Photoclubalpha

Ok so I'm back to A mount and need to beef up the system overall, so any help/advice appreciated!

Leaving the body aspect to one side (I'm ok for now and have reasonable options new and s/h)
Lenses..
I will likely re-place the F mount 17-50mm and 90mm f2.8 Tamron lenses with the A mount versions, I like both and consider them important lenses for general use. Looking further ahead I can see a need for

Maybe a few decent primes (I have the 50mm f1.7) I'd pass on the 85mm range as the 90mm macro will do that for me pretty well any other suggestions I'm open to. I'm not sure it's worth getting a 50mm f1.4 (my copy of the 1.7 is pretty good) I don't like plastic mounts, but I'm willing to live with them if the optics are good. My preference is for shooting at fast apertures in available light, long focal lengths are not needed! Being decent wide open helps here.

A decent tele zoom. 70-300mm or something near there, speed is not a priority (I might look at a 70-200mm f2.8 later on)
A decent UWA, bit down the list for me not urgent but at some point I'd like a good UWA for A mount, by decent I mean good rather than budget stuff.

I'd prefer to keep FF lenses if possible but have no problems with "some" APS-C ones.
Flash I'm sticking to Metz I like them and I can also look at other options if needed

Couple of other points
Any good third party batteries for the A57 around? (good being reliable and not the cheapest you can get on ebay)
Shame there is no grip for the camera maybe another option available?
Any other suggestions I'm open to I've a pretty ok range for the 35mm bodies I have (since I added the 17-35mm to it)

Could be interested in the 90mm Tamron macro for Nikon. Don't think I've for anything very exciting to swap - 30mm f/2.8 macro Sony SAM?

David

I'll have to offload some of this Nikon stuff I have the 17-50mm f2.8, 90mm f2.8 macro (both tamron built in motor), MB-D11, 35mm f1.8 and the Metz 58 AF-2. I've quite a bit of cash tied up in that lot so getting rid of it is a priority! As you would expect everything is spotless..

I might do swaps though the 30mm macro isn't high up my list right now. Might have to go to ebay as I use a free site mostly for selling, but it takes time to shift things...well it can do.

Barry you have the 17-35/2.8-4 which is an excellent lens for groups and I think the 28-75/2.8 is definitely worth a look as well, mine is actually quite a good lens, maybe not wide enough on the wide end on APS-C perhaps but is still a good lens just the same I think it’s quite capable of rendering your macro lens a non starter for people shooting, and the Sigma 70-300APO is really good value for money if you can find an original one that is, if I bought one I think I’d just use it in manual focus to avoid the possibility of a graunched AF drive train (wrecks the MF too).
Greg

Thing is Greg I've huge time for the Tamron 90mm f2.8..superb rendering and does a fine job for people shots/candid work. And it doubles as a macro lens so I can't ignore this one it's a cast in stone buy for me.
The Tele lens options are more interesting Tamron have a more recent one that looks pretty good, Sigma well I've heard of SLT compatibility issues so that might be one to look for. I don't think the Sony 70-300mm G is worth the asking price and it lacks the speed to make it appealing. Then I have some of the legacy Minolta tele zooms to think about too..

Hi Barry

I have the little A37 and love it, I have built up a small, cheap and modest kit from Konica/Minolta AF Legacy glass. So far I have the Minolta AF 24-85 F/3.5-4.5 [what a cracking lens that is] and the Konica Minolta 17-35 F/2.8-4. I picked both of these up on used lens sites for around £125 each. Sadly, the 17-35 came with no hood, so I need to get another hood, may be a screw in, can any one make a recommendation.
They both exhibit those lovely Minolta colours and are very sharp stopped down a touch.
I'm considering the Minolta 24-105 as another for my collection of budget legacy lenses, it should make a good walk round lens.
Minolta primes are my next big search.
As most of my work is landscape, I have nothing against Sony lenses, so don't need the fast and silent SAM Sony lenses. plus the cost of course.
Hope this helps

Peter

Ok Barry that’s fine with the proxy ‘135mm’ portrait lens, the only reason (well two reasons actually) I myself would prefer the zoom for people type work is it’s more flexible and probably a lot faster in the AF dept. my poor mans 28-75 is probably the next best after the more flexible CZ16-80 but that lens doesn’t have constant aperture although 3.5-4.5 isn’t all that bad, an f2.8 version probably would be one huge and expensive lens.
I’m a little leery of third party lenses with SLT’s at the moment, it seems one never knows how the system is going to respond lately with various random glitches getting into the flash system etc. mostly still unidentified definitely as too the exact cause.
Greg

Classiccameras the hood for the 17-35 is so huge the previous owner probably wasn’t sure what it was maybe or it’s just so awkward to deal with it might have been misplaced or lost, (I found a snaplock 1W Lowepro lens case that is almost an exact fit for the lens including the hood http://www.michaels.com.au/index.php/pr ... gory_id=19 ) but I think the one for the current Sony 11-18 is identical http://www.sony.com.au/product/alc-sh0009 I’m sure I remember David saying once that the lenses physically on the outside were the same.
Greg

One thing about the 17-35 with hood is it’s certainly distinctive.

Thanks Greg

I'll look into the Sony hood.

Pete

I also found this Pete; the Tamron hood is available as well for the actual 17-35 and a fair bit cheaper than what Sony charges for the 11-18 hood http://www.tamron.ca/product.htm?Produc ... rce=Search
Greg

Thanks Greg

You have been a great help, I will look around and see if my local dealer can get one from Tamron UK. One test report, I think it was Kurt Munger commented that the supplied lens hood was almost useless in shading the lens.
I will keep you informed how I get on.
We must not forget this threads original subject, it's my fault we have deviated, so appogoies.

Pete

classiccameras wrote: One test report, I think it was Kurt Munger commented that the supplied lens hood was almost useless in shading the lens.
Pete

That is usually the case with extreme wide angles, and particularly zooms. The hood has to be nearly useless at the widest setting to prevent vignetting, so it also has to be useless at the long end! That's one reason I prefer prime wide-angle lenses but of course they don't make them for APS-C sensors.

Agree the hood can't by it's nature be that useful because the field of view is so big. The 17-35mm is pretty lumpy width wise with that hood (Even without it)
Fun lens for FF and 35mm use. I like the 17-50mm f2.8 APS-C for it's reduced size and constant f2.8 + useful range on APS-C. It's not the most expensive lens ever quite reasonable I think for what you get, hence why I'll get one for A mount.

The 90mm is light and excellent optics and a good price (grey market anyway!) A new version is out soon but it will cost quite a lot more, has a front element that is exposed..and A mount users will end up paying the same for a VC version as a non VC one (which seems a tad unfair) I understand the move from Tamron makes sense for Canikon users.

I will be honest here I did miss in body AS..and Nikon's auto ISO is dumb on older models you have to set the shutter speed it's not focal length aware. Annoying if you change lenses.

I'd caution against the Tamron 17-50. Maybe I could have been a little easier on mine, but it has a lot of build issues that are common knowledge. I was not able to stabilize the front bezel and front element on mine, and by the time I tried, there were was a large concentric ring of something (etches? deposits? growths?) on an element in the group behind the front group. Very upsetting, whatever it was, and soon after the commonly recommended "repair," mine couldn't take a sharp picture even at f/8. I'd go with one of Sony's own 16mm+ zooms now if I were to replace it.

Well I can only go on what I have used and on both other mounts the 17-50mm performed well for me (leaving aside the AF issues which were not a lens problem)
The 16-80mm has a nice range but not the speed, the 16-105mm is too compromised for me overall leaving just the 16-50mm f2.8 as a viable option.