Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Teleconverter-Minolta-Mount-Lenses/dp/B000CD6B6W

Might have stopped selling it because the Sony market is shrinking.

 

[cgattis]

Yep, saw that--that's what got me thinking about that. Well, hopefully the old Minolta one will work even if only in MF, and I may pick up one of these too.

Thanks everyone for being patient with my stupid questions!! I was hoping to post some pics tonight but both our games got rained out. Promise I'll have something to share after the weekend!

 

[fractal]

 

[havoc315]

Yep, saw that--that's what got me thinking about that. Well, hopefully the old Minolta one will work even if only in MF, and I may pick up one of these too.

Thanks everyone for being patient with my stupid questions!! I was hoping to post some pics tonight but both our games got rained out. Promise I'll have something to share after the weekend!

Should autofocus just fine. Minolta = Sony. They are identical. AF may be slow, but that's the case with all 2x teleconverters with Sony cameras -- Sony dSLTs aren't great at AFing with smaller aperture, as required with a teleconverter.
When using the Minolta 2x with the Minolta 200/2.8 on the Sony A99, I usually got decent AF, but it definitely hunted at times. The Sigma zoom lens probably has a slightly slower transmission, so I might expect slightly more hunting. I'd avoid using the teleconverter unless you are in very bright daylight and absolutely completely need the extra reach.

 

[fractal]

 

[Hockeyman]

TamronSP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD vs Sony 70-300G

Tamron is around $290 used with the Sony $400-$500 used. Tamron is rated pretty close to the Sony on Kurt Mugner so is there really and justification on spending more on the Sony, pros/cons?

 

[havoc315]

TamronSP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD vs Sony 70-300G

Tamron is around $290 used with the Sony $400-$500 used. Tamron is rated pretty close to the Sony on Kurt Mugner so is there really and justification on spending more on the Sony, pros/cons?

I owned the Tamron. It was "good." Even very good. It was not spectacular. I never used the Sony, which will have slightly better build quality. (The Tamron has decent build quality itself). I suspect the Sony 70-300g is likely a little better even in IQ, and if the price difference is less than $150, I'd go with the Sony. When I made my purchase, you couldn't get the Sony for under $600.

 

[Hockeyman]

I owned the Tamron. It was "good." Even very good. It was not spectacular. I never used the Sony, which will have slightly better build quality. (The Tamron has decent build quality itself). I suspect the Sony 70-300g is likely a little better even in IQ, and if the price difference is less than $150, I'd go with the Sony. When I made my purchase, you couldn't get the Sony for under $600.

I've seen the Tamron for $220 and can squeeze that much now, but the $400 - $500 for the Sony is a little tougher, especially after getting the Sigma 35. I might just get the Tarmon for now and then next year see which direction im headed, if any, and then can always get the Sony then.

 

[havoc315]

I've seen the Tamron for $220 and can squeeze that much now, but the $400 - $500 for the Sony is a little tougher, especially after getting the Sigma 35. I might just get the Tarmon for now and then next year see which direction im headed, if any, and then can always get the Sony then.

If you get the Tamron that cheap, you can always re-sell it if you don't like it. Even if you lose $50 on the re-sale, it's like renting the lens for a few weeks. Almost nothing to lose. It's the great thing about buying used lenses.

As someone who mostly left A-mount, the USED lenses are something I miss.
Nikon has a vastly superior collection of mid-priced high quality new glass. But most of their older used lenses are lower optical quality and/or lack any stabilization. The best lens I have ever used in my life is the Minolta 200/2.8 which goes for under $1,000. And I basically broke even when I resold it to fractal. Nikon has an older 180/2.8, but it is not stabilized and the reviews suggest the IQ is merely ok for a prime. Can get the old Minolta 80-200/2.8 for under $1,000, and it is still a spectacular lens for IQ. The older Nikon 80-200/2.8 may be about the same IQ, and about the same used price, but obviously lacks stabilization.
With new lenses... Nikon and Canon offer plenty of stabilized lenses, with stabilization that works better than IBIS. But IBIS gives older used lenses much greater value.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

TamronSP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD vs Sony 70-300G

Tamron is around $290 used with the Sony $400-$500 used. Tamron is rated pretty close to the Sony on Kurt Mugner so is there really and justification on spending more on the Sony, pros/cons?

Wish I had used the Tamron in order to give you a comparison but as I've said the Sony is a favorite of mine. But there's probably little to lose in buying the Tamron and trying it out - I'm all for saving some $$$$'s if possible!

 

[fractal]

Gary Fong - why I switched from Canon and Nikon to Sony.

 

[havoc315]

Gary Fong - why I switched from Canon and Nikon to Sony.

I try to ignore all the promoters of why I switched from ______ to ________. Usually, it's a mix of a few good points and a few ignorant points. And often, I believe they have ulterior motives even when they deny being "sponsored."

Fong has a youtube video a while ago showing off the focus tracking on the A77ii, and he basically said that you can't do focus tracking with Canon or Nikon cameras. (which is false).

 

[fractal]

More Minolta 200mm 2.8 goodness. This time from my younger daughter's lax game.

 

[havoc315]

More Minolta 200mm 2.8 goodness. This time from my younger daughter's lax game.

Great shots! Do you get stares or comments about your weird looking white lens on tiny mirror less body?

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, these look terrific!!!!!!!

 

[fractal]

Great shots! Do you get stares or comments about your weird looking white lens on tiny mirror less body?

Thanks - always get weird looks. Somebody once told me I may get even better shots if I "upgraded" to a Canon Rebel.

 

[fractal]

Fractal, these look terrific!!!!!!!

Thanks Harry!

 

[havoc315]

Thanks - always get weird looks. Somebody once told me I may get even better shots if I "upgraded" to a Canon Rebel.

HAHAHAHA. I found when shooting with that lens, it usually had the opposite effect -- knowledgeable people assuming it was a pro Canon lens, or people at least assuming it was a fairly professional set up.

And truthfully... LOOK at your sports shots. Those are indeed completely professional quality. I really don't know how many 30 year old lenses can come close to results like that. My new modern Nikon lenses are very very good, but they honestly aren't as good as that old Minolta. Maybe I need to upgrade to a Rebel.

 

[fractal]

HAHAHAHA. I found when shooting with that lens, it usually had the opposite effect -- knowledgeable people assuming it was a pro Canon lens, or people at least assuming it was a fairly professional set up.

And truthfully... LOOK at your sports shots. Those are indeed completely professional quality. I really don't know how many 30 year old lenses can come close to results like that. My new modern Nikon lenses are very very good, but they honestly aren't as good as that old Minolta. Maybe I need to upgrade to a Rebel.

Yes - I have had other people ask me what kind of lens it was assuming it was a Canon.

 

[fractal]

@havoc315 - definitely thrilled with the lens! I haven't had the chance to try out the teleconverter but the lens is a beauty. Since I had plenty of light I used the LA-EA4 adapter with no real issues.



A few more samples.