What lenses do you use?

[bonneville]

Well, the forum comes onto my screen with grey text on a black background ever since the appearance was changed. And I find that difficult to read with such low contrast. Sorry you felt that I wasn't worth the effort. I thought that with Sonolta gone so were snide and rude comments. Thanks awfully.

Darn, you sure are a sensitive person aren't you? Nothing I said was snide or rude. I don't try to read anyone's post that is unreadable, not just yours. Life is too short. Even posts that are readable I don't always read if they hold no interest for me. Sorry you feel your post was so important that if anyone skipped it your life would be diminished. Please just relax and don't get upset.

I'm beginning to wish that I hadn't mentioned the font colour in the first place. Slufdriver I am confident that none of bakubo's 900+ posts have ever been controversial. Constructive maybe, helpful always, but his post didn't warrant that pop IMHO.

This thread has a lot of comment about the different skins and it may put our comments about you changing font colour in context.

Anyway, show us some of your pictures and lets all remaind friends here.

Brian

[Mike]

SLUFDRIVER - I think you just took it the wrong way. One of the problems of written communications is that you lose the context of body language and expression, making it easy to misinterpret. Perhaps another way to look at it was he invested his time to let you know that your post was hard to read which clearly took more time than to highlight it so he could read it.

Mike

P.S. I miss the "good" Sonolta who was helpful and informative ... but can't say the same for his evil twin.

[Greg Beetham]

I just put it down to the fact that most artistic creative types can be a little temperamental on occasion...unfortunately Don was an extreme version...shame in a way, he had a lot to offer.
Greg

[alphaPDX]

On topic 1, I've whittled down my collection somewhat..
Sigma 17-70 + Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5
Sigma 18-200, when one lens needs to 'do it all' (Ritz' Quantaray label)
Tamron SP 14/2.8, Minolta 50/1.7

but the cupboard is still a bit cluttered!
Minolta 35-105N
Sigma 28-90 ($10us at Ritz closeout, why say no?)
mystery 1.7x TC

plus, I have no hi-power tele unless I go 360mm w/TC..


On topic 2, I occasionally hit ctrl-A to highlight browser text differently, it can help with colors that don't go with my monitor or discernment skills..

[bonneville]

With my alphas 700 & 100 I currently use:
Sony
70-200 2.8 G SSM
70-300 4.5-5.6 G SSM
18-250 3.5-6.3
18-70 3.5-5.6
TCx2

Update so that's a 500 Reflex f8 then, and so far I am amazed at how good it is

[Dr. Harout]

...so that's a 500 Reflex f8 then, and so far I am amazed at how good it is

Congratulations Brian. Do post some shots with it.

[caporip]

My Line up:-

Sigma 12-24mm
Sony 24-70
Sony 70-300
Sony 70-400
Tamron 90mm

All in conjumnction with the A900
I'm seriously thinking of selling the 70-300 as I find I am using the 70-400 more and more...........

[Wes Gibbon]

With my A900, my normal lineup (mainly for landscapes) is:

Minolta 20mm f2.8
Minolta 28mm f2.0
Minolta 35mm f2.0
Minolta 50mm f1.4 RS
Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6 (the original 'Big Beercan')
Minolta 100mm f2.8 Macro

For 'carry around' (is that the expression?) I replace the 20, 28, 35 and 50 mm lenses with the classic Minolta 28-135mm, and substitute a 'Beercan' 70-210mm f4 for the Big BC.

Problems:
A lot of distortion from the 20mm (normal for extreme wide-angles), and colour fringing from 20mm, 28mm and 28-135mm. It's not too bad but can sometimes be seen particularly in the corners. It can be corrected. Also, the 20mm seems a bit soft (at least on a 24Mpixel sensor!) - would the latest Sony be an improvement? In fact, I am tempted to take a Minolta 24mm f2.8 with me as well (or to replace the 20mm), but occasionally I just feel I need a bit more wide-angle than the 28mm or even 24mm gives me. The Big Beercan suffers from flare, but does seem to give remarkably good resolution. I cannot afford, and do not want to carry the 70-400mm, and there has been some criticism of other telezooms on FF. The new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is tempting, following DK's favourable review, but I would like to have 300mm available.

Apart from the 20mm, the normal setup gives the resolution I was looking for when I decided to look for a lighter and more convenient alternative to my Mamiya 645 equipment. I am particuarly pleased with the 35mm, which is sharp, though I have only recently acquired the 28mm, so I haven't really tested it yet.

I also have an A100, for which my usual setup is a Sigma 17-35mm (not that great, but OK to carry around), 50mm f1.4 (as above) and the Beercan. Maybe also the 100mm macro.

[bonneville]

...so that's a 500 Reflex f8 then, and so far I am amazed at how good it is

Congratulations Brian. Do post some shots with it.

Your wish is my command.......here

[Vidgamer]

I don't know why the complaints about changing colors.

As someone else mentioned, as you "upgrade" you tend to have a couple of extras. I have a lot of "overlap" if you look strictly at the focal lengths, but each of the lenses has its own advantages and disadvantages. In theory, I could choose the lens for the situation at hand. Indoors, if I need something in the 100-135mm range, I should use my Tamron 55-200, which is reasonably sharp wide open at f4. But if I need more than 200mm, I probably need something else.

Lately, my most-used lens is one of the cheapest. I paid a total of $19 for my 28-105 xi. It's not that the lens is great --wide-open, it's lacking. But the color is good, and at f8, I think it has all of the sharpness I need. And I actually like the electronic zoom.

My go-to lens is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I could probably be happy with just this and the 55-200, but I enjoy playing with some of the other lenses, and my 100-300 is good for airshows.

But if I only pay $30 or less for a lens, I don't worry a lot about having an extra.

[harvey]

I'm trying to reduce my lens footprint.
[...]

I really found photography enjoyment goes down with lens count. You end up debating what lens to carry, or carry lenses you don't need. You suddenly want to go out the door to go someplace and start debating lens selection.

[...]

But in the end, I want to carry really no more than 3 lenses at any one time, and I don't want huge/heavy beast.

I'm at the limit of what I am prepared to carry. Current large kit bag is 6.4Kg (A900 + 6 lenses and extras but without the TC). I don't use my 28mm f/2.8 any more as I would take the 17-35mm f/2.8-4.
And I have a kit lens somewhere that has never been used.

Harvey

[Vidgamer]

I agree with the 3-lens limit. Sometimes I only take two. You don't *HAVE* to have total overlap....

[AJ Gressette]

My favored lenses I use with the A-Mount from Minolta_Konica_Sony
Minolta 20 f/2.8*
Minolta 28 f/2.0**
Minolta 35 f/1.4 ****
Minolta 50 /f1.4***
Minolta 85 f/1.4 LE ************
Sigma 90 f/2.8 Macro 2-1 ***
Minolta 100 f/2.0 ********
Minolta 100 f/2.8 Soft***
Minolta 100 f/2.8 Macro 1-1 ****
Minolta 135 f/2.8~(4.5) STF ****
Minolta 200 f/2.8***
Minolta 200 f/4.0 Macro 1-1 *****
Sony 300 f/2.8 SSM ****
Minolta 400 f/4.5 *****
Minolta 17-35 f/3.5 ******
Sony CZ 24-70 f/2.8 ***
Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G *****
Minolta 70-210 f/4.0 Beer Can ******
* denotes my favor.
Just my experience
AJ

[Javelin]

I've been really lucky with my lens purchases. just being in the right place at the right time. what I carry though depends a lot of what the light is going to be like on any given day. I've taken a liking to my primes recently. I just picked up a 135mm 2.8 AF Minolta earlier this week and 2 weeks ago I picked up an MD version and I must say these lenses have me looking more closely at primes vs zooms, that 135af sure is impressive with fast focus and sharpness. I may add the new 30mm depending on how it is. or 20mm or 28mm F2.8's to my primes list. and use those all together as a kit to travel with in the winter when light is hard to come by and sharpness is counting more with bare trees ice and snow. I think the 135 is going to be perfect for ice rink sports. The light is bad. and the players (at least in hockey) move very quickly. the scenes are very contrast because the ice reflects almost all the light there is. I'll get to try it and curling soon now that I think I have a lens thats suitable.

Primes.
50mm F1.7 Minolta
1.5x Diopter to fit the 50mm
100mm F2.8 macro Minolta
90MM F2.5 Tamron (I'll sell this one off soon)
135mm F2.8 Minolta (this is sort of a game changer for me and by that I mean I think I can shoot places I couldn't before)

Zooms
Beercan (use this in evenings still)
15-35 Konica Minolta (I use this a lot too and compliments the 28-135 really well, not for everything but is good at what it does)
35-70 F4 Minolta (not being used any more. not worth much as a re-sale works OK but it's ugly)
28-135 Minolta ( my most used lens hands down at least so far)
Big Beercan (Selling this one off too)
70-300G Sony (lucky to have this lens even though I had to learn to like it)

[HFnotts]

I am new to the Sony range having given up on rangefinder film and joined the digital age, then played with some other marques.
I wonder why folk need all these different lenses which are listed here and how many of them are frequently used.
I guess my philosophy is based on me being a Yorkshireman (to explain to non-UK members, Yorkshiremen have a reputation for being tight with money and expenditure) and not holding items which I don't use.
I have three lenses which are all used and don't get left to gather dust on shelves or in drawers. No lenses gain in value as time passes so I prefer my spare cash to be earning - even if not much in these financially desparate times.