Photoclubalpha

Hey all,

I had the 70-300mm G for a bit (again) and couldn't justify it's price, so I returned it to the seller (everybody was happy).

Now, I'm going back and forth between these two lenses and cannot decide. They're roughly the same price. I've owned the Big Beercan before, but my copy was full of dust and fungus. I have a beercan, but I would really like the following setup:

17-35mm
28-135mm
75-300mm

That seems like an ideal travel kit for the A900.

Anybody have experience with either of these on the A900? I know David K wrote something about the Tamron saying it was actually quite good on the A900, but I can't find it. I also read the review on the artaphot.ch site, but I was left somewhat confused. Seems the BB is quite good, but needs to be at f/8 to really compete.

I'm trying to take EVERYTHING into account here.

I think the 70-300mm G is a great lens, but I think the focusing is at best overrated, and at worst inaccurate in a lot of situations (overcast days for example).

I love, love, love the bokeh on the BBC and I also like the fact that it's built like a tank. Even though it's heavier, it's smaller in the bag because of the diminutive hood.

I generally love Tamron lenses, so I thought it would be cool to have a super light and super compact tele lens in the bag.

The MinO 100-300mm APO is another option I'd thought of, but it's about $100 more than either of the two I mentioned and it's also missing that (IMO) critical 70-99mm range. I believe having that saves you a lot of lens changes. Still, I think I'll poke around for a fair priced one.

As to why I'm going cheap on this range, it's because I don't use it too often. Pretty much for the very occasional wildlife adventure and spectator stuff like boat races or sports. In all honesty, if I had more money, I'd pick up a 100-400mm APO, but then we're back up in the range of the 70300mmG and that doesn't make much sense for me.

First, the Tamron is a clear 1 to 2/3rds of a stop faster than any of the KM/Sony designs over most of its range. If you allow for encoding errors on the chip, it must average half a stop wider true maximum aperture right up to 280mm. So you can stop down 1/2 stop, and still get exactly the same as you would from the 70-300mm SSM or 100-300mm APO. And, at half a stop down, it's almost as good and it focuses to 1:2 macro instead of 1:4. Wide open, it has a heady mix of aberrations remaining but they are eliminated pretty neatly. For weight, it is unbeatable.

I am considering getting another, after giving mine to grandsons with an A200. It is NOT anything like the 70-300mm SSM for purity of image, finesse and bokeh but for £119 in the UK it's a steal.

David

Thanks David! That's just what I was looking for. The only thing that really nags at me is how good the bokeh is on the Big Beercan (and even more on the 100-400mm). I think I'll end up buying the Tamron when I have time. It won't be used a lot, but I figure I should have something past 180mm on the ol' A900

The Tamron 24-135mm is probably also a total steal considering the alternatives. It's by far the most useful (range, macro function) and is quite sharp wide-open with minimal CA. Also, under $150USD on ebay.

PPS I also just picked up a Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO off a dyxmer. Anybody here used that?