Photoclubalpha

After watching a few threads here (thanks David) and on Dyxum, I decided to look for a Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 D Lens for my new A850.
Mission successful , but also decided to give myself another box to open on 25th, so ended up with a Minolta AF 17-35mm f2.8 D as well .
I note the 17-35 is reported to be a little soft, but not being a pixel peeping pro, it'll probably be just fine for me.
Really look forward to them.
Has anyone had experiences with either they can share?
Thanks

I use both. The 28-75mm is very sharp wide open but has slight fall off at one end of the frame relative to the other. The 17-35mm is surprisingly good though it helps to stop down to f/8 for most subjects where corner detail matters.

David

Thanks David.
I know you're a busy man, but it may, for the benefit of folk like me, to put up a few basic simple examples so we can see, learn and hopefully be able to identify these things ourselves.

I have often looked at an image, re-read the critique and cannot see it, or perhaps I do not understand the level of importance placed on it and why. Sometimes the more you read the more confused you get.
The penny does finally drop though...

I still look towards a photograph telling a story and making someone happy, but do know that grasping some of the techniques and techo side, makes that more possible.
If this sort of subject is covered elsewhere on the board, let me know & I do apologise for bringing it up here.
Appreciated your support and the good nature of those on the forum.
Thanks, John

The images are pretty large:

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/sony_alpha_900

You will find a stack of 28-75mm and 17-35mm pix here. They were posted long ago, of course, to various forum threads and also linked to A900 articles on the site. Just take a look through.

David

I owned the Tamron 17-35; at the time it was my best lens by far, very nice images. The range was just too limiting for me, so after a few swaps I've ended up with an aps-c equivalent with more range (Sigma 17-70). This isn't a great example of the 17-35's sharpness but I've always loved how it turned out -


As to Minolta lenses, I can vouch for several that have served me well on my A200, including 50/1.7, 35-105 RS, 70-210 RS, 75-300 RS (catching the pattern?) and 100-200 (they never made an RS guess they broke the mold!).

I have both. I bought them to mount on my KM 7D in anticipation of the day I would switch to a full frame body. They have been fine performers...enjoy.

Thanks David.
Some super shots there - particularly the boat in the grass.
Hope I can get remotely close to some of those.

Johnc wrote:... also decided to give myself another box to open on 25th, so ended up with a Minolta AF 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 (D) as well. I note the 17-35 is reported to be a little soft, but not being a pixel peeping pro, it'll probably be just fine for me.

In my opinion, the Minolta AF 17-35 mm 1:2.8-4 (D) is no excellent lens but still okay and, considering the price, definitely worth having for A900/A850 owners (except when you already have an SAL-1635Z of course). My copy is pretty bad at 35 mm, fairly good at 17 mm (but with some nasty wave-form distortion), and surprisingly good at 24 - 28 mm.

-- Olaf

01af wrote:

Johnc wrote:... also decided to give myself another box to open on 25th, so ended up with a Minolta AF 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 (D) as well. I note the 17-35 is reported to be a little soft, but not being a pixel peeping pro, it'll probably be just fine for me.

In my opinion, the Minolta AF 17-35 mm 1:2.8-4 (D) is no excellent lens but still okay and, considering the price, definitely worth having for A900/A850 owners (except when you already have an SAL-1635Z of course). My copy is pretty bad at 35 mm, fairly good at 17 mm (but with some nasty wave-form distortion), and surprisingly good at 24 - 28 mm.

-- Olaf

I compared the 16-35mm and 17-35mm directly. Wave form distortion is almost identical at 16mm and 17mm.

David