Lens advice

[InTheSky]

Sonolta ...

A question question about shooting Hockey ... do we have to think about using a polarized filter to removed the effect of the glass when we are behind (outside of the ice), or this effect of reflection is not there ? (i know this will eat a lot of light ... )

Regards,

Frank

[Javelin]

Holy I just bought one of those on e-bay for 30 bucks with the intent on trying it on my 50. might be perfect for hockey sitting a few rows up shooting over the glass toward the nets

That lens will not be good in low light....almost nobody has ever reported using that one either, and that's probably not a good sign!

Purchase a 50mm and an OLympus A-200 if you are going cheap....that will give you a 50mm and a 85mm f1.7 lens with good quality at 5omm and usable for many things in low light at 85mm.

-Sonolta

[Javelin]

well I had read about this one, a Sony one that fits 58mm, and another oly B300 which I think was 55mm and would fit my beercan. but when I saw this being so cheap and NIB I figured i'd give it a try.

[InTheSky]

-Sonolta

PS...Send me one of the 200 2.8's and I'll go shoot a match for you and report back! If you want to trade one of those 200's for some good stuff I am about ready to list $5K worth of Ivory on ebay! Let's make a deal!

In fact i have a bigger zoom than the Minolta, i have an old Tamron 60B 300mm Adaptall F/2.8 with a confirm focus adapter that work very well on the Sony A900. In fact i have paid this old lens 600$ CAD from guy in Montreal. I have bought the lens and after discover that this specific model of the 300mm was almost the best that Tamron have done. It looks like that they have broken something when they have had the autofocus system in the last model. (just a little bit less sharpness and detail). Now i'm searching for the 200f 2x adaptall adapter, if someone there have it ... i have good stock to exchange .

But, this is a good idea about sharing the 200mm APO ..., i think i should start to rent it in Montreal Area i'm sure a lot of people are waiting to play with this beauty.

For the soap ... i'm using Organic stuff now , sorry

Regards,

Frank

[Cas2800]

Sonolta,

Im looking to shoot indoor basketball with my a200 and am trying to choose between which lens to purchase between:

Minolta 135 2.8 http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-MAXXUM-135M ... 7C294%3A50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sigma 105 2.8 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 3DWatching" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Can you point me in the right direction?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? Thank You very much.

[rharlow]

what are these and how do they work? What should I expect to pay

how we they effect lens etc.....


CL49-200's
1 Olympus A-200

[rharlow]

Thanks fo all the help.

[Vidgamer]

I have a Sony external 1.7 teleconverter, but I figured it would only be useful in the longer tele range, and it really didn't work so well there. Is it worth pairing with a 50 1.7 for lower-light situations where you need a longer range? (Using it with one lens, only the center was usable, and the sides were pretty bad. Maybe it'd work better with other lenses.) The after-the-lens converters do a good job of preserving light (there is some loss, but minimal, compared to the other). Also, this TC is pretty heavy, and I think not a good idea to use, just for the additional stress it could put on a lens.

I also have a "normal" (for SLR) before-the-lens teleconverter, and, well, I can't say that it works all that great itself, but they can be had for cheap. The problem there is that it cuts your light down. Using it with the 50/1.7, the light loss might not be that bad. It'd be an effective f2.8, wide open. Then again, it'd probably have to be stopped-down for better results. At that point, I might as well use the 55-200, which is f4 at the shorter focal lengths.

Currently, I only have cheap macro lenses, so they have a lot of CA. For macro, I wonder if I'm better off using the 1.7x TC? Maybe one day I'll get one of those reversing ring gizmos that lets you flip the 50mm around for macro. Just hand-holding it, I can see where that might work well. If you want a bang-for-the-buck macro solution, that would seem to me to be it.

[Cas2800]

Sonolta,

Im looking to shoot indoor basketball with my a200 and am trying to choose between which lens to purchase between:

Can you point me in the right direction?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? Thank You very much.

The 135 2.8 will work better for basketball since it will auto-focus faster. The Sigma is a macro lens designed to take closeup photos and it will focus slower. Both listed are good lenses.

-Sonolta

I bought the 135 2.8 after reading your advice. I paid $305.00 for it. Is that a pretty good price for it?

[Dr. Harout]

If I happen to see that lens with that price, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I think it justifies every penny.
And congratulations.

[KevinBarrett]

I have to agree...I see them more frequently now on ebay for some reason, but I get anxious about getting into auctions. Maybe for my next gig I'll rationalize that purchase.