A33/55

[Eric Webb]

I'm returning - or about to return - to SLR photography after a lengthy break. For some years I've been using compacts while digital technology matured. Hence I'm a long way 'out of the loop'. The A33 looks super, just right. I'm not quite so sure about the 18-55mm kit lens. For everyday 'happy snapper' use I'd prefer something with a similar wide angle capability but a longer tele reach, for 'best' a higher quality 'standard zoom' with a wide aperture. Suggestions please.



Eric

[David Kilpatrick]

I got another 18-55mm with my A55 and this is a surprisingly good lens. I think combined with the 55-200mm SAM you would have a really good kit. The 55-200mm significantly outperforms superzooms.

You do not need a wider aperture any more. The A33 has great high ISO, the viewfinder makes every lens bright even in low light, and the focus module does not benefit from anything faster than f/5.6.

David

[KevinBarrett]

Look no further than the Sony Carl Zeiss DT 16-80/3.5-4.5, but run it by your wife and investment counselor first.

[Eric Webb]

Kevin,

Gosh! Um! Wow! Er! Yes - or No!

Mrs. Eric will need some serious retail therapy before this becomes possible! However, thanks for the info. because it is indeed precisely what I am after.

David, thankyou too!

Eric

[Lonnie Utah]

If you didn't want to spend that much, you could always look at the Sony 24-105 to compliment the kit lens. If you are more budget savvy, try finding a used minolta copy for about 1/2 the price.

[bfitzgerald]

Much as I am impressed with the high ISO of the newer cmos sensors..I do see a need for faster speeds at times.
I wouldn't wander into a church with an 18-55mm, yes I can get usable ISO 12800 shots but I'd rather have a bit more speed and more room to move with a faster lens (how fast depends!)

[Dusty]

How about the 16-105? Longer reach than the 24-105 or 18-80CZ, but not as expensive.

Dusty

[KevinBarrett]

I use a Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my a700 (when I'm not using primes), but part of the advantage of an f/2.8 zoom on the a700 is that that camera has an additional AF sensor at the center, sensitive to f/2.8 or faster lenses. The a700 was the only such APS-C camera so equipped, so the f/2.8 aperture might not be such a priority for you.

The reason I recommend the CZ 16-80, then, is because nearly everybody I know of that's bought a Tamron 17-50/2.8 either goes on to buy a CZ 16-80 later or wishes they'd got one to begin with; myself included. It's not that there's anything wrong with the 17-50, it's a superb lens, but if you're in the mood to trade zoom range for sharpness and speed, you'll reach for a prime lens every time. It tends to make you wish your "walk-around lens" was a little more flexible.

That said, the 16-80 is still a larger investment than most of the camera bodies that can use it, and the inexpensive 18-55 kit lens starts to look pretty good for the time being. But the 18-55 really ought to look good on it's own merits, and it does. In fact, it's the best such lens available from any of the manufacturers right now. I'd recommend augmenting your kit with a prime lens or two before you look at replacing the kit lens.

[OneGuyKs]

I use a Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my a700 (when I'm not using primes), but part of the advantage of an f/2.8 zoom on the a700 is that that camera has an additional AF sensor at the center, sensitive to f/2.8 or faster lenses. The a700 was the only such APS-C camera so equipped, so the f/2.8 aperture might not be such a priority for you.

The myth of f/2.8 sensitive sensor

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=36416221

•Since the single f/2.8 sensor in the A700 et al, is a simple line-type sensor, its extra precision is useless if you are trying to focus on a horizontal edge. Personally, given the choice, I'd rather have the additional cross-type sensors, even if they don't have the extra precision with large-aperture lenses.

•Lastly -- and here's the kicker -- f/2.8 sensors are not "more sensitive", and are not better in low light conditions. This is the real myth that needs to be busted here. They simply allow additional focusing precision with large aperture lenses. That's it -- the beginning and end of their benefits. In fact, there's some evidence that f/2.8 sensors are even less sensitive in low light than the f/5.6 sensors. A few months ago, there was a long thread on one of the Canon forums, where a well-respected Canon user tested the AF of his 7D, and concluded that the f/2.8 sensor in the center AF point actually had more trouble finding focus in medium-to-low light than the f/5.6 sensors had. He did this by mounting fast lenses (such as the 85mm f/1.8 and the brand new 70-200 f/2.8L IS II) to the 7D, and then comparing focus accuracy when using the center AF point (which has the f/2.8 "X"-type sensor activated with these lenses) versus AF accuracy when using an outer AF point (which is always f/5.6, even with fast lenses). He also checked the results by using the center AF point of the 7D to focus when using the 70-200 f/4L IS lens, which of course would use only the f/5.6 portion of the center AF point. His conclusion was that the f/2.8 sensors provided somewhat better focus precision when there's plenty of light; but otherwise, the f/5.6 sensors actually performed better.

[David Kilpatrick]

The myth is not entirely a myth. It matters at focal lengths like 17mm - it has virtually no benefit at all with a 70-200mm.

The extra precision (twice the ranging base) given by an f/2.8 sensor really improves the accuracy of focusing with lenses under 24mm on the A700, and this includes the Tamron when used at its wide end. The range of focus distances over which the focus light gives 'confirm' is much reduced when using an f/2.8 lens.

The f/2.8 sensor in the A700 is a horizontal strip, and that means it is sensitive to vertical detail, not horizontal. That works well in real life where most detail is vertical. Since the f/7.1 (not f/5.6 in Sony A700) double crosshair sensor is also active when the f/2.8 one is active, and is not switched off by fitting an f/2.8 lens, its sensitivity to both vertical and horizontal detail and to low-contrast random textures is retained.

Canon may differ. A test which 'proves' something on Canon - using lenses of a focal length which hardly benefit from different AF sensor ranging bases - proves nothing at all about the A700 (or A900) when used with a 17mm f/2.8.

David

[KevinBarrett]

Guys we're talking about lenses for a camera that doesn't actually have that f/2.8 AF sensor, mythical or not.

[David Kilpatrick]

It has an f/1 sensor if you use live view manual focus!

The A700 is obvious a sidetrack from the A55/33. For what it's worth, I am finding the AF on the A55 superior to anything Minolta or Sony has made before. It agrees with the magnified manual focus view perfectly and it's very fast, and the 15-point array is great.

David

[OneGuyKs]

It has an f/1 sensor if you use live view manual focus!

The A700 is obvious a sidetrack from the A55/33. For what it's worth, I am finding the AF on the A55 superior to anything Minolta or Sony has made before. It agrees with the magnified manual focus view perfectly and it's very fast, and the 15-point array is great.

David

Several people who own A700 and A55 have reported that A55 has better/faster AF than A700. A580 is probably similar to A55.

[KevinBarrett]

Eric, I'm trying my darnedest to keep this discussion on-topic for you. This is the kind of thread that can turn into a real resource for other forum visitors.

Are there any lenses that you're already considering?

Over the years I've tried before to make fairly focused attempts at making lens selection resources for this site, some more successful than others. These older polls are somewhat out of date, but Sony's own lenses have changed very little since they were created--we've seen the replacement of the 18-70mm kit lens with the 18-55mm SAM lens, plus the SAM focus motor make it into the 55-200mm, and not much else:

What are the top three lenses you would recommend to a new Alpha user? (2008)

APS-C Body + Two Zooms (2008)

It's probably time to make a newer recommendation survey...

[pakodominguez]

Eric, I'm trying my darnedest to keep this discussion on-topic for you. This is the kind of thread that can turn into a real resource for other forum visitors.

I think DK already gave the best "budget" answer:

I got another 18-55mm with my A55 and this is a surprisingly good lens. I think combined with the 55-200mm SAM you would have a really good kit. The 55-200mm significantly outperforms superzooms.

The Sony 18-105 didn't score well in any test or review I read, and it is definitely not a popular lens because that. The Zeiss 16-80 is on the 750 US$ and I'm not sure about how exceptional it is...

Regards

Pako