Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear

Best Alpha Mount Lenses? (ie, for sony a900)

<< < (2/4) > >>

pegelli:
Regarding your macro questions:

Don't have a lot of info for short macros, but they're all good. Even the old Minolta 50/1.7 + extension tubes does a very good job on macro as well.

100 mm: Minolta RS, Minolta D and Sony are optically the same with round aperture, only the "original" 100/2.8 has a more cornered aperture (noticable in bokeh) but still has the same glass. Sigma 105/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 are also highly regarded and even the old cosina 100/3.5 (also called the "plastic fantastic") is optically very good but build quality is a real downer, but hey you can ususally find them very cheap.

200 mm: the APO f4 is a real collectors item and supposed to be supurb. Yesterday one went on german e-bay in excess of € 1400,   , so for me a clear case of "enough is enough" and look for a Tamron or Sigma 180/3.5 which are also excellent.

If there is one "old" lens you really need to consider it's the 200/2.8 APO. Probably one of the best lenses ever produced in the Minolta A-mount. Hard to describe but the pictures taken with it have some real magic crispness and plasticity. There's a "standard" and a "high speed" version but they are optically identical. They're not cheap, around 700 - 950€ depending on condition/version, but if you can find a good one I think it's worth every penny spent on it.

Happy hunting, and don't forget: every lens you buy, new or 20 years old, is stabilised !

lattiboy:
I can't comment on many of the lenses you mentioned because I've never really had that kind of $$$ to spend on glass, but I've owned as many lenses as most people on dyxum, so I'll give you the "cheapskate" list:

Macro:

Minolta 50mm f/3.5 1:2. Optically perfect in every way. Seems to fully resolve the A900 wide-open. Kind of hard to find, but usually go for around $250. Can double as "standard" 50mm, focus is quite good for a macro.

Sample shot from 50mm f/3.5

Ultra WA:

Sigma 15-30mm EX DG. Excellent build, tack sharp stopped down just a bit, bad flare control. Around $400. The CZ 16-35mm will likely be the lens to have in this area.  

Sample shot from Sigma 15-30mm

Wide-zoom:

Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. A super-compact zoom. Excellent when stopped down to f/6.3. Light falloff at 24mm, but nothing a tiny bit of PP can't fix. Rich Minolta colors with nice bokeh. $100-150.

Mid-zoom:

Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5 ("Secret Handshake"). It runs about $300 on ebay and has about the best range you'll find (24mm would've been great!) in a pro-type zoom. It compares well with the CZ 24-70mm w/r/t sharpness and has better bokeh.

100% crop from the 28-135mm on an A900. VERY fast focusing on A900.

Tele-zoom:

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. An amazing lens, especially considering it's roughly 1/3-1/2 the price of it's Minolta and Sony counterparts. Slow low-light focusing. $650-750.

Sample shot from Tamron 70-200mm

OR

Minolta 70-210mm f/4 "beercan". A true Minolta classic with rich, beautiful color and silky-smooth bokeh. Sharp wide-open, but CA is gone and sharpens up more stopped down to f/5.6 or so. Around $180 used for a good copy.

Sample shots from beercan


I just ordered a Minolta 85mm f/1.4, so I'll update when it arrives.

pyl:

--- Quote from: lattiboy ---Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5 ("Secret Handshake"). It runs about $300 on ebay and has about the best range you'll find (24mm would've been great!) in a pro-type zoom. It compares well with the CZ 24-70mm w/r/t sharpness and has better bokeh.
--- End quote ---

An excellent lens with one huge drawback: the minimum focusing distance is about six feet! I sold this to partly finance my Zeiss 24-70 instead which I'm happy with. The Zeiss does have some issues with flare though.

The best tele zoom is without question the Sony 70-200/2.8. It does have some issues with extreme corner sharpness and there has been rumours about this lens being upgraded for quite a while now.

lattiboy:

--- Quote from: pyl ---An excellent lens with one huge drawback: the minimum focusing distance is about six feet! I sold this to partly finance my Zeiss 24-70 instead which I'm happy with.
--- End quote ---

Yes, a very fair point. At 135mm, it's not too difficult, but you're certainly not going to be doing any closeups with it. Still, for 1/6 the price of the Zeiss, the IQ is very similar.

rickk:
So far in experimenting with older Minolta lenses on the A900 (and wishing I hadn't sold off my various Maxxum lenses a few years ago), the 28-135 has been a real surprise in just how good it is for a zoom. Although I expect to use the excellent 50 and 100 macros whenever possible, the 28-135 will probably be on the camera when some focal-length flexibility is needed. The 35-70 isn't as good in the overlapping range, but if you want a very small mid-range zoom that is not bad at f/8-f/11, these lenses are a real bargain. My copies of the 24 and 135 f/2.8 are not as good as I hoped they might be. The 100-400 is about as expected: OK and about on par with the Nikon 80-400 on a Kodak. As you are all well aware, the prices of used Minolta glass are jumping up fast. Good luck finding some gems.

Rick

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page