prime or zoom for a900 landscape ?

[ImNoAnsel]

Hi All,
Sorry if this has been covered before - I have just got a a900 and a sal 20 2.8 (shop bargain from a person moving to canon) and would like advice on lenses for 24 or 28 to approx 70 - as I have already have the 70300G.
I shoot landscapes so expect to use f8-11 - but I like shooting into the light - so am I better off getting a zoom - the tamron 28-75 seems very good and a good price or 28 2.8 and a 50 1.4 (doing double duty as a fast lens also) or -gulp the zeiss 24-70 for huge sums. Am I being too cheap by skimping on the lenses with such a good body !!
Any advice much appreciated.
Roy

[KevinBarrett]

You might be very interested to read this article by Kurt Munger, comparing the Tamron and Sony versions of the 28-75/2.8 lenses to each other, and to the 24-70/2.8 ZA lens, as well.

Those would be your most cost-effective and flexible options, though I believe the a900 would do best with primes. I would personally recommend a Minolta 24/2.8 RS, ($200 street) but you seem to already have a solution in that range. You'll also find that Sigma has a lot of faster primes in that range, 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm all at f/1.8, though their 28 isn't highly recommended.

[Lonnie Utah]

For landscapes on a A900 there is not other choice than the CZ 16-35 2.8. Worth. Every. Penny.

[David Kilpatrick]

I have been shooting snowscapes today and chose my KM 28-75mm f/2.8 - similaer to Tamron. Worked at apertures between f/9 and f/13 and ISO from 100 to 320, surprisingly the 320 setting proved by far the best for snow scenes with much better headroom (bright skies were not recoverable at 100 without clipping).

Here is an example, cropped a bit:

snowykelso-20-pca.jpg (278.26 KiB) Viewed 4774 times

I also worked this morning with the 17-35mm KM. I'm really more than happy with the exquisite detail from both lenses, and the lack of any issues with flare despite keeping UV filters on to prevent falling snow from getting on the front elements.

My A900 and the 28-75mm were thoroughly soaked - dripping water. No problems. Behaved much like the Nikon D3 did two years ago when I got it wet in a snowstorm.

David

[ImNoAnsel]

Thanks for the replies - Kevin I read the article and the tamron seems a better lens than the Sony, and a very good deal if you get a good copy. Very interesting that people say it is better to get a lens repaired than get a swap, I guess QC in production is not as good as QC in repair.
Surprisingly the zeiss 24-70 seems very bad in this review - I don't doubt Kurt's review - his site is very good , but Michael Reichmann really rates the 24-70 in use, I guess YMMV or there are bad samples.

Lonnie - thanks for the suggestion on the 16-35 - I had not considered that as I don't like super wide - 20 is wide enough for me but 20 -35 would be good, but I still have to fill between 35 and 70 though and the price is about the same as the 24 -70 .

I have been using my old minolta 28-85 at f8 -11 and it look pretty sharp but still has CA that can't be fully fixed. Also unless I can compare with the 24-70 I won't know how much better the zeiss is and whether the extra cash is worth spending for me. Difficult to find shops with stock - especially of the tamron.
All I want is the best lens for the least money- and the moon on a stick !

[ImNoAnsel]

David - thanks for the pic, no flare at all and a very nice view - frustrating that I have to work and there are many closed roads between me and the snowy scenes - hopefully I can get out this weekend ! The tamron seems like such a good deal - I just feel there must be a catch - do you know if the coatings have been improved on it compared to the the older KM lens and if that actually makes a difference ? A local shop has the 28 105 for £129 - which you I think you said was a good lens - better than the 24-105. For a walk around I could still use my a700 which has a 16-80 ( which is why I am still obsessing about lenses trying to justify the a900 for landscape !). I would just get the zeiss if it was not such a huge chunk of the total photo gear budget, but I don't want to keep buying little bits and then spend a chunk of cash after all that ! If it was canikon I could rent and test.
Cheers Roy

[David Kilpatrick]

The 28-75mm latest Tamron is probably as good as the Sony SAM version optically, but the Sony may have improved coatings - this certainly does apply to the KM versus Tamron, the coatings are slightly different or were on the two I had. I have used the Tamron 28-75mm in Canon, Pentax and Nikon mount as well as Alpha. All samples have been very good but Alpha is the only mount I've used it full frame.

It has very minimal CA. Most of the middle range settings, none at all. About half the level shown by the 28-105mm at the respective extremes. I'm currently using the 24-85mm, 28-105mm (both 1997-9 RS types) and the 28-75mm. The sharpest by a fair margin is the 28-75mm, and a second important point is focus accuracy with the A900 f/2.8 centre sensor - spot on. It also has very good close focus.

My reasons for picking each lens to use are simple enough, I will take the 28-75mm if low light is likely, or if I can also carry the 17-35mm. It happens to work very well with a 2X Teleplus MC7 converter, creating a 56-150mm f/5.6. I can pop the converter in my pocket. Focus is totally reliable with this combo, it needs stopping down to f/8 and of course is better still at f/11. But using a 2X with the 24-85mm or the 28-105mm is not practical, you need an f/2.8 aperture really.

With all these lenses I could certainly sell up and just buy a CZ 24-70mm. But that would really force me to carry a tele zoom all the time, 75mm is too short and 70mm is shorter still for the long end. There is no teleconverter yet made which will work with the 24-70mm SSM. In March, Kenko will introduce a DGX version which should function. That would perhaps change the situation - the 24-70mm, if the Kenko DGX 2X retains sufficient quality as a 48-140mm, might appeal.

Even so, I like travelling light and I don't much like big lenses. The weight and the 77mm filter size of the 24-70mm slightly put me off. I really like the 24-85mm and 28-105mm as they share the 62mm thread of my 70-300mm SSM, and therefore one polarise when travelling is enough.

David

[RubberDials]

Surprisingly the zeiss 24-70 seems very bad in this review - I don't doubt Kurt's review - his site is very good , but Michael Reichmann really rates the 24-70 in use, I guess YMMV or there are bad samples.

Kurt Munger's review only shows that the 24-70 corners come in later than the Tamron's. This is simply a consequence of providing consistent central sharpness throughout the range. Lens design is a trade-off and Zeiss have designed for very high resolution and let the corners fend for themselves.

If you don't understand this (and reading the forums you will see that there are many who don't) you might see the lens as disappointing or bad. In fact the obverse is the case as it is extremely unlikely you will need an even field at 24mm f2.8 and the CZ is consistent (centrally) in resolving power from maximum to minimum aperture. It is consistency that is a mark of great lens.

Underpinning some of the crowing about the perceived underperforming of the Zeiss is the view that you are paying for the name with these lenses and that they are somehow hyped - a strange and sad state of affairs when one considers that Japanese lens designers learnt much of their craft by copying Zeiss lenses in the first place.

I'm no reviewer of lenses, but I understand that the key is not in taking a test accurately but in being able to interpret the results. This is where most internet lens review sites fall down. Munger offers some curious observations across the range of his tests. For example he has tested all of the Sony Zeiss lenses and on each maintains that they have the same colour as 'every other lens in the Sony line-up.' Anyone who has had exposure to both Sony and Zeiss lenses will know that this is not the case. A fundamental observational error like this makes a mockery of his elaborate test preparations, such as checking for seismic activity in the area before beginning.

[RubberDials]

The 28-75mm latest Tamron is probably as good as the Sony SAM version optically, but the Sony may have improved coatings - this certainly does apply to the KM versus Tamron, the coatings are slightly different or were on the two I had. I have used the Tamron 28-75mm in Canon, Pentax and Nikon mount as well as Alpha. All samples have been very good but Alpha is the only mount I've used it full frame.

It has very minimal CA. Most of the middle range settings, none at all. About half the level shown by the 28-105mm at the respective extremes. I'm currently using the 24-85mm, 28-105mm (both 1997-9 RS types) and the 28-75mm. The sharpest by a fair margin is the 28-75mm, and a second important point is focus accuracy with the A900 f/2.8 centre sensor - spot on. It also has very good close focus.

My reasons for picking each lens to use are simple enough, I will take the 28-75mm if low light is likely, or if I can also carry the 17-35mm. It happens to work very well with a 2X Teleplus MC7 converter, creating a 56-150mm f/5.6. I can pop the converter in my pocket. Focus is totally reliable with this combo, it needs stopping down to f/8 and of course is better still at f/11. But using a 2X with the 24-85mm or the 28-105mm is not practical, you need an f/2.8 aperture really.

With all these lenses I could certainly sell up and just buy a CZ 24-70mm. But that would really force me to carry a tele zoom all the time, 75mm is too short and 70mm is shorter still for the long end. There is no teleconverter yet made which will work with the 24-70mm SSM. In March, Kenko will introduce a DGX version which should function. That would perhaps change the situation - the 24-70mm, if the Kenko DGX 2X retains sufficient quality as a 48-140mm, might appeal.

Even so, I like travelling light and I don't much like big lenses. The weight and the 77mm filter size of the 24-70mm slightly put me off. I really like the 24-85mm and 28-105mm as they share the 62mm thread of my 70-300mm SSM, and therefore one polarise when travelling is enough.

David

You may be right about the coatings - the Tamron was formulated in 2003 and was presumably computed for use on an 8-10 mp sensor. It seems likely that Sony might give users some headroom for the next ff sensor development which will be 30+ mp. As it stands this is where the Zeiss will separate the men from the boys as it is clearly good enough for a denser sensor (in the centre at least ) but the Tamron is likely to leave people with those unsightly glowing edges as it falls short in resolving power. Hardly a fait accompli as it's cheap enough to replace - unlike the Zeiss.

I actually think a fair few of the inital full frame upgraders will sell their a900 and a850 when they see future aps-c camera developments. FF is as a specialist a tool as medium format and is not for everybody. New, high quality c-class cameras should help people realise that. I certainly would not want to be carrying the 24-70 around - it has no place in amateur photography in my view- despite it's outstanding quality - as it is simply too short and too heavy- as you say.

[ImNoAnsel]

Thanks everyone for your advice. It seems I will be staying with zooms and a choice between sony and tamron 28 -75 - I will try to find examples to test in a shop to see what I would prefer to use.