Lenses!

[bfitzgerald]

I'm good for bodies and other bits
Gaps wise I don't have an UWA for non FF, I might look at a better tele lens (zoom up to 300mmm) I've also considered a Samyang 85mm f1.4 for those times when I need the speed or for ultra shallow DOF portrait work

Any suggestions appreciated or real world user thoughts on options. Good or bad

[ValeryD]

I have a lot experience only with my set of the zoom lenses.
1 - old SAL55200 - Plus - good, sharp, compact lens. Minus - very slow autofocus and not so good Bokeh.
2 - Tamron SP 70-300 USD - very good, sharp, fast, quiet lens. I think it's the same like SAL70300G lens, but 3 times less expensive. I did compare Tamron with Sony lenses and can't see different in quality. It's my favorite lens after SAL1680CZ
3 - My old manual Jupiter-9 (Zeiss 85/2) - very good for portrait work, but manual and lot of CA.
Many people use Samyang 85/1.4 and very happy with the quality the lens.
I used to play with SAL70200G, SAL 300/F2,8, SAL 500/F4 - very good lenses, I'll say the best result got from 300/F2.8, but price for this lens out of my budget...

[mikeriach]

For a something to 300, the Sigma 70-300 lenses are pretty decent for the money. The OS version I had was slightly sharper than the Sony 70-300G in the centre only losing out at the edages/corners. The OS version also has the in lens motor so does not stiffer from the stripped drive gears.

For me I found the focus better on the Sony, didn't hunt as much and reacted just a little faster. The free floating OS element group rattled a little when not activated which was a little disconcerting but it gave another stabilising option.

I remember DK didn't like the lack of close focus but overall liked the lens. It's a good travel lens, quite compact though not in the Minolta 100-300 APO league for size. The Minolta just didn't perform on digital for me but was very good on film.

The old style Tamron 70-300 was quite good too but if pushed I'd go for the Sigma. Pirate on here rated the Sigma 100-300 f4 if I recall, perhaps worth picking his brain.

Mike

[Birma]

The Signa 70-300 dg apo macro gets my vote for bargain telephoto. Can't vouch for AF, but it is very sharp in the centre and has a nice oof effect.

For Uwa I would want to try the sigma 8-16. I am very impressed withe the 12-24 and DK, I think, says that the 8-16 is just as good. I wasn't impressed with the Tamron 11-18.

[mvanrheenen]

I have the 70-300G and 70-400G. Both are similar in optical performance, although I feel the 70-400G is sharper from wide open to around f/8 and has better CA control. Both are very sharp from f/8 to f/11, but I feel I need to boost contrast a bit on both. The 70-300G is a bit expensive for what it is, but I have little experience with other zooms in this range. I read good things about the Sony 55-300 and Tamron 70-300 USD. I did have a Sony 55-200 when I started out. This was a nice lens for a kit lens. Last but not least, the 70-400G weighs a lot, the 70-300G about half.

What I did notice about both G's is that AF is only spot on if the focus distance is under say 5 meters. The farther the subject, the more focus misses. I use MF for those situations. Maybe it has to do with my camera (a580), I'm not that knowledgeable about photographic hardware.

Mark

[bfitzgerald]

Thanks for the information from all
My current thinking is

UWA:
11-18mm is too old it was a decent enough lens back in ye day but we were at much lower mp figures then I'm not sure the lens would hold up so well, and the price is high for an older design in the Sony badge, so that's off the list. The Tamron 10-24 seems to get mixed reviews, though user reviews are more positive.
The Sigma 8-16mm is crazy wide for APS-C that could be worth a look, another consideration is the Tokina offering can't think of much else bar the 12-24mm and I probably don't need that wide for full frame (the 17mm is good enough there)

Tele lens:
To make sense I'd need about 300mm top end, I'd avoid APS-C as I might use it the odd time on 35mm. The Sony 70-300mm G I used it once before ages ago it was good, but that was a while back and I think the price is pretty heavy. Not used the Sigma version the only other one I thought about was the Tamron USD newer lens which seems pretty good

Fast short tele prime well no choices there bar the Zeiss or Samyang or I could hold out and see if they update the lens with AF (MF wouldn't be a problem)

Would be useful if DK has used any of those. Nothing is urgent but I know I get into an UWA mode and it can be hugely fun and addictive

[ValeryD]

Thanks for the information from all
My current thinking is

.....

Would be useful if DK has used any of those. Nothing is urgent but I know I get into an UWA mode and it can be hugely fun and addictive

I'm not sure, but for UWA I have Opteka(Samyang) 6.5мм +Sony a300 - for fun and really UWA use. Yes it does CA on the corners, but can be fix so easy with the lens preset in LR by one click. Best part of shooting - don't need to worry about the focus. I like Samyang lens quality.
Some latest examples:
https://plus.google.com/114643882696180 ... SUqutigRXy

[bfitzgerald]

Thanks was not aware that lens was about, though I'm not sure I'd need to go that wide
Tele lens wise I'd try a big beercan or 100-300mm APO if I can find a good sample, otherwise the Tamron looks good

I've heard very mixed reports on the sigma but will investigate further

[Wes Gibbon]

I believe the Tokina 11-16 has had some good reviews.

What would suit me (or would if I were using APS-c) would be a nice small prime UWA, like the Vivitar 19mm I used with ny manual focus kit. It wasn't brilliant optically (what UWA is?) but it was OK and it was small and compact (62mm filter thread, for example). It surprises me that NOONE, even Canon & Nikon, appears to make such a lens for APS-C dslrs. Sony make a couple of pancakes for CSCs (16mm & 20mm) but only zooms for A-mount. There are still UWA primes for FF, but of course with an APS-C sensor they case to be UWA...

[bfitzgerald]

Well I'm down to 17mm (on FF and APS-C) which is in most cases pretty wide and wide enough, but to get that wow bang super wide you need a bit more esp for APS-C
Samyang 14mm is supposed to be good for a prime UWA, though again on APS-C it's still pretty wide but not nearly as much as FF obviously.

I don't want to go to a fish-eye it's such a specialist lens and very limited in use (fun but how often would you use it?)
That would be the absolute last lens I would buy (I'm not sure I could even justify such a lens borrow one yes buy one not really)

I'll chew it over for a bit. I also discovered I had a dodgy filter on the old 75-300mm D, which was doing a mangle job on IQ whilst the lens is far from the best out there (CA hell at times) it's an awful lot better since I took that off. I replaced the filter and now the IQ is as good as without the filter it's funny how something can go overlooked like that. I'll still look at getting a better tele zoom though that was merely for a play around, though the lens isn't nearly as bad as some suggest (PF issues are the main problem they can rage at times)

[ValeryD]

Well I'm down to 17mm .....

I have 16-80CZ for it. Works like a charm.

I don't want to go to a fish-eye it's such a specialist lens and very limited in use (fun but how often would you use it?)...

all most every day for work and it does the job perfectly fine with UWA

[bfitzgerald]

Well 16mm isn't really UWA on a crop body it's pretty wide surely wide enough at times, but sometimes silly wide can work rather nicely. I'll put this on the back burner and chew it over for a while, none of the purchases are essential right now, just trying to gauge some opinions.

[bakubo]

What would suit me (or would if I were using APS-c) would be a nice small prime UWA, like the Vivitar 19mm I used with ny manual focus kit. It wasn't brilliant optically (what UWA is?) but it was OK and it was small and compact (62mm filter thread, for example). It surprises me that NOONE, even Canon & Nikon, appears to make such a lens for APS-C dslrs. Sony make a couple of pancakes for CSCs (16mm & 20mm) but only zooms for A-mount. There are still UWA primes for FF, but of course with an APS-C sensor they case to be UWA...

I know what you mean. I have had several UWA zooms over the years:

Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 that I used on my Minolta 35mm SLRs
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 that I used on various Canon APS-C DSLRs
Sony 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 that I used on my A700 and A100
Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 that I use on my E-M5

I mostly use these UWA zooms at their widest setting and rarely at other settings. In all cases I would have been happier to have a smaller, lighter prime lens of somewhere between 16mm and 20mm fov and f4 or so. If there had been a Canon or Sony mount lens like an 11mm f4 or f4.5 that was small, light, and preferably no more than say $300 then I probably would have gotten it instead of the bigger, heavier zooms. Fortunately, the Olympus 9-18mm is surprisingly small, but if there was a rather tiny 8mm f4 or f4.5 (the size of the 14mm f2.5 or 20mm f1.7) then I would probably go for it instead of the zoom.

[Vidgamer]

With the 16mm or 20mm primes for e-mount, you can add a Sony UWA adapter which will bring the 16mm to a 12mm. That's something I don't think I ever would have ended up trying with a-mount. However, some people don't like the quality of the 16mm, so YMMV.

As for 300mm lenses, I have the 100-300APO, which I picked due to good reviews (Dyxum, etc.) and also the knowledge that it was compact for a 300mm lens. It's really sharp, although sometimes I feel that contrast is not what it could be. I have a couple of large prints (one is 20x30 inches) from it that I like. If buying today, I'd have to look at the new Sony.

[bfitzgerald]

Can't justify the cost of the Sony not for a normal speed it offers it's nearly £700 official UK stock (you can get it somewhat cheaper grey import) it's a nice lens but not priced very well. I've never really regretted buying Minolta lenses or third party offerings one of the problems is Sony just don't have a lens I want

It's kinda stupid to pay £500 for the 11-18mm when it's an older Tamron design (fine in it's day but not worth it now)
Sony don't make an 85mm f1.8 which kills that idea stone dead (don't make it can't buy it)
I bought a Tamron 90mm f2.8 as it's basically on a par with the 100mm f2.8 macro and cost half the price (I've used both nothing in it optics wise)

The only competitive lens they have is the 16-50mm f2.8 which is bashing around very cheaply (it's a good price for a WR SSM lens) but I don't need those bits so the Tamron stays for now. I suspect most of those are split from body kits

They have no affordable 24mm prime (only the f2 Zeiss) no 28mm prime at all, no affordable 24- something zoom (just the 28-75mm f2.8 which is evidently the Tamron in a new case) SAR say a new 24-105mm f4 is coming

To be fair the 55-300mm looks pretty good and it's an ok price but I don't really want a crop tele zoom for the odd time I might use it on 35mm
I'm not ribbing Sony but honestly most of the lenses I want they just don't make, it's no wonder people hit ebay and start buying Minolta lenses..or save themselves a bucket load of cash and buy some Tamron glass. Hence I tend to look at those rather than what Sony have now they don't have a reasonable competitively priced 70-300mm tele zoom. Field of dreams really "if you build it they will come" if you don't they will buy ebay Minolta lenses and Tamron