Photoclubalpha

Hello to all,

I am a new member of the forum and I am looking for some help in deciding on lenses for the a850 and a900 (my understanding is that they take the same lenses) cameras.

I have actually gone through all the discussions in the forum at dyxum.com where they have a very extensive talk on lenses for alpha cameras. I have to admit that I got a bit lost. I was promised as a present to choose between the two cameras I have mentioned above, but only the body. So now I am looking for the lenses and i have no previous experience with any Sony alpha cameras.

The photos I take fall in these categories:

Large landscapes, both in bright light and in dimmer conditions. Here I had in mind for a 14m camera, but all suggestions are welcomed.
Portraits and close up portraits, usually indoors but often outdoors too. I was looking for a 80-15m f2 or something to that effect but again i am open to suggestions.
I sometimes take macro photos but up until now instead of expensive macro lenses I used extension rings or sometimes closeup filters. Again I need your suggestions.
Lastly, I am looking for a general purpose lens, something like 28-105m.

I would like to buy the best possible lenses, with the best results on such a camera as the a900 or the a850 but money is an issue. So, if you have any suggestions that will not force my wife to divorce me please share them with me.

Thanking you all in advance

Sfakianos

Hi and welcome Sfakianos!

I have been slowly buying and selling and changing lenses on my A900 for 15 months. Eventually, I have settled on a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro as a single macro lens which is free from reflected light spots. I already have a 100mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens if I really need that focal length. Maybe if I did not have this, a new 105mm Sigma macro would have been my choice - or a Sony or Minolta 100mm macro. But I have one of those, and it's not all that good for handling certain types of studio lighting which I use a lot, so it remains unused most of the time.

I have both the 28-105mm and 24-85mm Minolta RS-era (around 1997-9) zooms - the last examples of both lenses made. I have not sold one, because I can not decide between them. They did not cost very much, a little over £100 each in mint condition.

For a wide angle, at a workable price, the 20mm Sony is a good choice. Failing that, a good condition Tamron or KMinolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4 D.

David

Thank you David for the very prompt reply.
I will look into your suggestions and I will keep you all posted with samples if I manage to take decent photos.

Sfakianos

David Kilpatrick wrote:
For a wide angle, at a workable price, the 20mm Sony is a good choice.

David

David,

Is there any difference between the Sony 20mm and the older Minolta versions?

Not as far as I can tell, at least if you are comparing an RS type (later) 20mm not the first generation 1986 model. Even with that, the optical performance appears to be identical.

David

Sfakianos wrote:
I would like to buy the best possible lenses, with the best results on such a camera as the a900 or the a850 but money is an issue. So, if you have any suggestions that will not force my wife to divorce me please share them with me.

Thanking you all in advance

Sfakianos

Unfortunately (and obviously!), the best lenses generally cost a lot of money, particularly those that do justice to FF 24 Mp sensors! However, I have been pleased with the results I obtained from the Minolta 28-135 on my A900 (though some have reported flare problems). I have found some colour fringing with this lens, but no more than other wideangle lenses. Price is very reasonable at about £230 on Ebay. I can't compare it to the 24-70 or Sony 28-75 SAM, which are the WA lenses designed for Sony FF, as I haven't had the opportunity to try them. I use the 28-135 as a carry-around (is that the phrase?) lens, but for landscapes (my main activity) I have settled on Minolta 20mm, 28mm f2.0 35mm f2.0 and 50mm f1.4 primes, but this is NOT a cheap option, given the current prices for the excellent f2.0 lenses, which are sharp.

I found the telephoto end more of a problem. I was trying to avoid the most expensive options, but have eventually settled on the Sony 70-400mm G lens, which costs over £1000 (offically quite a bit more tha £1000, though Camera World are currently advertising it at under £1100). I believe DK has recommeded the latest Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at about half the official price of the 70-400 (but about the same weight!) - but I wanted the extra focal length. I did try the 'Big Beercan' (the original Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 - Dyxum reviews suggest that all later versions including Sony are lighter and inferior); I found it better than other Minolta telezooms I have tried up to 300mm, but untlimately the quality wasn't quite there (though judicious sharpening has helped). For an economical telephoto you could try the 'standard' Beercan (70-210mm f4.0) - readily available for not much more than £100, though as usual with early Minolta AF zooms flare can be a problem on digital sensors.

Another option that may be worth considering is the Minolta 35-200mm xi, which has its supporters, but is only available with Powerzoom which is either loved or hated. Even if you hate Powerzoom (like me!), this lens is highly regarded optically, with some advocating its unique 'glow'. I may decide to use this in place of the 28-135 (it is also more compact and has a longer range), but I haven't yet tested it properly - I was fortunate in getting it really cheap on Ebay - it was attached to a 500si (now virtually worthless) and nobody else noticed the lens!

Good luck with your eventual purchases, and let us know how you get on!

For a standard zoom, I find the Minolta 24-85 works quite well on the A900. The optical quality is surprisingly good considering it's being used on a FF sensor. The bokeh is quite nice too. Haven't tried the KM / Tamron / Sony 28-75/2.8, but it should be similar in performance with an extra stop of speed at the long end.

For macros AND portraits, i find the Tamron 90/2.8 works very well. It's relatively light, has a focus limiter, and sells for a great price. If you're shooting portraits, a 70/2.8 might be a bit short for adequate DoF isolation on some shots.

For landscapes and wide-angle shots, the wide end of the 24-85 is probably good enough for general use. If you want something a little better, you could go for the 20/2.8. If you print poster sized landscapes, you might want to use a longer lens (i prefer macros in this situation) and use something like AutoPano Pro to do panorama style stitching of multiple shots to get the resolution and file size you need to print big at high res.

I have never sold a single glass so I have quite a collection of standard zoom lenses. 24-50, 24-85, 24-105, 28-105, Sigma 28-70 EX, but I ended up the newer 24-70/2.8 permanently attached to my a850. This is the only lens which delivers the colour and sharpness of this particular camera. For the wide side, I tend to use 17-35D more than the 20/2.8. As for portrait, all three of my favourites 85/1.4G, 100/2.8 soft and 135/1.8 are great. 100/2.8 is particularly sharp and light to carry.
I have to admit that Sony refused to repair my 24-85. My copy has this strange mechanical sound when it attaches my dSLR bodies though it works fine with my film cameras.