Photoclubalpha

Hello to all,

I decided to refresh some lenses i have, more precisely my Minolta 70-210 f4, 100-200 f4.5 and 24mm f2.8

So by selling these i will keep my CZ 16-80 and my Sony 50mm f1.4.

After researching, i'm getting 2 or 3 lenses during this year.

The contenders are:

- Minolta 50 f2.8 Macro
- Sony 50 f2.8 Macro
- Minolta 100 f2.8 Macro
- Minolta 135 f2.8
- Minolta 28-70 f2.8
- Tokina 100 f2.8 Macro
- Tokina 80-200 f2.8
- Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8

So... why i want to change lenses.

First, i want some quick lenses. I though i would give much better use to my primes ... wrong.
So i want a good macro, a good Tele and a good standard zoom. This last one is not a priority since i have the CZ 16-80.

There's always the budget problem. I find that the Tokina's offer a great price but i never had a Tokina so i'm kind of ... not very certain about them. ( btw, what do you think of the Tokina 80-200 f2.8 Pro ? )

I'm also tempted on not to buy all those lenses for now and go for a new one. My first 70-200 f4 ( i got a second one ) was used and ... it came with some problems... Since i'm thinking on the 800€ budget for lenses, i don't want to spend it all on used without some kind of warranty.

Conclusion, i would like your advises and opinions about this. Are the lenses that i wrote good lenses. Is it worth to go to Tokina instead of Minolta ( price/quality )? Should i just get 1 new lens, that would be new and with warranty instead of getting the other lenses.


Thank you all in advance, for the time and attention to my thread

I bought the Tokina 28mm - 70mm / 2.6 - 2.8 in the early 90's when I got my Minolta 7 xi camera and for it's time I have found it to be a good lens. I have only used it with film and because I have a Konica Minolta 28 mm - 75 mm for my Minolta 7 and a Minolta 28 mm - 70 mm G for my Sony A 850 it has been relegated it to the reserve list.

As long as you don't expect too much wide open, are careful about shooting into the sun and don't try and print much more than to 11 x 14 then it performs quite decently. As with many zooms from this period it is not a high contrast lens, which I considered an advantage in the harsh sunlight often encountered around here on cloud free days.

How it would perform with a high MP APS-C camera would require you to undertake your own tests.

Lets start with the the standard zoom...

Get a Tamron 28-75 or a used KM 28-75 2.8. I also have a CZ 16-80 and also own a KM 28-75. I use the KM VERY infrequently, but I am happy with it when I use it. I would advise saving you money for a good 70-200 and not get something in this range. If you need low light performance, use the 50 1.4 or a flash for the CZ.

For a macro.....

This depends on your subjects. I have a Tamron 90mm 2.8 and it serves a dual purpose. It is a fantastic macro as well as a great portrait lens (you may need some PP for the older folks though due to how sharp it is). It will cost less than a Sony/Minolta 100mm. There is also a Tamron 60mm that seems to be equal to its big brother and there is the 30mm 2.8 by Sony that David thinks very highly of (other than construction). For my purposes, a macro needs to be at least 90mm (I would actually prefer 150-200mm, but the macro bug hasn't really hit me yet)

Tele-zoom.....

I love my Sony 70-200G, but I was in a good financial position at the time I bought it. Considering I use this lens for my sons sporting activities and reading that the Tamron's focus is not particularly rapid, I would probably get the newest incarnation of the Sigma 70-200 2.8. If funds permit, get the Sony G and don't look back.

Thank you
Unfortunately budget can't stretch ... So the Sony i way off my bar.

After some thinking and reading i reduced my options to this

Macro
a) Tamron 90mm
b) Tamron 60mm
c) Sigma 105mm

Tele
a) Tamron 70-200 f2.8
b) Sigma 70-200 f2.8

As for the Macro.
I don't know what i need. It's my first macro... Since i don't have a really good experience with any Macro lenses i need some help. I was thinking on the Tamron 60mm but the 90mm is very well reviewed all over the place, receiving Highly Recommended on the photozone.de ... the Tamron 60mm isn't.

Decision and decisions... unfortunately i don't have a shop that lets me try out the lenses ... so this is why i'm undecided with all this Tamron/Sigma thing.

DK backs me on this recommendation; go for the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro.

As for the Tele lenses, I really think the Sigma offers more there, as well.

So, in you opinion a Sigma 70 f2.8 EX Macro and the 70-200 f2.8 EX APO II Macro would be the best bet? It pleases me too ... the only point i get confused it's because the Tamron, from what i read, has stronger optics. Although, the focus is slower... but not that slow ...

Since i'm spending 1k Euros on lenses... i'm trying to do the best choice from opinions and reading ...

Bah living in Portugal is hard ... we don't have shops that lets you use several lens for testing purposes ...

My experience with the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro is limited. My brother got one in Pentax mount and I was able to play with it last November. Basically, it was so sharp it made me sick. From wide open all the way to stupidly small apertures, it was sharper than any lens I ever used. I'm holding off getting one for myself until I know just what brand my next camera body will be. I have no problem with using two different systems, but I do have a problem not using that Sigma Macro.

Well too me it probably depends on how 'serious' the macro side of things is going to get, generally I think the 105 Sigma would be a good first Macro lens, easier to use than the shorter ones, more forgiving, more all round useful etc. by that I mean you can get reasonable magnification of things (butterfly, dragonfly sized objects), without having to get that close you disturb them....with a bit of luck.
You can always get a set of Auto tubes and a 2X extender as well, they really work well on a Macro lens, but you will notice a huge penalty in DOF...
There is always a danger in recommending a Macro lens to anyone, one never knows just what subject matter the user will end up liking to shoot...as usual, it's more a case of suck it and see...
Greg

The Tamron 70-200mm does not have genuinely higher sharpness, just a more wiry looking bokeh. I did not like what it did to edges and out of focus details; the Sigma is much smoother in 'look'. I guess you could say the Tamron has more 'bite' but it does not make a better looking image.

I am switching from the 50 and 100mm Minolta macro to the Sigma 70mm for a simple enough reason - I nearly always end up leaving my macro lenses behind, I can't decide which to take. Then if I take the 100mm macro, I never want to use my 100mm Soft Focus, and if I pick the 50mm macro, I leave the 50mm f/1.4 behind - etc etc.

Now with the 70mm macro, I can take my 50mm f/1.4 and my 100mm SF - and if I take a 2X converter, I have a 140mm and 200mm f/5.6 option, one of them capable of 2X magnification...

David

Thank you all, again.

As far as macro needs go ... they go pretty near actually.
I never had a macro lens, so it will be my first.
I was looking for a Minolta 100mm f2.8 but, since i had some bad luck with my beercan on the second hand market, i think i will skip the oldies and get something new. Or at least, almost new. For example, i got my CZ1680 mint, with 1 month use for 550Euros.

So, i'm after a Minolta 100 f2.8 Macro @ ebay. If i win it ( the user says it's mint, and as far as users rating goes, he has 100%, so i will trust him ) nice, if not, i think i'm going for the Sigma 70.

Since i have the 50mm f1.4, the 70mm will be okay. I do lots of lab shots ( machinery, cell cultures ... all that doggie-doo ) so the 70mm it's a good focal length, although i would like something near to the 100mm for the nature shots and portraits.

Decisions decisions ... and lack of knowledge make this step complex.


As far as the tele goes, i was into the Sigma ... the Tamron, i don't know why, looks ... very delicate ( in a bad way ). This one i will buy new, because, i can't really afford to have a 5-600Euros lens in a used market, damaged or all messed up.

That 70mm sounds very good, I'm even tempted myself, the 70-200 is a difficult one to deal with, I prefer the Sigma optically, but the Tamron compatibility wise, well, more likely to have no issues....like I say, a tough one.
Greg

I have used a Sigma 70mm DG macro for almost three years. My favourite lens, love it. The focus mechanism just stuck/jammed and it felt like I lost a limb, just when the snowdrops are at their best. However Sigma are going to fix it and give it an overhaul at reasonable cost and timescale. Also just bought a 2x anglefinder from Pheobe G on ebay £25 delivered within a week all the way from China, good service and seems to be a good peice of equipment, at first it looks as though you are photographing your feet the angle is so strange but it works and really helps an old bloke, saves having to lay down on a groundsheet in the churchyard for instance.
Some of my macro shoots at http://www.rfsmith.co.uk
First post, novice


If you don't ask you never find out

Another vote for the Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG macro. I did not get to shoot a lot of macro with it actually, rather ended using it mostly as a portrait lens which is the only reason why I returned it as I wasnt really putting it to good use.
Aside from the sharpness (and maybe its a symptom of sharpness after all..) is the excellent capture of textures on fabrics (my technical vocab fails me here - maybe its called microcontrast?). The colors were good and bokeh decent. It has a pretty good standing on the Dyxum ratings which IMHO is totally justified.

raymondfacer wrote:I have used a Sigma 70mm DG macro for almost three years. My favourite lens, love it. The focus mechanism just stuck/jammed and it felt like I lost a limb, just when the snowdrops are at their best. However Sigma are going to fix it and give it an overhaul at reasonable cost and timescale. Also just bought a 2x anglefinder from Pheobe G on ebay £25 delivered within a week all the way from China, good service and seems to be a good peice of equipment, at first it looks as though you are photographing your feet the angle is so strange but it works and really helps an old bloke, saves having to lay down on a groundsheet in the churchyard for instance.
Some of my macro shoots at http://www.rfsmith.co.uk
First post, novice


If you don't ask you never find out

I finally got a chance too have a look, there's some very nice photo's there, flower closeups, hovering bees, insects at the flower, the orchids are lovely....
Greg
ps, Forgot about the swans, osprey, cute robin, sanderlings as well.

raymondfacer wrote:I have used a Sigma 70mm DG macro for almost three years. My favourite lens, love it. The focus mechanism just stuck/jammed and it felt like I lost a limb, just when the snowdrops are at their best. However Sigma are going to fix it and give it an overhaul at reasonable cost and timescale. Also just bought a 2x anglefinder from Pheobe G on ebay £25 delivered within a week all the way from China, good service and seems to be a good peice of equipment, at first it looks as though you are photographing your feet the angle is so strange but it works and really helps an old bloke, saves having to lay down on a groundsheet in the churchyard for instance.
Some of my macro shoots at http://www.rfsmith.co.uk
First post, novice


If you don't ask you never find out

Hi Raymond, nice shots on your site, and welcome to the forum. If you have some Snowdrop shots from this year do you fancy sharing one or two? (Perhaps on the "Flowers 2010" thread to not go off topic here.)