Best Matched Lenses for A900

[sury]

I am a typical amateur who is not binned into any particular style, genre or situational photography. My question is sort of
"inside out" of the typical question people ask. What are the best matched lenses for A900 based on A900's strenghts
and weaknesses?

There could be different lenses for different applications, but that is ok with me. As a "weekend warrior"
I shoot portraits (of the family), birds in flight, moon shots, macros, land scapes, candids, dinners and lunches we host, sports (family and friends),
low light, travel photography and anything else that catches my fancy. My photography style is only limited by my time and knowledge.
I am sure most of us hobbyists indulge in all these kinds of photography and more.

The information I am looking for is something like "this lens is (these lenses are) the best suited for A900 for this type of shooting or these types of shooting".
Though there are quite a few lenses and brands available I am trying narrow the choices those that are best matched for A900.

With best regards,
Sury

[David Kilpatrick]

I can tell you which are not well matched. The old 35-70mm f/4 Minolta is very poor over full frame digital despite being praised on APS-C. The 35-105mm early lens is similar, and the 28-85mm again weak. The final 24-105mm D series lens is terrible on full frame (including the current Sony version) and the 28mm f/2.8 (again, including the Sony version) is not that wonderful either. The 20mm f/2.8 is OK but a bit soft in the corners, the 24mm f/2.8 is OK but not stunningly sharp overall.

Lenses which I know, and others have found, work well on the A900 include all the Minolta standard and macro lenses, the 24-85mm, 28-105mm RS, all the f/2 Minolta series (28mm, 35mm, 100mm); all f/1.4 designs; all the Apo teles and zooms including the 100-400mm and 100-300mm; the old 28-135mm f/4-4.5, the 70-210mm beercan f/4. All the current Sony and CZ lenses in the longer range, including the 70-300mm SSM G but this is noticeably weaker on the A900 than the A700, due to levels of distortion and vignetting - the 70-400mm is better on full frame.

The Tamron/KM 28-75mm f/2.8 appears to be excellent on the A900, same goes for the 17-35mm f/2.8-4 design. I am now working with two Sigma lenses, the 12-24mm and the new 70-200mm HSM f/2.8, which I can recommended. However, we found the new 24-70mm Sigma HSM to be a poor lens even by comparison with older Sigma designs - and well short of the CZ 24-70mm standard.

David

[bfitzgerald]

Surprised about the 28-85mm, I found it excellent on 35mm at 28mm (stopped down of course), good across most of the range. Some weaker points, not CA free. But sharpness is not something that it's lacking in. I cannot remember where I saw the 20mm prime samples, but on the A900 it was..and it looked great (stopped down of course)

Sample variations possibly?

[harvey]

I suppose you could also narrow this down by asking what non-Minolta/KM/Sony lenses are really useful.

The only independents I have are the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG EX and the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro.

I would be interested to know what you would use for moon shots, even 500mm mirror + 2x TC seems too short as is the long end of the 70-400.

Harvey

[ianmiddy]

I can tell you which are not well matched. The old 35-70mm f/4 Minolta is very poor over full frame digital despite being praised on APS-C. The 35-105mm early lens is similar, and the 28-85mm again weak. The final 24-105mm D series lens is terrible on full frame (including the current Sony version) and the 28mm f/2.8 (again, including the Sony version) is not that wonderful either. The 20mm f/2.8 is OK but a bit soft in the corners, the 24mm f/2.8 is OK but not stunningly sharp overall.

David - a little off-topic & maybe a bit of wishful thinking, but do you think the problems with these would still exist on a 12-16mp full-frame, if Sony were to offer one ?

Thanks

IDM

[artington]

David Kilpatrick wrote:
However, we found the new 24-70mm Sigma HSM to be a poor lens even by comparison with older Sigma designs - and well short of the CZ 24-70mm standard

Interesting comment, David. This lens has been tantalisingly held back for nearly 9 months since it was announced and is only now beginning to trickle in at prices of £700-800, which is I should have thought an insufficient discount vs the CZ unless it is quite special. You are suggesting it is anything but. Are you planning to review it?

[David Kilpatrick]

We have had two copies of the 24-70mm HSM. Pictures from Nikon D3 have been sent to Sigma. There are issues with the lenses we received, which simply didn't produce anything like the corner to corner wide open quality, at portrait or small group distances, required of a lens at this price of this type, over a flat field. Richard was previously working with a non-HSM 28-70mm f2.8 Sigma, and was looking forward to a new lens which really blew this away on the D3 - and maybe on the D3X, hopefully even higher resolution-capable. After two examples showed the same basic characteristics of a fairly curved field and rough bokeh in near-focused detail, plus a mix of aberrations hitting the corners, he decided to keep the 28-70mm.

As with certain other lenses, the 24-70mm was amazing on DX/APS-C. Very, very sharp centrally. But I didn't ask for a review sample in Sony fit, based on what we could tell from the D3.

My experience with the Sigma HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 in Sony fit is the exact reverse - I have rarely come across such a good lens, much faster focusing than the Sony/Minolta, much sharper across the field for close-ups (and down to 1 metre which is a real help), and better overall once stopped down. I've just ordered the new matched HSM-only APO teleconverter from Sigma, will not work with non-HSM lenses, 2X - should be superb, given that my Teleplus is already pretty good on this lens optically.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

I can tell you which are not well matched. The old 35-70mm f/4 Minolta is very poor over full frame digital despite being praised on APS-C. The 35-105mm early lens is similar, and the 28-85mm again weak. The final 24-105mm D series lens is terrible on full frame (including the current Sony version) and the 28mm f/2.8 (again, including the Sony version) is not that wonderful either. The 20mm f/2.8 is OK but a bit soft in the corners, the 24mm f/2.8 is OK but not stunningly sharp overall.

David - a little off-topic & maybe a bit of wishful thinking, but do you think the problems with these would still exist on a 12-16mp full-frame, if Sony were to offer one ?

Thanks

IDM

Yes. They are visible if you turn the A900 down to 13 megapixel resolution. Those older lenses I've found which work well on the A700, and do not on the A900, all have sufficient central resolution for the 900. They simple don't image sharply across the field and tend to fall off into soft corners (plus CA, flare and other minor issues). The ones which Sony kept on are clearly not that bad, the early Min AF zooms can be awful.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Surprised about the 28-85mm, I found it excellent on 35mm at 28mm (stopped down of course), good across most of the range. Some weaker points, not CA free. But sharpness is not something that it's lacking in. I cannot remember where I saw the 20mm prime samples, but on the A900 it was..and it looked great (stopped down of course)

Sample variations possibly?

No, I know the 20mm well enough. Stopped down it is fine. But so is the 17-35mm D. Both are soft in the corners at f/2.8 on full frame and the 20mm also has an interesting distortion pattern. The 28-85mm can be soft to the extent of showing double imaging effects in the outer field at f/3.8 and 28mm even on APS-C. I had two of them, and both were soft at the edges. They always looked fine on film.

I am judging very critically here. The 28-85mm is better than the 35-70mm or 35-105mm.

David

[bfitzgerald]

Just a general comment here.

But speaking for myself, I would not be in the habit of shooting any WA lens, at faster apertures, esp not on FF (35mm) I would not expect good performance. Tele yes..WA no. And esp not for UWA lenses which would test things even harder. Obviously I have never used such exotic lenses such as the Zeiss 24-70mm, or the 16-35mm, whist the high price might mean they do better with less stopping down. I would not expect them to deliver a good performance at WA, unless stopped down a fair bit.

APS changes things a bit by chopping out a fair portion of the image, some lenses can do ok at faster speeds WA etc, some not. But even then, I would still look for optimal apertures (f8 or near there) Never tried a 20mm prime on 35mm, but I would expect to have to stop it down a fair bit..probably even to f11-f13 or so (those who own it will know better) to get the best out of it.

Are we maybe being a touch harsh on some things here?

[David Kilpatrick]

The issue isn't really whether the lens is sharper at f/8 - it will not be at f/11 to f/13 0 - but whether it performs particularly well on the A900. The 20mm f2.8 for example is a lovely lens to work with, but it is not significantly better on the Alpha 900 than the 20-35mm, either 17-35mm, 16-35mm, Sigma 12-24mm, Sigma 15-30mm, various other zooms with 20mm in their range - once stopped down to the point where it is optimal (I normally set f/9). There are other reasons for buying the 20mm f2.8, such as a manageable 72mm filter size, light weight, fast focus. In fact, although I own a Sigma 12-24mm the 20mm is one of the lenses I have considered getting if a well-priced (£150) s/h example ever turns up.

Compared to the earlier MD 20mm f2.8 (which came out after the 21mm f2.8 MC/MD) the 20mm AF is wonderful. In fact, it was one of the lenses I thought was an absolute classic on film - better than the Leica 19mmm f2.8 by a long way. I was quite disappointed when I tried a new Sony 20mm f2.8 on the A900, my borrowed Minolta one went back to Minolta before KM took over so I have not had a chance to see if the Sony version was just not really as good.

David

[InTheSky]

The Minolta RS 20mm F/2.8 is for now on my side the best lens in the 20mm angle that I have tried on my A900. And is still the one I'm using.

I have posted a few samples and test before on the forum about that.

David is right, on the corner there is some weakness, but not that big. It is very on the end of the corner compare to other lens I have tried (17-35mm D, and sigma 20-40 2.8, old Minolta 20mm 2.8, cheap 19-35mm sigma, etc.).

The price of the sony Prime is a little bit high in store ... , and in use market, buying 400 US for a 20mm Prime , I will say it is good if you really one the best on the A900 sensor, but a 17-35mmD will give you 20mm 2.8 too and will be a little bit worse, but giving you range of angle to play.

On my side for now, the 20mm RS 2.8 is the best for the A900. (in the 20mm angle ).

Some old Tamron Adaptall SP are not that bad and they are really not expensive, but you need to focus manually. (I'm actually finding that the 24mm 2.5 Tamron is better than the 24mm 2.8 of Minolta on the A900)

Regards,

Frank