Page 1 of 1
Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:44 am
by adakshi
Recently bought an A900. Widest I have is 50 1.4. It is good normal lens but beauty of full frame lies in w-i-d-e. So planning to buy a wide and normal zoom. I don't want to break the bank so, my options are
Minolta 17-35, Minolta 35-105(old)
Minolta 20, Minolta 28-135
Between 28-135 I have many choices like 28-135, 28-105, 28-75, 28-85, 24-105
People seem to have high regard for 35-105.
I went to Dyxum and can't decide much. Help appreciated.
Ayan
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:37 am
by edrice
Here are the results of some tests that David did and posted on Dyxum in 2008 -
Re lenses - at the press conference I tested:
17-35mm D
28-75mm D
70-300mm SSM
50mm f1.4 Sony
28mm f2.8 Sony
135mm f1.8 CZ
20mm f2.8 Sony
16-35mm f2.8 CZ
24-70mm f2.8 CZ
24-105mm KM D
70-400mm SSM G
Results:
Superb - 135mm, 50mm, 24-70mm, 70-400mm SSM G
Excellent - 28-75mm D
Excellent but with strong distortion - 16-35mm, 70-300mm SSM
Excellent with strong distortion plus extreme-corner softness/vignetting - 17-35mm D
Good centrally but strong distortion and severe CA - 24-105mm, 20mm
Mediocre across the whole frame - 28mm f2.8
I await my A900 and when it arrives, I'll be able to check out many more lenses. But - I am happy with the results from the 28-75mm and 17-35mm which I have kept aside for this. I can live with the soft dark corners on the 17-35mm at 17mm, they are no different from the 16-105mm on the A700. The 16-35mm has slightly better corners but otherwise there's not a lot in it, the distortion is very similar. The 70-300mm SSM is disappointing because of heavy distortion and vignetting at 300mm although it is sharp and CA free, and the new 70-400mm kicks in into touch.
David
From here -
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a900-some-s ... page3.html
I remember that he did a test with the 17-35 on the A900 and showed the results and seemed quite pleased with it but I am at a loss for where that is. If you are looking for wide, it would probably be your best bet. I had the 28-75 and can attest to it's performance. I also had the 24-105 and didn't consider it quite as good.
Ed
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:16 am
by adakshi
Between 28-135, 28-85, 35-105 which one to pick based on image quality only? If I buy 17-35 I am covered extreme wide part to 35mm.
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:36 am
by David Kilpatrick
I had the 24-105mm and 28-105mm (dismissed the 35-105mm, I never got a single good one) and eventually ended up with the 24-85mm as the best overall choice including 24mm which I wanted.
But I don't use it much now as the 28-75mm is so good - just in a different class.
David
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:06 am
by edrice
Yes, I forgot the 24-85 was a good one. I had that one also but the 28-75 outclassed it. It's only problem was that it didn't go to 24mm which I really like. I only do APS-C now and have the CZ16-80 and like that range better than any of the others, otherwise I would still probably have the 28-75. I sometimes wonder if I should have sold it but have started to get a little more practical in my old age. But the fond memories are still there.
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:34 am
by pakodominguez
How wide is wide enough for you?
the KM 17-35 is good (300 to 350 $) As David said, the 24-85 (140 $) is also a good lens.
Re: Wide and normal lens for A900
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 2:38 am
by Wes Gibbon
When travelling (relatively!) light with my A900 I find the 24-85 more than satisfactory. The 28-75 may be even better but (obviously) it doesn't go quite as wide and it's heavier. Incidentally I also have the 28-75 SAM which uniquely in the Minolta/Sony range takes 67mm filters - I bought it as a kit lens with Jessops' very last A850 at £999.
For my full landscape kit work I carry Minolta primes 20mm, 28mm and 35mm (both f2.0) and 50mm. The f2 lenses are sharp. I don't need the 35mm as well as the 28mm but it doesn't weigh much or take up much room in the bag and has less colour fringing. It's a lovely lens. I am currently debating with myself whether to prefer f1.4RS or f1.7 for the 50mm. The f1.7 needs 49mm filters which some seems to be losing some support from filter manufacturers.
I have tried the 28-135mm. It's very good optically but heavy and won't focus very close. Also, I personally find the extra reach compared with a 28-70 is largely wasted as I need a longer telephoto anyway.