Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

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.

I think something is due soon... But I wouldn't trust SAR at all. They said a9 was coming in January/February.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I took this this AM and I don't know why... It just makes me so happy.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

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!

I've had the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 for several years - got it as a BD present from DH after I got my Sony A700 - and really like it a lot for sports. Personally I have not found it too heavy to use at any time. Now the 70-400 - that's a lens I have found weight to be an issue. If you're shooting some type of sport that is somewhat stationary - say gymnastics which has quite a few apparatus or perhaps tennis or something similar that is fairly contained then a prime could work but otherwise I'd find it pretty frustrating to not use a zoom unless you would definitely be far enough away that your fixed focal length would never be too great.

Also, about the Sony 70-300 G, I love that lens! It's been my favorite go to zoom since the moment I got it and I use it even more than my 70-200. If the light is good enough then that's what I'll take.

 

[cgattis]

I've had the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 for several years - got it as a BD present from DH after I got my Sony A700 - and really like it a lot for sports. Personally I have not found it too heavy to use at any time. Now the 70-400 - that's a lens I have found weight to be an issue. If you're shooting some type of sport that is somewhat stationary - say gymnastics which has quite a few apparatus or perhaps tennis or something similar that is fairly contained then a prime could work but otherwise I'd find it pretty frustrating to not use a zoom unless you would definitely be far enough away that your fixed focal length would never be too great.

Also, about the Sony 70-300 G, I love that lens! It's been my favorite go to zoom since the moment I got it and I use it even more than my 70-200. If the light is good enough then that's what I'll take.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm leaning hard toward the Sigma 70-200/2.8 just because it's half the price and still gets lots of good reviews. I'm going to buy it new so I have the option of returning if I'm really not happy. I'll definitely report back here and actually share a pic!! Thanks to all who've humored my questions!

 

[Hockeyman]

White Lightning at Funspot USA by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm leaning hard toward the Sigma 70-200/2.8 just because it's half the price and still gets lots of good reviews. I'm going to buy it new so I have the option of returning if I'm really not happy. I'll definitely report back here and actually share a pic!! Thanks to all who've humored my questions!

Good luck with the lens. I'm sure it will be great.
Weight is very subjective. I've seen people who honestly consider the massive 70-400 to be "easy to carry" and others who think a RX100 is too bulky and heavy.

I've found for my personal use, 2 lbs is the biggest lens that I can carry handheld for long stretches (hours at a time), and even that starts to wear on me eventually.
The heaviest I carry is my 70-200/4 (not Sony) with 2x teleconverter.. which is a touch over 2.5 pounds total. It's heavy. I don't mind carrying it for a few minutes, but I wouldn't want to walk around all day with it. But that's me. (For Alaska, I probably will do the new Nikon 300 + 2x, which will be about 2.5 lbs... but I'll put up with it in order to get 600mm.. Can't think of a lighter way to get 600mm on full frame).

 

[Hockeyman]

Meanwhile im still going back and forth on what lens im getting. Im trying to squeeze in the Sony F43 and a lens now and the Tamron 28-75 is now in the mix if I can pick up a used one at a reasonable price.

 

[havoc315]

Meanwhile im still going back and forth on what lens im getting. Im trying to squeeze in the Sony F43 and a lens now and the Tamron 28-75 is now in the mix if I can pick up a used one at a reasonable price.

The F43 is fantastic, well worth the money.
I don't think you'll get a huge amount of use out of the 28-75, not when you have the 50 you love.
For telephoto, I've noticed big price drops in the Sony 70-300 g, which probably is a fantastic lens for under $500.

 

[Hockeyman]

The F43 is fantastic, well worth the money.
I don't think you'll get a huge amount of use out of the 28-75, not when you have the 50 you love.
For telephoto, I've noticed big price drops in the Sony 70-300 g, which probably is a fantastic lens for under $500.

Only reason I love the 50 so much is its really the only walk around lens i have lol. Id love the Sigma Art 35mm if I had that also.
Where have you seen that lens under $500?

 

[Hockeyman]

If I can sell my Sigma 50 f1.4 for a decent amount and help offset the price of the 35 Art lens i would do that in a heart beat. Anyone in the market for a 50mm F1.4 lens?

 

[havoc315]

Only reason I love the 50 so much is its really the only walk around lens i have lol. Id love the Sigma Art 35mm if I had that also.
Where have you seen that lens under $500?

$425 -- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/us-sigma-50-14-sony-70300-g-mino-100300_topic111898.html

People dumping copies because the updated lens was just released.

The 50 is so so so much sharper than the 28-75.. I always found the inconvenience of a prime is well worth while when there is a huge optical difference compared to a zoom.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

$425 -- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/us-sigma-50-14-sony-70300-g-mino-100300_topic111898.html

People dumping copies because the updated lens was just released.

The 50 is so so so much sharper than the 28-75.. I always found the inconvenience of a prime is well worth while when there is a huge optical difference compared to a zoom.

Wow - that is definitely a "dumping" price.

 

[Hockeyman]

So guess what I just did . . . . . .? Finally just plunked down and bought the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 ART lens from Adorama and will be here tomorrow

 

[havoc315]

So guess what I just did . . . . . .? Finally just plunked down and bought the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 ART lens from Adorama and will be here tomorrow

Hmmm... Not much telephoto reach, lol. Congratulations, I'm sure it will be a great lens for you.

 

[Hockeyman]

Hmmm... Not much telephoto reach, lol. Congratulations, I'm sure it will be a great lens for you.

lol, none what so ever but its been the one lens I have wanted the most. Ill just suffer with my mediocre telephoto for now haha

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So guess what I just did . . . . . .? Finally just plunked down and bought the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 ART lens from Adorama and will be here tomorrow

Oh - experiencing lens envy right now! I'll just keep telling myself I always gravitate to a 50mm over a 35mm. Looking forward to hearing what you think of it.

 

[Hockeyman]

$425 -- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/us-sigma-50-14-sony-70300-g-mino-100300_topic111898.html

People dumping copies because the updated lens was just released.

The 50 is so so so much sharper than the 28-75.. I always found the inconvenience of a prime is well worth while when there is a huge optical difference compared to a zoom.

Wow - that is definitely a "dumping" price.

This guys just reduced the 70-300 down to $399, you think its worth it? Im really tempted.

 

[Hockeyman]

Oh - experiencing lens envy right now! I'll just keep telling myself I always gravitate to a 50mm over a 35mm. Looking forward to hearing what you think of it.

Lens should be here any min. Just waiting for UPS to show up here. Ive go my eagle eye on waiting for him lol

 

[havoc315]

This guys just reduced the 70-300 down to $399, you think its worth it? Im really tempted.

Honestly, yes. Hard to imagine finding it much cheaper. It's not as sharp as a prime lens, but it's as good as you get in a variable aperture telephoto.

And at that price... You shouldn't take much of a loss if you decide to simply re-sell it.

 

[Hockeyman]

Honestly, yes. Hard to imagine finding it much cheaper. It's not as sharp as a prime lens, but it's as good as you get in a variable aperture telephoto.

And at that price... You shouldn't take much of a loss if you decide to simply re-sell it.

You think it would work well for the occasional portrait if i run into any? Would be nice to have a decent telphoto and that would most certainly be an upgrade from what im using now