Which is your most used / favourite lens(es)?

[rogprov]

Sony 100mm 2.8 macro much of the time ... closely followed by the Sony 70-300mm G SSM

[Hawk]

Currently I use 18-70mm kit for wide, Sigma 70-300mm for tele and Minolta 35-70mm/4 for macro and as walkaround lens (I'm still amazed by its color quality).

I'm going to buy Tamron 18-250 soon so it will be probably attached to my A200 most of the time replacing both kit and Sigma and Tamron 90mm/2.8 will replace Minolta 35-70/4 for macro shots a bit later. I'll also have to buy some longer tele lens, but next year maybe Which one do you think would be better for wildlife, Minolta 100-400mm or Sony 500mm?

[bakubo]

The Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 is the lens I have come to use the most on my A700. In fact, I just added a ton of new photos in my Hawaii album that were made with it:

http://www.bakubo.com

I am still amazed that my 18-250mm in a fairly light, compact package gives me a fov of 27-375mm and does it with pretty good quality. I use PTLens to take care of distortion in about 1 second so that doesn't matter so much to me. Even the f6.3 at the long end isn't so bad compared to film days since now I can easily use ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, or even higher whereas when I shot film I often shot ASA 25, 50, 64, 100, 125, 200, and sometimes 400 and I couldn't with a quick spin of the control wheel switch speed.

[cwtbone]

I use the beercan a lot, my 50 1.7 and believe it or not the old kit lens comes in handy sometimes. A few days ago I gave the 24-85 a good workout and will sometimes use my Sigma 24 2.8. They all do a great job but there is just something about the old beercan that I love. The colors are absolutely better than all the rest. C. W.

[Vidgamer]

My go-to lens is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It's just that good. Lately, I've been using a 28-105xi which I like a lot, and the 100-300 APO.

[KevinBarrett]

My go-to lens is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It's just that good. Lately, I've been using a 28-105xi which I like a lot, and the 100-300 APO.

I'm starting to suspect that my Tamron 17-50/2.8 is sharper at 24mm than my Minolta 24/2.8 RS. I picked up the latter to have a sharper tool dedicated for group shots, but it is much softer at 2.8 than the Tamron zoom. The bokeh is much nicer on the 24/2.8 but that would seem to be the only advantage it has for now.

[Vidgamer]

...
I'm starting to suspect that my Tamron 17-50/2.8 is sharper at 24mm than my Minolta 24/2.8 RS. I picked up the latter to have a sharper tool dedicated for group shots, but it is much softer at 2.8 than the Tamron zoom. The bokeh is much nicer on the 24/2.8 but that would seem to be the only advantage it has for now.

Most of the time, I think the bokeh is good -- sometimes really good. But, yes, I think it's extremely sharp as well.

From http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony ... ny?start=1:
"At 17mm and 24mm the lens is able to reach some of the highest measured LW/PH values ever tested in the center of the image (around f/4)."

Who needs a CZ? I'm being a bit facetious, but it does seem like people under-appreciate the 17-50....

[kysham]

My most used lens was the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro. It was on my A700 most of the time. I said "was" because it is sick now. It had turned into a gigantic vibrator everytime I turned on / off the camera. *sigh* Gear strip problem? I don't know. But I'm waiting for instructions from my supplier to send it out for warranty claim.