Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[fractal]

I received my LA-EA4 adapter yesterday, but not in time for my daughter's lacrosse game on Sunday. I took these with the LA-EA1 + Minolta 200mm 2.8 on my Nex-7. Manually focused using focus peaking.
Having spent the last 6 months shooting indoor sports, I welcomed the outdoor scene and the glorious sun despite the chill. It was great to shoot at ISO 100-200, F4, and 1/800-2000/sec! The tri-nav controls on the NEX-7 made it so easy to switch shutter speeds as the sun would move in and out of the clouds. It's something I'm afraid I'll miss if I change cameras.

 

[havoc315]

Damn those are sharp! Look professional to me.

I received my LA-EA4 adapter yesterday, but not in time for my daughter's lacrosse game on Sunday. I took these with the LA-EA1 + Minolta 200mm 2.8 on my Nex-7. Manually focused using focus peaking.
Having spent the last 6 months shooting indoor sports, I welcomed the outdoor scene and the glorious sun despite the chill. It was great to shoot at ISO 100-200, F4, and 1/800-2000/sec! The tri-nav controls on the NEX-7 made it so easy to switch shutter speeds as the sun would move in and out of the clouds. It's something I'm afraid I'll miss if I change cameras.

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, I agree with Havoc......they look awesome!

 

[fractal]

Thanks Havoc and Harry. Like I said, the sunlight had much to do with it. Shooting indoor swimming and Waterpolo was a real challenge, but made the lax game seem easy.

 

[zackiedawg]

Top notch shots indeed, Fractal...those definitely have not only the clarity and sharpness, but the 3-D pop for that real pro look. Very nicely done!

 

[Hockeyman]

The upgraded Tamron USD, under $300 used.. is a nice lens, but didn't blow me away. Certainly, it's a good value for the money, and a good way to reach 300mm.

I had a bit of love for the beercan, and you can get a good copy for under $150. I wouldn't really use it as telephoto, but I totally would use it for portraits -- With the constant F4, and just the way it is constructed, it produces truly beautiful bokeh. Also doubles as a semi-macro lens:
A Flower by the Minolta Beercan by Havoc315, on Flickr

Beercan portrait:

untitled-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

For that matter, if you want a fun lens and willing to do a prime, you will NOT regret the Minolta 100/2.8 macro. I preferred it over the Sony 85/2.8. It is just one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, with no distortion.. beautiful bokeh, plus true 1:1 macro.

Minolta 100/2.8 portrait:

untitled-22.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-13-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

[/QUOTE]

Great shots Havoc. You know im still up in the air on what to get. I think I would use a telphoto more so than a 85,100 or 200 prime so im leaning to something in the 70-300 range. I have an old Sigma that im using it is just mediocre IMO

This was shot using the Sigma and came ok but nothing too stellar.

Olé by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Great shots Havoc. You know im still up in the air on what to get. I think I would use a telphoto more so than a 85,100 or 200 prime so im leaning to something in the 70-300 range. I have an old Sigma that im using it is just mediocre IMO

This was shot using the Sigma and came ok but nothing too stellar.

Olé by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr[/QUOTE]

When you pixel peep, you see bad CA and you really see the softness of the image. For a bargain, the Tamron 70-300 usd is much better, but not fantastic.

The Sony 70-300g should be even better, but many say that the Tamron is just as good optically, for a lot less money.

Here are examples of the Tamron 70-300 on the A99:

Hungry Giraffe by Havoc315, on Flickr

zoo-206.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

tamron-7.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

It's pretty sharp under 200mm. Over 200mm, it's so-so. But likely better than your Sigma.

 

[cgattis]

Well, I've been reading other reviews online, and boy does that Maxxum 200/2.8 get the love! Now, where to actually find one?? And the "old" teleconverter to go with it (seems the old one is faster and hunts less...?). Suggestions on good used online sellers? I'm too afraid of eBay for this; I need a real store with a return policy just in case. TIA!

 

[havoc315]

Well, I've been reading other reviews online, and boy does that Maxxum 200/2.8 get the love! Now, where to actually find one?? And the "old" teleconverter to go with it (seems the old one is faster and hunts less...?). Suggestions on good used online sellers? I'm too afraid of eBay for this; I need a real store with a return policy just in case. TIA!

I got mine on eBay but you do need to be careful -- only buy from sellers with tons of photography feedback. And there are reliable brick and mortar photography stores that actually use eBay to sell used gear. (I've bought a couple items from Robert's Camera via eBay).

You can also take a look at keh.com which is very reliable. Watch the sales forum on dyxum.com

Keh has one in excellent condition as of now.

It is truly a fantastic lens. The only downside is a tiny bit of purple fringing. But it gets much worse with the teleconverter.

 

[cgattis]

I got mine on eBay but you do need to be careful -- only buy from sellers with tons of photography feedback. And there are reliable brick and mortar photography stores that actually use eBay to sell used gear. (I've bought a couple items from Robert's Camera via eBay).

You can also take a look at keh.com which is very reliable. Watch the sales forum on dyxum.com

Keh has one in excellent condition as of now.

It is truly a fantastic lens. The only downside is a tiny bit of purple fringing. But it gets much worse with the teleconverter.

Thanks!! I'm sure I had already asked about those sites, but couldn't find the post!

So is $1000 about what I should expect to pay?

And tell me a little more about the teleconverter. Is it a reasonable alternative to a massively heavy lens to hike around Alaska with? Or is the fringing (and aberrations) so bad that I'll be unhappy with my photos? My friends were thrilled with the grainy stills they took from their HD minicam--I'm somewhere between that and willing to spend $2K on new equipment

 

[havoc315]

Thanks!! I'm sure I had already asked about those sites, but couldn't find the post!

So is $1000 about what I should expect to pay?

And tell me a little more about the teleconverter. Is it a reasonable alternative to a massively heavy lens to hike around Alaska with? Or is the fringing (and aberrations) so bad that I'll be unhappy with my photos? My friends were thrilled with the grainy stills they took from their HD minicam--I'm somewhere between that and willing to spend $2K on new equipment

eBay would be a little cheaper. $1,000 is a fair price for an excellent (KEH under-grades their stuff. If they say excellent, you'll probably find it perfect) copy with KEH warranty. With the fringing, you can mostly correct it in post.

I'm going a similar route for Alaska. I'll buy/rent the new Nikon 300 + teleconverters.

Comparing the Minolta 200 + 2x..... I found the overall sharpness similar to what I got at 300mm out of the Tamron 70-300. (So ok sharpness with tele, amazing sharpness without).

 

[cgattis]

Ok, again with a stupid question...I assumed a teleconverter could NOT be used with a zoom lens, but I just read a review on the Sony 70-400 where a guy said he did.

So if that's the case, wouldn't my ultimate in flexibility be the Sony 70-200/2.8 with a 1.5 or 2x TC?? Guessing that's not AS great a lens as the Maxxum 200, but is it still a pretty nice lens??

 

[havoc315]

Ok, again with a stupid question...I assumed a teleconverter could NOT be used with a zoom lens, but I just read a review on the Sony 70-400 where a guy said he did.

So if that's the case, wouldn't my ultimate in flexibility be the Sony 70-200/2.8 with a 1.5 or 2x TC?? Guessing that's not AS great a lens as the Maxxum 200, but is it still a pretty nice lens??

Yes, you can use the Sony teleconverter with the Sony 70-200/2.8 ---
The upside: convenience of zoom.

The bigger downside: The 70-200/2.8 is HUGE AND HEAVY. The Minolta lens is 790 grams. The Sony 70-200 is 1340 grams. So about 1.2 pounds heavier. That's a big difference in my book.
The prime lens is also sharper with a much nicer bokeh. (Especially when being used without teleconverter). And of course, the Sony 70-200/2.8 is much more expensive. (new, $3,000... used $1500).

In terms of the guy who may have used the 70-400 with a teleconverter --- You can do it, but in most cases, autofocus won't work any longer. So you can do it if you don't mind manual focus or very very inconsistent auto focus. Autofocus should still work with the 70-200/2.8.

In terms of image quality, compare:

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/572-sony70200f28ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/660-minolta200f28?start=1

You will see the Minolta prime is actually significantly sharper at 2.8.

 

[cgattis]

Yes, you can use the Sony teleconverter with the Sony 70-200/2.8 ---
The upside: convenience of zoom.

The bigger downside: The 70-200/2.8 is HUGE AND HEAVY. The Minolta lens is 790 grams. The Sony 70-200 is 1340 grams. So about 1.2 pounds heavier. That's a big difference in my book.
The prime lens is also sharper with a much nicer bokeh. (Especially when being used without teleconverter). And of course, the Sony 70-200/2.8 is much more expensive. (new, $3,000... used $1500).

In terms of the guy who may have used the 70-400 with a teleconverter --- You can do it, but in most cases, autofocus won't work any longer. So you can do it if you don't mind manual focus or very very inconsistent auto focus. Autofocus should still work with the 70-200/2.8.

In terms of image quality, compare:

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/572-sony70200f28ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/660-minolta200f28?start=1

You will see the Minolta prime is actually significantly sharper at 2.8.

Holy cow...three pounds! I actually hadn't even been looking at weights, but WOW, I realize I'd better! Having that thing hanging around my neck just in case I spot a critter may kill me over two weeks in AK! LOL!

I guess I'm just freaked out about using a prime lens. It's just not something I'm used to. I'm definitely not ruling it out yet, though. I see lots if reviews complaining about the autofocus speed of the Tamron esp in low light. Does anyone here have experience with the Sigma 70-200/2.8? I have another Sigma that I really like.

Let me say thanks again for answering a million questions for me! I know the thread says photo sharing and I'm not really doing that--yet!

 

[havoc315]

Holy cow...three pounds! I actually hadn't even been looking at weights, but WOW, I realize I'd better! Having that thing hanging around my neck just in case I spot a critter may kill me over two weeks in AK! LOL!

I guess I'm just freaked out about using a prime lens. It's just not something I'm used to. I'm definitely not ruling it out yet, though. I see lots if reviews complaining about the autofocus speed of the Tamron esp in low light. Does anyone here have experience with the Sigma 70-200/2.8? I have another Sigma that I really like.

Let me say thanks again for answering a million questions for me! I know the thread says photo sharing and I'm not really doing that--yet!

All 70-200/2.8 lenses are heavy. The sigma actually weighs more than the Sony.

When using a telephoto prime -- ask yourself, would you always be using a zoom lens at its maximum focal length anyway?
When shooting wildlife, you generally want as much reach as possible, and then crop for more.

My Alaska plan is a 300mm prime (with teleconverters), and an ultra wide zoom for landscapes. I actually don't care that much about anything in between. (Will bring a standard zoom or 50mm just for people shots).

With the 300mm on the camera, I might indeed miss a handful of shots by not being able to zoom out. But it's a trade worth making for me.

 

[cgattis]

All 70-200/2.8 lenses are heavy. The sigma actually weighs more than the Sony.

When using a telephoto prime -- ask yourself, would you always be using a zoom lens at its maximum focal length anyway?
When shooting wildlife, you generally want as much reach as possible, and then crop for more.

My Alaska plan is a 300mm prime (with teleconverters), and an ultra wide zoom for landscapes. I actually don't care that much about anything in between. (Will bring a standard zoom or 50mm just for people shots).

With the 300mm on the camera, I might indeed miss a handful of shots by not being able to zoom out. But it's a trade worth making for me.

Ugh, this is tough. You know when I spend $1000 on something, I feel compelled to get as much use out of it as I can! (Says the person with 375,000 miles on a Chevy Tahoe....). I'm scared of rentals, hauling it all around AK.

I'm torn now between the Maxxum 200 plus a 2x, or the Sigma plus a 2x. Biggest thing is knowing I have to swap lenses to get shots of people (or stay WAY behind them lol). But I hadn't really considered one other point...I still have my A100. I could haul that with an 18-50 for about the same weight as any 70-200! It acts a little flaky sometimes (hence my new A77), but I could swap out with ease AND I figured I'd take it as a backup (just left in the car, not on my back!) anyway. Hmmmmm.

Let's just hope we actually SEE some wildlife and this entire discussion isn't moot!

BIL had video today of an avalanche they witnessed from their flightseeing tour....cooooool!

 

[havoc315]

Ugh, this is tough. You know when I spend $1000 on something, I feel compelled to get as much use out of it as I can! (Says the person with 375,000 miles on a Chevy Tahoe....). I'm scared of rentals, hauling it all around AK.

I'm torn now between the Maxxum 200 plus a 2x, or the Sigma plus a 2x. Biggest thing is knowing I have to swap lenses to get shots of people (or stay WAY behind them lol). But I hadn't really considered one other point...I still have my A100. I could haul that with an 18-50 for about the same weight as any 70-200! It acts a little flaky sometimes (hence my new A77), but I could swap out with ease AND I figured I'd take it as a backup (just left in the car, not on my back!) anyway. Hmmmmm.

Let's just hope we actually SEE some wildlife and this entire discussion isn't moot!

BIL had video today of an avalanche they witnessed from their flightseeing tour....cooooool!

Yup, I'll have my RX100 as a backup, and just in case I quickly need a wider angle.

Remember, even with a 70-200 on the A77.... With an effective focal length of 105, it's not like you'll be capturing any wide shots.

Primarily, I just decide what types of shots I'm concentrating on. Whale watching, I'll keep the telephoto on the camera. Flight plane calls for a wider angle.

 

[Hockeyman]

When you pixel peep, you see bad CA and you really see the softness of the image. For a bargain, the Tamron 70-300 usd is much better, but not fantastic.

The Sony 70-300g should be even better, but many say that the Tamron is just as good optically, for a lot less money.

Here are examples of the Tamron 70-300 on the A99:

Hungry Giraffe by Havoc315, on Flickr

zoo-206.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

tamron-7.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

It's pretty sharp under 200mm. Over 200mm, it's so-so. But likely better than your Sigma.

These look pretty good. Im still up in the air on what to get but after struggling shooting with my Sigma 70-300 im heavily leaning on an upgrade.

 

[Hockeyman]

Mardi Gras at Universal Orlando

Beads Coming at ya by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Caydence feeds a giraffe at the Central Fl Zoo

Cadence feeling Emba at the Central FL zoo by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Spurred Tortoise at the Central FL Zoo

Spurred Tortoise at the Central FL zoo by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Sony Rumor mill heating up!

A7rII to be announced soon ( already in production? ). Likely has IBIS with more or less same body as the A7II. Question is if it will keep the 36mp sensor or get a new one.

Speaking of a new sensor; Another camera (or two) is also to be soon announced. Rumor is it will have a new 50mp sensor ( scaled up version of the 24mp APS-C?). Whether this is the
"Pro" A9 or a A99II (or both?) is still unknown.