|
Great OP! Pete Ganzel's site is indeed excellent. I had to clean up the blades on my 50/1.7 RS a while ago and thanks to his detailed instructions it was a breeze.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Lando2 posted:The Sony Alpha Rumors link doesn't work. Knowing what your subjects are/will be* is crucial if you want a better recommendation than the usual "just buy a Tamron 90/2.8" *Warhammer figures? Flowers? Critters?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Anyone tried the second gen 18-55? I'm more of a prime guy but I needed a standard zoom and ended up buying the surprisingly good 18-55 a couple of years ago. Curious to see how the new one compares.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
DoctaFun posted:Anyone interested in picking up an A77? I have a big package I'd love to sell, but I doubt there's anyone on here looking for all of that. But maybe someone's looking for an A77 body? Could pair it with any of Minolta 50/1.7, Sony 35/1.8, Sony 16-50/2.8, tamron 90/2.8 macro, tamron 70-300. Bad timing, I just bought a 16-50. The a77 would be perfect to go along with it and replace my trusty (but aging) a700, but current budget allowed one or the other, not both. Though odds are you're in the US (I'm in Europe) so this was doomed from the beginning v  v
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
So I was preparing to sell my Minolta 50/1.7, took some pictures and waaaait a minute... Goddamn it. Seems to be stuck between two elements on the rear group, so that's fun. Anything I can do? Disassembling the lens (to clean the aperture blades) was easy enough, but getting between two elements sounds much more complicated. Last time I skip the flashlight test when buying a used lens, I can tell you that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Went with plan B: sell the lens anyway. I did mention the fungal invaders, I'm not (that much of) an rear end in a top hat, but the lens still sold for 90 bucks  We'll see how things go when the guy receives the lens, I feel like I'm not out of the woods yet. In other news, I just bought a Sony 50/1.4 on the cheap, supposedly never used. Time to sell the 50/1.8 (also bought on the cheap, in mint condition), which should cover 2/3rds of the f/1.4's price. ...now if only I could get my hands on an decently priced beercan.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Thanks but I'm in Europe, where beercans often go over 150USD.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Sorry to double-post, but with the traffic this thread is getting I figured editing my previous post wouldn't get me an answer anytime soon. I was "convinced" by some family members to cover their daughter's christening in two weeks. Not that big a deal, I've covered a few events before, but I've never had such a bare-bones kit (sold my Sigma 24-70/2.8, Minolta 100/2.8 and CZ 135/1.8 to fund other hobbies, regretting it right about now). I'm down to a 18-55, 50/1.8 (soon to be replaced by a 50/1.4) and a 3600hsd. Camera's the a700. The 18-55 is not ideal for the very dark church the event will take place in, the 50 will probably be too long for most of the proceedings and the 3600 is quite anemic. Oh, and it doesn't loving rotate sideways. Budget constraints being what they are, I can only replace one piece of equipment. Question is, which one? My flash badly needs an update and there's a used F58 available right now; same price as a new F43 but I figure the 58 is the better deal. Of course with this choice I'll be stuck with f/3.5 to f/5.6 for pretty much the entire ceremony, which leads me to the other obvious replacement: the zoom. A Tamron 17-50 would work very nicely in low-light and/or small spaces, but even f/2.8 won't be enough in that dungeon of a church, so I'll still have to rely on a flash. Opinions welcome! seravid fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jul 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I'm tempted to recommend the flash. While the kit lens aperture is nothing special, at least you'll be able to get the shot. If you're worried about image quality and need a shallow depth of field, maybe pick up a Sony 35mm f/1.8 and a Minolta 24mm f/2.8? I'm not sure about Euro prices, but here in the US, you should be able to find those for the same price as a Tamron 17-50, if not a bit cheaper. That's actually just what I was thinking. I bought the 50/1.4 because it was a good deal, but I realize 50mm on APS-C is pretty awkward: it's often too short for portrait and too long for general use. There's a couple of used 35's on ebay (around 180USD), I think I'll grab one and sell the 50 when it arrives; good way to save a few bucks considering I'm not going full frame anytime soon. Plus, the 35 is apparently sharp even wide open, that'll be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
OP jumps ship? How quaint. Good luck with your new system, hope you find what you're looking for. fake edit: why carry 10+ pounds? Sell the big zooms if you're not using them, sure, but why not keep the a99 and the CZ primes? That's a pretty awesome combo at a very reasonable weight. Not very compact, though, I'll give you that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Wait, Sony's finally releasing a 70-200 f/4 and it's not for the alpha mount? What?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Sony press release posted:G Lens 70-200mm F4 OSS Telephoto Zoom Lens (model SEL70200G) Stabilized and all the cool modern stuff the beercan lacks. I just don't understand why they're not making it for the alpha mount. Who's gonna mount a (relatively) huge, heavy, white lens full of buttons, switches and a goddamn tripod ring on a NEX?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So I haven't had a Sony for ages now. I sold my last Sony DSLR back in 2007 (A700). I remember back during the A700 days there was quite the uproar on NR done on the raw files. Basically creating a water color smear effect at higher ISOs. I haven't followed Sony much since 2007 but I was reading some newer Sony reviews which say this is still around(NR applied to RAW). Can anyone elaborate on how things have changed since 2007? A firmware update disabled the always-on NR on the A700. Don't know about current models but I doubt they've re-enabled it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
The 30/2.8 is only a good choice if you're going to shoot minerals, flowers, LEGO's or dead cool insects; its working distance is so short (2cm at 1:1) you'll scare most of the live ones. If you just want to mess around, slap on a close-up lens or a couple of extension tubes on a regular ol' 50mm and presto cheapo macro kit. If you're committed and you want to shoot living critters in the field, you're going to need a longer focal length. This means upping your budget a bit and the Minolta 100/2.8 Macro is the best bang for your buck. Check Dyxum to see the differences between the three existing models; unless you find a amazing deal, I'd recommend staying clear of the first (called "old") one. Keep in mind lighting your subjects at high magnifications is a pain in the rear end and natural light alone won't cut it more often than not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:Tamron 90mm macro is Well said. A working distance of 10cm for a 90mm lens is a disgrace.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
huhu posted:So I've decided to change my priorities for a bit and not focus on macro for the time being due to price. (Unless I've stupidly listed a macro lenses in my choices.) After reading through the original post and searching a bit, I decided on Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF Lens and Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM DT. Are these good choices for the next step after my kit lenses? Good choices for what? The 50 is nice for portrait but a little long for general use on APS-C cameras. The 55-200 should be pretty versatile, I guess, but too short for wildlife. The Minolta used to be drat cheap, but nowadays the Sony 50/1.8 SAM is probably the better choice. YMMV, good luck on ebay, watch out for fungi and oily blades, etc. As for the telephoto, can't help you there, but Kurt Munger is a cool dude and he seems to like it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
The a850 is one hell of a camera, but it's pretty old by today's standards and really isn't the best tool to shoot wildlife. For bird photography you want good high ISO performance, good burst and all the latest focusing gizmos, which means something like the a77 II. Also: that sample you posted has noise reduction on. If you want the best possible quality out of your shots and you've got time to do some post-processing, RAW with NR completely off is the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:47
|
|