Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[Hockeyman]

Thanks Harry.The park was very quiet Tuesday morning while I was there for a few hours so crowds were pretty much no issue then. There were a few people behind me that took a group pic once I was done. I was going for a creepy dark foggy vibe with the shadows and the mist, I pulled it off a little but not as much as I would have liked. Still a great shot though

 

[Hockeyman]

Celebrate the Magic by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Speaking of good bokeh... Wondering if anyone here has experience with the Minolta Maxxum beercan, 70-210 f4 lens. Right now, I use a very old and low quality Maxxum zoom lens, 4.5-5.6. Wondering whether the beercan would be a nice and cheap step up, whether I should just stick where I am, or wait till I'm ready to spend more, and possibly get something like the Tamron 70-300/4.5-5.6 for a bit more money.

I have the 70-210 beercan although I never used it a lot since DH thought I needed the 70-200 f/2.8 for my BD shortly after I got the beercan. I wasn't exactly going to say no! I do have and use a few of the Maxxum lenses and my one comment would be on the CA that is more likely to occur (and which I haven't gotten good at removing in post processing). My understanding is the coating on the lenses were of course not done for digital so you can get that effect - but it's not always prominent and depends on what you are shooting. I really ought to try the beercan on the A77 and see what I get. I do use the Maxxum lenses on the NEX a fair amount because of their more compact design compared to new lenses. I really liked the 100-200mm f/4-4.5 and used it quite a bit but mine was smacked around when DH was gathering stuff in case we needed to evacuate from an oncoming wildfire last winter. I haven't test yet to see if the hole at the side of the lens is going to affect the picture or not. I saw a comment to you about resolving power but IMO there are many of the Maxxum lenses that easily hold up in that regard and would expect the beercan to be one of them.

I am leaning towards getting Lightroom 4 for processing. My 1st one that I will be buying. I have read a couple of comments that Sony's raw format (ARW) doesn't work with Lightroom 4. As a few other on hear, I am currently using A55 and am looking to upgrade to A77 or A99. Hopefully the A99.

Anyway, is that comment true or is it just people that don't know what they are talking about?

They don't know what their talking about.

As was mentioned when new cameras are released it sometimes takes Adobe a little while to update for them but all the current Sony cameras including at A77 and A99 are currently supported.

 

[havoc315]

I have the 70-210 beercan although I never used it a lot since DH thought I needed the 70-200 f/2.8 for my BD shortly after I got the beercan. I wasn't exactly going to say no! I do have and use a few of the Maxxum lenses and my one comment would be on the CA that is more likely to occur (and which I haven't gotten good at removing in post processing). My understanding is the coating on the lenses were of course not done for digital so you can get that effect - but it's not always prominent and depends on what you are shooting. I really ought to try the beercan on the A77 and see what I get. I do use the Maxxum lenses on the NEX a fair amount because of their more compact design compared to new lenses. I really liked the 100-200mm f/4-4.5 and used it quite a bit but mine was smacked around when DH was gathering stuff in case we needed to evacuate from an oncoming wildfire last winter. I haven't test yet to see if the hole at the side of the lens is going to affect the picture or not. I saw a comment to you about resolving power but IMO there are many of the Maxxum lenses that easily hold up in that regard and would expect the beercan to be one of them.

Thanks for the feedback. As I can get a beercan for under $200.. or even $100... it's not exactly high risk.
Its 1 of the things I like about the Sony mount --- especially with its in-camera stabilization, the ability to use the really old fairly cheap lenses!

Truthfully, between the Minolta 50mm 1.7, and the beercan..... I may be able to cover most of my focal range, at very high quality ---- With 2 lenses that cost less than $300 combined on the used market.

But of lenses I'm considering upgrading to --
The Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 -- As eventually I'm going to want 300mm of reach. As my kids get older and play more sports, and also if I take an Alaska cruise next year, and want more reach for wildlife.
And contemplating the Tamron 17-50/f2.8 -- just as an overall kit upgrade.

But then considering just using my Sony kit lens for wide angle, the 50mm/1.7 for a mid range prime, and the beercan..... and really covering my focal length on a day to day basis, without spending much money at all. Then maybe renting a really good zoom for the Alaska cruise.

 

[Hockeyman]

But of lenses I'm considering upgrading to --
The Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 -- As eventually I'm going to want 300mm of reach. As my kids get older and play more sports, and also if I take an Alaska cruise next year, and want more reach for wildlife.
And contemplating the Tamron 17-50/f2.8 -- just as an overall kit upgrade.

I shot all of these with my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD I love this lens and go back and forth between that and my fishey as my favorite go to lens. If your looking to pick up an upgrade over the kits lens the Tamron gets my vote


Celebrate the Magic by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Toy Soldier by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Harper's Mill by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

I shot all of these with my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD I love this lens and go back and forth between that and my fishey as my favorite go to lens. If your looking to pick up an upgrade over the kits lens the Tamron gets my vote

Thanks for the feedback. I think it's just a matter of time before I get the Tamron.

btw, I do love your fisheye shots. I've considered getting a fisheye lens, but I just don't think I'd personally use it often enough to make it worthwhile. So it's low on my wish list. But your shots make it look very tempting.

 

[havoc315]

midnov-21.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

midnov-19.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

midnov-1.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

Big Thunder by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

Ursula by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[HPS3]

Nice shots Havoc and Mike!


Magical Moon by Harry Shields, on Flickr

 

[HPS3]

The Haunted Mansion by Harry Shields, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

Astro Orbitor by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[HPS3]

Mike, I like the framing idea. Really cool.

 

[HPS3]

Mike, do you find the 35 to be a slow focuser? I find that the Laea2 and 35 f1.8 focus slow and hunt in dim light.

 

[ukstitch]

I am leaning towards getting Lightroom 4 for processing. My 1st one that I will be buying. I have read a couple of comments that Sony's raw format (ARW) doesn't work with Lightroom 4. As a few other on hear, I am currently using A55 and am looking to upgrade to A77 or A99. Hopefully the A99.

Anyway, is that comment true or is it just people that don't know what they are talking about?

Just to confirm what has been said, I currently use lightroom 4 to process all my A99 raw (ARW) files without any problems.

There are a couple of areas that lightroom supports canon/nikon better, but there are ways round those:

- There's no support for tethering the sony cameras that actually allow it within lightroom. This can be fixed easily enough with a paid plugin or using the free sony software.

- There's no camera raw profiles (landscape, natural, portrait etc) for most of the sony cameras (only the A99 I believe). Luckily, somebody has gone through and created a load of profiles that you can download and use for free.

Thanks for the feedback. As I can get a beercan for under $200.. or even $100... it's not exactly high risk.
Its 1 of the things I like about the Sony mount --- especially with its in-camera stabilization, the ability to use the really old fairly cheap lenses!

Truthfully, between the Minolta 50mm 1.7, and the beercan..... I may be able to cover most of my focal range, at very high quality ---- With 2 lenses that cost less than $300 combined on the used market.

But of lenses I'm considering upgrading to --
The Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 -- As eventually I'm going to want 300mm of reach. As my kids get older and play more sports, and also if I take an Alaska cruise next year, and want more reach for wildlife.
And contemplating the Tamron 17-50/f2.8 -- just as an overall kit upgrade.

But then considering just using my Sony kit lens for wide angle, the 50mm/1.7 for a mid range prime, and the beercan..... and really covering my focal length on a day to day basis, without spending much money at all. Then maybe renting a really good zoom for the Alaska cruise.

The Tamron 17-50 is a lens I'm very fond of. I had one on my A55 and used it quite a lot. In fact, I liked it so much I very nearly bought the 28-75 for my A99 (the only reason I didn't was because I stumbled across a great deal on the sony 28-75 which is pretty much the same lens but has a built in auto focus and supports the AF-D mode).

I'm not sure which version of the Tamron 70-300 you're looking at (there's a cheaper version which is screw driven auto focus and poorer optics, or a more expensive version that is built in auto focus with much better optics), but I'd also recommend looking at the Minolta 100-300 APO F4.5-5.6. I used to have the cheaper tamron but upgraded to the Minolta and find the pictures to be much better. It's also a slightly more portable lens which is helpful at times.

 

[Hockeyman]

Thanks for the feedback. I think it's just a matter of time before I get the Tamron.

btw, I do love your fisheye shots. I've considered getting a fisheye lens, but I just don't think I'd personally use it often enough to make it worthwhile. So it's low on my wish list. But your shots make it look very tempting.

Thank you

I love my fisheye and when I first bought it I just figured I would use it here and there but ever since Harry told me the trick on nailing the focus Ive been using it a lot, a lot more than I ever thought I would.

 

[Hockeyman]

Mike, do you find the 35 to be a slow focuser? I find that the Laea2 and 35 f1.8 focus slow and hunt in dim light.

The Sony 35mm I use is extremely slow focusing and have to fight with it while in AF on a dark ride. My last HM ride I said screw it and put it in manual and did a lot better, didnt miss as many opportunities. A ride like Little Mermaid though It did a lot better since its a bit more bright and colorful on the ride.

 

[Hockeyman]

Cinderella's Castle by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Just to confirm what has been said, I currently use lightroom 4 to process all my A99 raw (ARW) files without any problems.

There are a couple of areas that lightroom supports canon/nikon better, but there are ways round those:

- There's no support for tethering the sony cameras that actually allow it within lightroom. This can be fixed easily enough with a paid plugin or using the free sony software.

- There's no camera raw profiles (landscape, natural, portrait etc) for most of the sony cameras (only the A99 I believe). Luckily, somebody has gone through and created a load of profiles that you can download and use for free.



The Tamron 17-50 is a lens I'm very fond of. I had one on my A55 and used it quite a lot. In fact, I liked it so much I very nearly bought the 28-75 for my A99 (the only reason I didn't was because I stumbled across a great deal on the sony 28-75 which is pretty much the same lens but has a built in auto focus and supports the AF-D mode).

I'm not sure which version of the Tamron 70-300 you're looking at (there's a cheaper version which is screw driven auto focus and poorer optics, or a more expensive version that is built in auto focus with much better optics), but I'd also recommend looking at the Minolta 100-300 APO F4.5-5.6. I used to have the cheaper tamron but upgraded to the Minolta and find the pictures to be much better. It's also a slightly more portable lens which is helpful at times.

And there isn't lens correction support for many Sony lenses, and no Minolta lenses.
It does also support raw profiles for the Rx100.

I almost bought the Minolta 28-75/2.8 on eBay for about $290. And I've looked at the newer 70-300 Tamron -- with ultrasonic drive. I'd like to own at least 1 quiet lens for video.

But for now, I think I'm going to try to get the most out of the nifty fifty and beer can. This year, got the rx100 and upgraded by dSLR body... I should give my wallet a break.