So

[ianmiddy]

Because of the way I work with wide-angles, a really high quality fixed focal length 17mm would be all I need at that end, and I would put up with a much smaller aperture (say f/3.5-4.5 variable) to get a more compact lens than the 24-70mm.

David - know it's MF, but have you ever used a Tamron SP 17mm F/3.5 - it was something I always lusted after in the 80's, but was always out of reach...

...just wonder how it might perform on FF digital ?

[or, a bit wider - Ace Cameras have a s/h AF Tamron 14mm f2.8 SP for £450 (about 1/2 new?)...although a fair bit bigger!]

Cheers

IDM

[Greg Beetham]

That LH door jamb has quite a curve alright....hmm not extra marvelous at 300mm, isn't that unusual? I would have instinctively thought that if any distortions were going to be present they would have been at the 70mm end and hardly any at the long end, but this is the other way round.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I need to do more accurate tests because there are distortions present at 70mm as well.

Re the Tamron lenses - I think it is unlikely. I had a new Tamron 14mm SP - cost me just £270 from Mifsuds when they were selling these for that price. I used it on the KM7D and 5D, but although it was OK, it never really struck me for sharpness and you had to stop down to f8 for a reasonable result. So when the 11-18mm appeared, I got better results at 14mm with that, and I sold the Tamron for exactly the same price I bought it for. The SP 17mm f/3.5 was never a patch on the 1974 Soligor 17mm f/4, which was the basis for the Tokina 17mm f/4 (not the f/3.5 which is much inferior) and bore a close resemblance to the first Minolta MD 17mm f/4. The Tamron just didn't have the same nearly acceptable geometry and high image contrast as the f/4 models.

If I was to spend £450 on any full frame wide angle now it would be the Sigma 12-24mm. I've used that on the full frame Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c and SLR/c, as well as on the Sigma SD9 and on film. I loaned a press sample to John Parris FBIPP FMPA, a local professional I've known since he was a youngster at camera clubs where I was judging their competitions, and John bought it - along with their 15mm fisheye too. He said he couldn't give the 12-24mm back after using it on his Canon 1Ds MkII bodies. I don't know if he has moved up to MkIIIs yet.

The 12-24mm can be obtained at very good prices, I may just get one in advance of the A900 arrival as Alpha mount supplies will dry up fast, I suspect.

David

[Chris Malcolm]

PTLens handles lens geometry correction on the SAL 18-250mm and the Sigma 10-20mm on the A350 very well. I use it as a stand-alone program on high-res JPEGs, and am most impressed with it. It does take half a minute on my old slow computer to chew through a large image once the corrections have been settled, but I only use it for architectural shots or on the very occasional wide aperture shot to trim down chromatic aberration. Having seen lots of unfavourable comment about the resolution losses in perspective transformation programs I was surprised and impressed by how little it loses.

[Greg Beetham]

So what's the position so far on the FF,
One yay, three nay's, and one exceedingly reluctant to have a FF high on the wish list...hmmm when you extrapolate that out into the big picture there might not be a whole lot of enthusiasm for the flagship after all....
Greg
ps Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned an A900 in the A100-A700 forum...

[PhotoTraveler]

We can just cross our fingers with Sony tasking the folks at Zeiss to fix the sub-20mm prime problem.

I have mentioned in many forums how I would be just fine with some sub 20mm F4 primes. A 4/16ZA or 4/18ZA would do me just fine. I don't see a real need for F2.8 in this range. It just makes the lens huge and expensive and it's a speed that I doubt many folks use at that range. It's not like you will ever get good Bokeh from such a lens. The Nikon 2.8/14-24 while is an amazing piece, it is also an amazing piece in bad ways, like size and bulbous front end.

I'd be very happy with a zoom in the sub 24mm range at a constant F4. Or just a compact 16 or 18mm F4 prime. Something pretty small that once can pack for extremes. I think a 4/18 could be done in a similar size to the 2.8/20 we have. Though, any such lens being brand new would be big just because of the mysterious grand enlargement of lenses that has happened since the 80s. Such a lens would be great for people who want to use the rumored 4/24-105. Just keep that super wide in the bottom of the bag just in case.

One option is the new Zeiss 3.5/18ZF. If they make that in ZS, you could just use a straight up M42 adapter. If they only go ZF/ZK with it, and you are adventuresome. You could definitely do a mount swap on one, as there is no electrical contacts that get in the way of any such swap on AI-S Nikon lenses. Of course the lens isn't cheap, and buying a nikon body to go with it make start looking good.

[KevinBarrett]

I'm an amatuer and fairly new to the Alpha line. I initially chose between Sony and Canon and decided to go with Sony because of my small investment thus far in that arcitecture (I graduated from a Maxxum 5). Having a smaller budget means that perhaps my input here is irrelevant, but I would not be buying the A900 even if it cost the same as an A700. I have an A700, and no glass that can outresolve it's sensor. Furthermore, to obtain the glass that would realize the new camera's potential, I would have to make an investment magnitudes greater than I can currently afford. Put quite simply, I wouldn't see the difference, except that my files would be larger and my choice of lenses would decrease.

Yet I do eagerly await the full-frame camera and every scrap of information and speculation that I can find on it. It represents Sony's future in D-SLRs and I really don't want them to blow it. I would like it to be more than a FF A700 with live view. I want lots and lots of cross-type AF sensors. I want a bright viewfinder with 100% coverage. I want an interface that is perfect. I want a buffer that outpaces all but the most expensive memory cards. I want Sony to deliver in ways I don't even know to ask for yet, because I want to know that Sony and Alpha will be there with professional grade equipment and support if and when I'm ready to move up.

[David Kilpatrick]

I now have confirmation that I can attend the Sept 9 Euro press gig locally to me (but not the 'experience' they have laid on for the visitors - doesn't bother me, I have done these things before and it's no fun on home ground).

I have been doing some tests on the Sigma 24mm f1.8 as a potential lens for full frame. Bad news - it already gets very soft at the edges on APS-C even at f5.6 let alone wide open, I imagine it would be unusable on full frame. In fact lenses are my main concern with the full frame format.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Well, here's an f5.6 carefully autofocused with the Alpha 350:


And here is a section from near the middle at 100 per cent:


Here is the extreme left at the same level:


and here is the extreme right:


Yes, it has amazing close-up abilities - to within the lens hood almost touching the glass:


Flower of Himalayan balsam on the river bank - at this macro distance, the loss of edge sharpness is not so important.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

Congrats on the invite. "Experience" eh, for some reason I just pictured that being everybody goes in a room, and a giant vat of orange (cinnabar) liquid dumps on you.

On the corners, just crop to 16x9, no more bad corners . I crop most shots to 16:9, so it definitely helps, unless your doing poor mans PC lens, in which 2 corners could still be an issue. Now if Sony was to make a 4/16-24PC lens, no problem, of course that isn't going to happen in this reality , But a 20mm PC lens would be ok, and then a 24mm TS. I expect the A900 will have 16x9 like the A700, that chops off 2mm top and bottom, which gets rid of a good amount of corner.

Now a question is what rumors will pan out on those 2 wides. Is the one a 1.4/24, or is it something more like a 18 or 20mm. If it's a 1.4/24, that might make the sigma irrelevant, unless you have cost constraints that is.

Do you expect the Minolta 2.8/24 not to do well? Or are you looking at the sigma because you need some speed in that range? I've never really understood the purpose of lenses like the canon 1.4/24L I suppose on FF/Film it can be nice for close up shots in dark nightclubs/concerts, but it just sounds like a lens of limited use that cost a lot.

I now have confirmation that I can attend the Sept 9 Euro press gig locally to me (but not the 'experience' they have laid on for the visitors - doesn't bother me, I have done these things before and it's no fun on home ground).

I have been doing some tests on the Sigma 24mm f1.8 as a potential lens for full frame. Bad news - it already gets very soft at the edges on APS-C even at f5.6 let alone wide open, I imagine it would be unusable on full frame. In fact lenses are my main concern with the full frame format.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, it's a unique lens, but I was hoping it might prove ideal for the Alpha 900. There are Alpha 900s out there! Sony staff are using them. I do not know what lenses they have. Keep your eyes open, the cameras are on the loose and I now know of three people (at the very least) from Sony who are using them for their own leisure shooting, taking them on holiday etc. But- with what lenses? Is there a 24-105mm new design out there yet? This I don't know.

I'll be taking the Sigma 24 to the launch on Sept 9th anyway.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

Take a 1.7/50 with you. Would be fun, if you get your hands on said camera to put on the littlest little guy in the whole system. Folks see the current uber-camera with the 80 dollar lens and maybe get some of the right folks to think about how they should make such a lens.

[Greg Beetham]

Well, based on Don's excellent results with the Sigma 24 there is now a question mark hanging over that one of yours David...or the camera, I wonder if it is possible for you to take a couple of shots with another body too see which it is, your particular lens, or the camera...sheesh mate the clouds in the background were as sharp as the scenery
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I would guess the Sigma has a fairly flat field at the distance Don shot, but a strongly curved field at near infinity (it focuses so close that there is bound to be closer than normal optimal point for field flatness). Also, the A350 is a bit more critical of lenses than the A700, and possible slightly less accurate for focusing. And distant trees are about the most difficult subject for any digital SLR.

David

[tbroadley]

I was thinking about lens that I have or do nor have that would work with the a900. What I came up with was the following:
Minolta 28/f2
Minolta 50/f1.7
Minolta/CZ 85mm/f1.4
Minolta 100mm/f2
Minolta/Sony 100/2.8 macro
CZ 135mm/f1.8
Minolta 200mm/2.8
Minolta 80-200/2.8
CZ 24-70/f2.8 zoom (don't have)

I'm not sure my Minolta 300/2.8 would hack it nor am I sure my beloved 28-135?f4-4.5 would also. In response to David comment on the 70-200/2.8 SSM, does the 80-200 have the same field curvature issue? For most of my style, the issue of distortion at the long end of the 70-300 will probably not be a problem. In any case, IF i'm close on the above, that will be a useful range for me. I particularly look forward to the 100/f2 and CZ 135/1.8 with the a900 especially for doing trains

cheers
tim