What lenses do you use?

[bfitzgerald]

Well situation is with some of the legacy lenses, if you bought them 3/4+ years ago, you def will turn a profit. Most if not all the lenses I have would get a better value being sold now, than I paid for them. Demand increase significantly over the last 18 months or so, once cheap bargains, beercan, 50mm f1.7 etc, and others, have gone up a lot price wise. I would get x2 what I paid for my 50mm Minolta.

And to think some folks said Minolta lenses would be worth next to nothing, when KM pulled out. As it happens, Minolta lenses have been one of the recession busting stories, if you have invested thousands in buying up lenses, you would get a very good return on that, far better than the stock market Funny how things change, the biggest losers were the ones who jumped ship to other makers right after KM pulled out, and long before the demand went to fever levels. I've seen folks fighting over 28-100mm D lenses on ebay, years back you couldn't give them away

[Dusty]

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.

Welcome to the Alpha World.

Some of us prefer primes - fixed focal length lenses that are usually sharper and faster than zooms, but that means you have to either crop or change position to get the framing you want.

Some love the convenience of zooms - today you can go from wide angle to telephoto in one handy package. However, zooms are slower (F-stop wise) and heavier, and rarely match the image quality of primes. They are also larger than primes, so you have that added concern.

At time I will use a prime because I know my subject will be at a perfect distance for it's use, because I like the simplicity, lighter weight, faster action and sharpness they deliver. (Disclaimer - I only have 3 zooms in Alpha mount, a ton of MD mount lenses!)

At other times, I want a zoom because I know I'll be in changing situations, sometimes close up to the action and at times far away.

Those who can afford multiple zooms often buy them with overlapping ranges because one gives a better quality at certain ranges than another, or because they need only certain ranges at certain times, and don't want to carry the "big guns" all the time. Why take the semi-truck to pick up a dozen bushels of fruit if you have a pick-up truck? They won't fit in the Mini, either. It's nice to have exactly what you need for the situation.

I wish I could afford more, but I can't right now. Maybe later I can add redundancy to my lens line-up!

Dusty

[Vidgamer]

I am new to the Sony range having given up on rangefinder film and joined the digital age, then played with some other marques.

That's funny... lately I've started playing with rangefinders and film!

I wonder why folk need all these different lenses which are listed here and how many of them are frequently used.

Well, you can always justify more or better, but if you are really cheap, you can get by with less...

You have to ask yourself what you need... if you only print small, then your needs are really low.

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.

I'm glad you explained that. I probably would not have picked up on that reference. Although, if you buy cheap lenses in the first place, you're not out very much. So, I'm hanging on to my $19 and $32 lens... I suppose I could let go of this $18 lens, though....

[Javelin]

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.

well looking at my lenses and what they are selling for on E-bay and B&H I would earn somewhere between 30 and 800% or more on all my lenses.

There is an Oly A200 1.5x diopter on B&H right now for 10.00. someone should snap up. it's 49mm and works really well on the minolta 50mm. I got one off ebay that had to go back and paid 60.00. I got mine at a yard sale for 5 bucks.

[Lonnie Utah]

My stable of lenses is as follows...

Sony CZ -18-35mm F/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8
and Sony DT 18-250 F/3.5-6.3

I also have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 on order (should be here tomorrow, YEAH!)

I use the sigmas and the CZ on my A900 and the 18-250 is dedicated on my a200 which is my knock around camera. The 24-70 was an ebay purchase and the zoom ring on my it slips when aimed high or low if I don't keep my finger on the ring. However, I saved enough on it when I got it, that even with the anticipated repair cost ($80 us), I am still coming out ahead.

I figure that covers most of my shooting needs. My only other anticipated purchase is a sigma 2x converter. Theoretically, that could put me out to 640 if I use the 70-200 on the A200 (1.6x200X2). Not sure I'll ever need that much power tho....

L

[Lonnie Utah]

I also have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 on order

I got this lens today and all I can say is WOW, just WOW!

[aster]

I also have a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 on order

I got this lens today and all I can say is WOW, just WOW!

Photos, please, then Lonnie Utah!
You have one extra good reason to flood the forum now....

Congratulations and I hope you two will be very happy together!

Yildiz

[Eiffel]

My list

Walk around setup (A700)
CZ 16-80
SAL 70-300G

For special applications (and waiting for an A850)
Min 24F2.8
Min 35F2
Min 50F2.8 (Original)
Min 100F2
Min 200F2.8
(All were bought in the late 80s with my Minolta 9000... I just got lucky with my selection as these have aged well...)

Rarely used
Sigma 28-70EX (Original version, bought with my Minolta 600si)
Tamron 2x MC7

I'm not sure what zoom lens I'll get for the A850 (the new sigma seems a viable alternative to the Zeiss)

[david antony]

With the Maxxum 5-D

Minolta 18-70 F3.5-5.6 D

Minolta 28-75 F2.8 D

SAL 55-200 F4-5.6

[sparaxis]

With two A-700 users in the household:
24 f2.8
28 f2.0
35 f2.0
50 f1.7
100 Macro
17-35 2.8-4
28-75 2.8
18-250 Tamron
35-200 Xi (Not quite as good as its reputation perhaps. It is awful at full aperture and needs to be stopped down to f8-11 to give excellent results)
70-210 3.5-4.5 (This is WAY BETTER than I expected it to be. Mediocre wide open but extremely sharp stopped down to f5.6 at the wide end or f8 at the long end))
100-300 APO D

They all have different uses.

I also have a 35-105 New that lives on my 7 Film. It is also better than many give it credit for.

Alan

[BertIverson]

Hey all
I am new to this forum and this looks like a good thread for first post. I have A700 and formally the 7D and A1. Regarding my lenses, I just sold all 4 and bought the SIGMA 18-250 OS DC HSM so now I have the world's biggest and heaviest P&S camera I am strictly an amateur and finally decided to go with one lens. I shoot outdoors and have a 5600HSD with DEMB reflector for indoors. Here is what I sold: Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma105 EX DG macro f2.8, Minolta 28-105 f3.5/4.4 and Tamron 70-300. To replace the SIGMA macro I added the RAYNOX DC-150 (on the 18-250 it gives 0.8:1 macro). I certainly enjoyed all these lenses but got tired of deciding which to take for a given photo event. David's praise of the SIGMA 18-250 and his sample photos were certainly a factor in my decision. Love the new SIGMA so far. The only complaint is the zoom slips when pointing downwards. However, usually shooting a macro so it slides automatically to 250 I also own Canon A570IS for hiking (lots of light so ISO 100 just fine)
Bert

[David Kilpatrick]

Welcome Bert! I never thought when I wrote up the Sigma that anyone would sell such a great bunch of other lenses to switch to it, but your reasons are sound. Shirley would not want to use any other lens now, and for me as the 'photo processor' its freedom from distortion at the long end (compared to any other zooms of its type) is a great point, as I just don't have to worry about correcting things - and if I forget to correct for CA, it's never all that bad.

David

[Lonnie Utah]

Photos, please, then Lonnie Utah!

I think I've posted both of these before, but these are the only ones I have on my work computer (the bosses don't like massive images on my machine. )

DSC03015.JPG (123.67 KiB) Viewed 4823 times

DSC03317.JPG (282.1 KiB) Viewed 4823 times

DSC03138.JPG (414.03 KiB) Viewed 4823 times

[aster]

Photos, please, then Lonnie Utah!

I think I've posted both of these before, but these are the only ones I have on my work computer (the bosses don't like massive images on my machine. )

Hi Lonnie,

These are indeed good images. I remember seeing only the second one but the first and the second are new to my eyes.

The cascading landscape that's hidden away in the fog/haze in the background really brings the rocks in the foreground out and the pumpkins look ready for harvesting and heading to someone's kitchen or artistic ambitions. The barn has very vibrant colours and lovely sharp details.

The lens seems to excell in yet an other pair of hands!

Thanks for sending them in and looking forward to newer ones...

Yildiz

[BertIverson]

I never thought when I wrote up the Sigma that anyone would sell such a great bunch of other lenses to switch to it.
David

David, here is my reasoning (not rocket science). I have a 12MP camera, 2.4MP monitor, 2MP HDTV, prints 8x10 at 200PPI (3MP). I assume no significant cropping (18-250 lens). Bottom line is, for my viewing situation, 4 pixels become 1 pixel. I am pretty sure the Sigma 18-250 HSM OS DC will NOT be smearing 1 pixel detail across 4 pixels. Downside, of course, the f2.8 Tamron used the cross focus sensor and had brighter viewfinder. The convenience of one lens was worth the loss of the Tamron f2.8 and the Minolta 105 at 4.5 vs 5.6 on Sigma. The Raynox on the Sigma at f11 is pretty sharp in the center 2/3 of the view (where the flowers end up) and I use flash for all my macros. However, now that I have one lens, I am lusting over an UWA (maybe 10-20). However, I will fight this lust since I have been stitching panoramas for about 5 years.
Bert