Close to home in Scotland (A900) - updated

[braeside]

First outing with Sony A900 DSLR today, a visit to the village of Culross in Fife, Scotland:
0. Tamron 17-35mm 1/50s f/14.0 at 20.0mm iso200


1. Tamron 17-35mm 1/200s f/2.8 at 22.0mm iso200


2. 1/100s f/4.0 at 35.0mm iso200


3. 1/6s f/8.0 at 22.0mm iso200


4. 1/40s f/10.0 at 24.0mm iso200


5. Sony 70-300G 1/60s f/5.6 at 210.0mm iso200
On the way home, the ancient standing stones at Tuilyies.


6. Sony 70-300G 1/640s f/5.6 at 210.0mm iso 200
Geese flew over as I got out of the car to photograph the stones.

[aster]

Congratulations!

It appears that you have all that your heart desired as a camera and its lenses...
Very nicce photos. I like the village house for its colour in the sunlight, the woven fencing by the trail makes a lovely autumn frame, and the ancient stones...and the fragile flowers. I suppose you can't go wrong with the subjects when you have this camera!

Enjoy your new camera and share more when you can...

Thanks,
Yildiz

[braeside]

Thanks, I am very pleased with the camera, and the Tamron 17-35 works better than I thought it would too. I am missing a decent zoom for mid range, and may save up for the CZ 24-70. I hope to try my primes next, but the weather is awful now, heavy rain and wind forecast.

[David Kilpatrick]

Consider the Tamron/KM 28-75mm. I'm dithering between using this and the 35-200xi at the moment for a forthcoming trip. I like the range of the 35-200xi at the long end, but really miss 28mm. I could do with a decent 24-135mm and it's tempting to try ordering a suitable Tamron or Sigma, but worrying that the quality could be just not up to it. The 35-200mm needs to be at f11 ideally, for very sharp results, though it's pretty amazing wide open it depends on the distance (gets much softer for close subjects). The 28-75mm is very good by f5.6 and of course, excellent at f11, but the main appeal is the fantastic close focusing to just over 1ft at 75mm. I have to think, which do I use most, tele or close?

One thought I am having is that a Teleplus 7-element 2X converter might work surprisingly well with the 28-75mm and of course, it would double the already incredible 1:3.9 (0.256X) close ups to become almost 1:2 which is as good as a macro. But then - the Tamron 24-135mm SP focuses to 1:3.3 directly. It could be a very good compromise.

David

[Dr. Harout]

Congratulations, David.
I am very happy for you.
But please, do be kind and tell us how you persuaded your wife, or is it still the 5D ?
So you're gm4jjj on dyxum, so I will not repeat what I've said there.

[braeside]

Thanks David, I value your thoughts on this. I did have a KM 28-75mm and sold it only recently, before I decided to get the A900. I never used it after I got the CZ 16-80. You may recall I had some initial problems with the 28-75, but it was repaired by Minolta and seemed a lot better after that. However I am a bit wary of getting another as they are commanding a fair price these days and I may be better putting the money towards a CZ 24-70 (though I appreciate that it is huge and heavy by comparison). I must try my Minolta 24-85mm but I suspect it will be as bad as your reports of the 24-105mm. Got Photoworld magazine today and have enjoyed the read and sample photos (large) - excellent.

[braeside]

Congratulations, David.
I am very happy for you.
But please, do be kind and tell us how you persuaded your wife, or is it still the 5D ?
So you're gm4jjj on dyxum, so I will not repeat what I've said there.

Yes, confusing isn't it! - GM4JJJ is my ham radio callsign, and Braeside is my house.

She knows all about the Sony, but perhaps not the actual price

[David Kilpatrick]

I just ordered a Kenko 2X MC-7 DG converter (8-contact and digital coatings) for £95 plus postage from MicroGlobe. There are some around on eBay from £69 up but most are old 5-contact M-AF versions, or the M-AFi eight contact non-digital enhanced version. They have a £200+ new version which is an attempt to get in on APO lens conversion. I always found the MC-7 design pretty good with my 70-210mm before I sold my original (M-AF) converter many years ago. It will in any case be interesting to see how the new MC-7 DG works with my 100mm SF or macro, with the 70-210mm f4, and with the 28-75mm f2.8. It may be a waste of time, who knows, but it's very small and I would normally stop down to f11-f16 for close ups. I have to remember, from the distant past, that this 2X also does a very good job with the 50 and 100mm macro lenses turning them into 2:1 magnification.

I wonder whether it will work at all with SSM lenses though!

David

[bakubo]

Consider the Tamron/KM 28-75mm. I'm dithering between using this and the 35-200xi at the moment for a forthcoming trip. I like the range of the 35-200xi at the long end, but really miss 28mm. I could do with a decent 24-135mm and it's tempting to try ordering a suitable Tamron or Sigma, but worrying that the quality could be just not up to it.

Have you given any thought to the Minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5? I have one I bought in excellent condition at a Tokyo used camera shop in 1999. There are two fairly big negatives though:

1. The close focus is something like 6 feet.
2. There is no lens hood and if you have it on FF then you have to be very careful which after market one you buy so that it doesn't vignette. When I used to use this lens on my 9xi I used a 72mm telescoping rubber hood I bought in Tokyo and that didn't vignette. This isn't an issue on an A700 or other APS-C DSLR though.

It is also a fairly heavy, large lens and that is a negative for me too when I travel.

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, I've thought hard about it - there is one for £175 or so available, but no indication of condition, and condition is vital with this lens. Basically, it is not safe to buy one unseen. I used to use this lens all the time at one point on 35mm film, but found that my work often involves placing a foreground and background together (environment portraits, and juxtaposed details and scene). It simply was too limited because of the close focus, often losing me shots when people moved too close. I think it is possibly the best lens, optically, for the full frame wide to tele requirement. Before using this lens I had the original 35-135mm Konica Hexanon zoom on the Konica film cameras - that, also was exceptional. So was the 1974 Soligor 45-135mm (even bigger and heavier than the later designs). The Konica was the first modern, multicoated wide to tele SLR zoom.

Close-up work is important to me and unless I happen to find a mint, perfect 28-135mm around £100 I won't jump!

David

[bakubo]

David, this guy says he tried the Tamron 24-135mm on the A900:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=29955269

[KevinBarrett]

These are very lovely creative pictures! I especially like #3 and #4. The Bokeh effects in #3 look like some of Sonolta's photoshopping filters!

[David Kilpatrick]

David, this guy says he tried the Tamron 24-135mm on the A900:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=29955269

I saw that - looks like it was the worst of the bunch, and everyone has always said the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-3.5 was worse than the Tamron. I am pretty sure I had the Tamron on the Kodak full frame DCS 14n and was not impressed - I know I have tested it, but it might be back in the film era. The last time I tested a Tamron 28-300mm other than the VC was definitely on digital as well as film, but on the Fuji S2.

David

[braeside]

I just read an observation on DPR http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=29954642" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; by the guy that has been testing MF against A900 with various lenses and he reckons his Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 does a better job than his CZ 24-70mm (which he says appears to be blurred at one side). This is slightly worrying! I will check my Minolta 24-85mm out now, but don't hold up much hope for CZ quality from it.

[David Kilpatrick]

I just read an observation on DPR http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=29954642" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; by the guy that has been testing MF against A900 with various lenses and he reckons his Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 does a better job than his CZ 24-70mm (which he says appears to be blurred at one side). This is slightly worrying! I will check my Minolta 24-85mm out now, but don't hold up much hope for CZ quality from it.

I think that's a very superficial opinion. The 24-105mm is very sharp - but only centrally, and the distortion is very strong, so is CA. The shots I have taken on Alpha 900s appear more blurred at the right hand side than anywhere else, including the test Alpha 900 bodies used at the launch. I would guess the sensor is physically attached in some way which tends to put the right hand end of the picture slightly out of the film plane - maybe the sensor mounting always tends to be slightly out of true. Since this 'weak right hand side' appears to affect all lenses to tiny degree on my camera, I assume it's my camera and not all the lenses. It is most visible at wide apertures - f2.8 on the 28-75mm at 75mm for example. It follows that the 24-70mm might show it when the 24-105mm, which already has loads of aberrations anyway, would not.

David