Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[fractal]

From the Eagles playoff game Saturday night.

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, I'm so glad we got a new kicker we can hopefully rely on! I can't believe we actually won the game with our run game.

WHO DAT!

On the upside, I like the photos you've been posting lately. The Nex 7 is a mighty fine camera (I shot with one for a while.) Do you use the f2.8 version? I just ordered one for my X-E2.

 

[fractal]

Fractal, I'm so glad we got a new kicker we can hopefully rely on! I can't believe we actually won the game with our run game.

WHO DAT!

On the upside, I like the photos you've been posting lately. The Nex 7 is a mighty fine camera (I shot with one for a while.) Do you use the f2.8 version? I just ordered one for my X-E2.

Yeah, looks like a new kicker is what we will be looking for in the off-season. Henery just doesn't have enough leg. I'm excited about the Eagles future with Chip Kelly and think they held their own against a very good Saints team.

Thanks! I wanted to be as compact as possible bringing the camera into an Eagles game so I had the pancake 16mm 2.8 on with my Rokinon fisheye in my pocket. We were planned to be in a box for the game so I figured I would concentrate on wide angle shots. We then took advantage of an opportunity to get on the field - which was thrilling but I was so bummed I didn't bring a longer lens! We were right behind the pros with their fancy glass!

how do you like your new camera?

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, I really like the feel and IQ of the fuji. The only downside is the support for the X Trans sensor. I'm currently using LR5.3 which works ok. The focus is faster than the Nex 7 and hunts less than the A7 in dim light. I haven't had a chance to take it out on a day trip yet. I've just been taking some photos around the house.

 

[havoc315]

Fractal, I really like the feel and IQ of the fuji. The only downside is the support for the X Trans sensor. I'm currently using LR5.3 which works ok. The focus is faster than the Nex 7 and hunts less than the A7 in dim light. I haven't had a chance to take it out on a day trip yet. I've just been taking some photos around the house.

You tried the A7 Harry? What did you think?

The A7 doesn't appeal to me, but I admit I'd love to try it.
What really holds me back, I've seen in many reviews of the A7/7r (especially the A7r)-- Where the cameras seem really great in studio/lab settings but with real issues for the real world. Seen several reviews suggesting that you really need faster shutter speeds/tripods to get sharp images, because the ergonomics of the camera are very very unforgiving in terms of camera shake. So if I need to shoot 1/200 with a 55mm prime, I'd be losing the fullframe ISO advantage. If I use a tripod, I'm losing the whole portability of a compact camera. Not to mention the total lack of native lenses. The only available zoom lens gets lousy reviews, and the 2 primes, though they get great reviews, are ridiculously expensive.

So many reviews of the A7r discuss it as being such a great studio camera.. but the studio is the place where the compactness of the camera really matters so much less.

I have no doubt that the *future* is mirrorless, just not sure if the A7/7r is there yet.

 

[HPS3]

You tried the A7 Harry? What did you think?

The A7 doesn't appeal to me, but I admit I'd love to try it.
What really holds me back, I've seen in many reviews of the A7/7r (especially the A7r)-- Where the cameras seem really great in studio/lab settings but with real issues for the real world. Seen several reviews suggesting that you really need faster shutter speeds/tripods to get sharp images, because the ergonomics of the camera are very very unforgiving in terms of camera shake. So if I need to shoot 1/200 with a 55mm prime, I'd be losing the fullframe ISO advantage. If I use a tripod, I'm losing the whole portability of a compact camera. Not to mention the total lack of native lenses. The only available zoom lens gets lousy reviews, and the 2 primes, though they get great reviews, are ridiculously expensive.

So many reviews of the A7r discuss it as being such a great studio camera.. but the studio is the place where the compactness of the camera really matters so much less.

I have no doubt that the *future* is mirrorless, just not sure if the A7/7r is there yet.

Back in December I had the A7 and Fuji X-E2 for a week. I just couldn't get comfortable with the A7. It just felt like work instead of fun. The lack of reasonably priced lenses really hurts. The primes they have are slow and expensive and the kit 28-70 is just OK. The auto WB and skin tones are way behind the Fuji.

I don't think the A7 is as good as the D600 and 6D at high ISO. At 6400, I compared the A7 to the X-E2 in RAW and they were really close. I didn't think the A7 was worth $600 more. I don't print large photos and need razor thin DOF. I will say that my Rokkor lenses looked worse on the A7 than on my Nex 7 and 6.

Even with the focus peaking I was having a hard time getting focus at f1.4 without using magnification. I would probably get 1 of 20 shots in focus of my daughters moving around.

I just think someone would be better off with a D610 or 6D for less money once you include the lenses.

 

[Hockeyman]

From Sonyalpharumors.com

I can't say the a79 would be out of the question for me, but if it is still around $1,200-$1,300 (just a wild guess) shouldn't I just go ahead and try to find an A99 for a few hundred more?

According to two new sources Sony has scheduled an announcement in three weeks. The NEX-7 successor will be announced for sure and likely be named A7000. And also the new A79 could be announced on the same day.

I also know a Full Frame A-mount camera will come for sure but I don’t know if it’s in February already or in March.

I am also working on rumors about two camera surprises. Sorry if I don’t share them now but I am using what I know to double check the info. But I cannot hide my excitement, Sony will deliver quite some surprises if what I got turns out to be true!

That said the new name strategy for Sony seems to be:
Axxx (like A5000, A3000 or A7000) for the APS-C E-mount series
Axx (like A79 or A99) for APS-C or FF A-mount cameras
Ax (like the A7-A7r) for the FF E-mount series.

Pretty confusing

 

[havoc315]

Back in December I had the A7 and Fuji X-E2 for a week. I just couldn't get comfortable with the A7. It just felt like work instead of fun. The lack of reasonably priced lenses really hurts. The primes they have are slow and expensive and the kit 28-70 is just OK. The auto WB and skin tones are way behind the Fuji.

I don't think the A7 is as good as the D600 and 6D at high ISO. At 6400, I compared the A7 to the X-E2 in RAW and they were really close. I didn't think the A7 was worth $600 more. I don't print large photos and need razor thin DOF. I will say that my Rokkor lenses looked worse on the A7 than on my Nex 7 and 6.

Even with the focus peaking I was having a hard time getting focus at f1.4 without using magnification. I would probably get 1 of 20 shots in focus of my daughters moving around.

I just think someone would be better off with a D610 or 6D for less money once you include the lenses.

You're a great resource Harry... You've tried just about everything. If you get a chance, you should test out the a99. It will fall 1-1.5 stops below the D610 and 6d in high ISO but should match and exceed in all other respects of iq. Plus EVF and focus peaking and a more robust AF system ( though less so than the d800, 5dm3).

 

[havoc315]

From Sonyalpharumors.com

I can't say the a79 would be out of the question for me, but if it is still around $1,200-$1,300 (just a wild guess) shouldn't I just go ahead and try to find an A99 for a few hundred more?

Wait and see. The a79 may have valuable features that the a99 lacks or may basically match the a99 except for high ISO. (I'm confident that at a minimum, the a79 will have wifi).
Also, you already have good aps-c lenses, which affects your budget and decision.
I'm loving the flexibility of greater ISO range as I learn to really take advantage of it. But if you can live below ISO 1600, the other full frame advantages are negligible.
So I'd definitely take a wait and see approach.

 

[Hockeyman]

Wait and see. The a79 may have valuable features that the a99 lacks or may basically match the a99 except for high ISO. (I'm confident that at a minimum, the a79 will have wifi).
Also, you already have good aps-c lenses, which affects your budget and decision.
I'm loving the flexibility of greater ISO range as I learn to really take advantage of it. But if you can live below ISO 1600, the other full frame advantages are negligible.
So I'd definitely take a wait and see approach.

That was the plan. I would be pretty happy if the A79 had the same, if not better, IQ as the Nex 7 does now. I see some really impressive shots out of that camera and if the A&9 is on par with that and can even do better with the ISO I would really consider it. Then with that I would be able to get a nice piece of glass or two and start building my lens collection up and be ready for FF when its time.

 

[havoc315]

From Sonyalpharumors.com

I can't say the a79 would be out of the question for me, but if it is still around $1,200-$1,300 (just a wild guess) shouldn't I just go ahead and try to find an A99 for a few hundred more?

I was thinking about your budget. Just a wild guess, but I expect the A79 body to be priced a little cheaper than the original price for the A77 body. I believe the "full price" for the A77 body was 1099.... If I had to guess, about $999 for the A79 body. (just overall, prices have dropped over the last couple of years).

Anyway, knowing your basic budget is $1000 + selling your current gear... You have a few interesting options:

Even when the A79 gets released, the best deals on the A77 might be right now.
You can get the A77 + 16-50 lens (a definite upgrade over your Tamron) + extra battery + grip for $1420. Sell the grip for about $150 (unless you really want it), sell your A55 (about $300), sell your Tamron 17-50 (about $250) -- So for $700 net, you have a new camera and upgraded lens. That leaves you $300 for another new lens, or a good external flash. (For your indoor family photography, the F43 flash will be a massive upgrade to your shooting experience).

You can also get the A77 body + grip + extra battery for about $820. Sell the grip and the A55.... And then you have only spent about $370 net towards a much upgraded camera body. Giving you another $630ish to put towards lens/flash upgrades.

Would I go from the A55 to the A77? Personally, I considered it and decided it wasn't a big enough upgrade. But it was a close call, and you might think it is worthwhile. The IQ won't be a huge upgrade. In fact, some people think the A55 has better ISO performance than the A77 (really, probably about the same). The A77 will give you marginally more dynamic range, and it will give you higher resolution. It will give you a weather sealed body, focus peaking, a better EVF, better focus tracking. For $370, it is a pretty nice overall upgrade to your shooting experience.

Let's assume I'm right, and the A79 is $999 for camera body. That is your budget. Sell your A55 for about $300, and you get a little wiggle room for flash/lens upgrades.
Will the A79 be a big upgrade over the A77? Really a big unknown. It will likely have an even higher resolution EVF, but the current A77 EVF is already fantastic. It might have even higher resolution, but personally, I wouldn't want more than 24 mp -- RAW files just become too big and unmanageable. It will almost certainly have wifi which could be useful at times. It might have some ISO improvement, but how much is really unknown. It could incorporate the AF-D mode from the A99, but I don't think any of your current lenses even support it. So of the things I've mentioned so far, not sure if it's worth a whole lot more than the A77. But there may be other features, maybe the high ISO performance will show some dramatic improvement. It's a question mark. There isn't much downside to at least waiting to see the A79 specs. Though you may never get a chance to buy the A77 brand new for any cheaper than it is right now. (though used prices will continue to decline).

The A99 --- If Sony releases a new full frame in the coming weeks..... Here there are a lot of questions. Though the rumor is an A99 successor, my gut tells me that doesn't feel right. They will want to compete with the D610 and 6d-- They need a sub-$2000 FF camera. So I can imagine them releasing a cheaper FF. Or a new premium FF, and dropping the price of the A99 to $1999. Or releasing 2 new models --- An A99upgrade at $2799... and an A99downgrade at $1999. (Like the A7r and A7).
Either way --- it could push used A99 prices even lower. I paid $1750 for the A99 about a month ago. I could easily see used prices of the A99 dropping to the $1500-$1700 range in the near future. (Not much lower than that for a while).
So let's say you can get the A99 for $1600. You sell your A55 and your APS-C lenses for.... $800? With your $1000 budget, that doesn't give you much wiggle room for lenses. And remember, the A99 does not have an internal flash. There are some cheaper lenses that could hold you over while you save up for better lenses. But would you be happy with lens limitations?
For example, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 would probably offer pretty similar performance to your current Tamron lens, for $300ish. But I know you love wide angle, and 28mm isn't particularly wide. (The Tamron 17-50 is the equivalent of 25.5-75). Your wishlist lens would be the Sigma 12-24, but that isn't cheap. You can cheaply get a Minolta 24-85 or 24-105. I'm playing around with the 24-85 now ($100), I haven't had a chance to try it outdoors in good light yet. So far, reasonably sharp when stopped down. Bad vignetting wide open at 24mm. And distortion isn't great. But heck, it was only $100 and I suspect I'll get some good images out of it.
You'd probably want to eventually replace your current fisheye with the Rokinon 14mm for fullframe.
Point is, on the A99, you'd be starting from scratch in lenses and flashes. It would be a great upgrade, but you may feel very constrained if the lenses are out of your budget for a while.
If your budget lets you get the A99, a couple lenses that you are happy with, and maybe the F42 flash (under $200 on eBay), then it would be a great upgrade.

 

[HPS3]

Hey Havoc, I'm done for a while. I really like the X-E2 and bought it new. I got the kit lens (which is no "kit" lens), the 35 f1.4 and Samyang 8mm f2.8 FE. The kit lens is tack sharp and is 2.8-4. The 35 is also tack sharp wide open. The only downfall is RAW support. I've been using LR5.3 and testing Capture One. The Fuji's use an X Trans sensor instead of the usual Bayer pattern. I've been actually shooting RAW + JPeg for the first time in forever.The Fuji Jpegs are really good and sometimes better than RAW because of the PP support.

 

[havoc315]

That was the plan. I would be pretty happy if the A79 had the same, if not better, IQ as the Nex 7 does now.

Don't count on it. As long as it has the SLT mirror, the high ISO won't match. But it should get closer. They are already pretty close. The A77 and Nex 7 likely use the same sensor -- they produce the same color depth and dynamic range. Just a 1/3rd stop difference in ISO. I haven't done a side by side comparison, but I have to think the IQ differences are imperceptible in almost all cases.
Everyone I see with the A77 is thrilled with the IQ, as long as they keep the ISO at 800 or lower. (With good results still achievable higher). I'm pretty thrilled with the A99 at 3200 and lower, and can get good results as high as about 10,000. At 12,800 and higher, it's pretty iffy.

 

[HPS3]

Mike, don't get the A77 if you're looking for better iso performance. I much prefered the Nex 6 over the 7 in that area. You won't really notice the increased resolution unless you really pixel peep or print large.

 

[havoc315]

Hey Havoc, I'm done for a while. I really like the X-E2 and bought it new. I got the kit lens (which is no "kit" lens), the 35 f1.4 and Samyang 8mm f2.8 FE. The kit lens is tack sharp and is 2.8-4. The 35 is also tack sharp wide open. The only downfall is RAW support. I've been using LR5.3 and testing Capture One. The Fuji's use an X Trans sensor instead of the usual Bayer pattern. I've been actually shooting RAW + JPeg for the first time in forever.The Fuji Jpegs are really good and sometimes better than RAW because of the PP support.

So you didn't keep the Canon 6d? The X-E2 looks like a great system, use it well. I'll be curious to see its dpreview write-up and dxo scoring. How does it compare to the NEX?

It took some time, but I definitely prefer full frame now. Not a night and day difference, but the extra ISO latitude does really open up some more possibilities.

But if you ever get a chance to spend a day shooting the A99, I'd love to hear your impressions. I'd lend you mine, but you're a bit far, lol. Sony was infamously bad at their jpegs, but that seems to have finally been solved with the A99. I still mostly shoot RAW, though I've started to venture into RAW+jpeg and actually really liked some of my jpeg portraits to the point where I just deleted the raws.

 

[Hockeyman]

I was thinking about your budget. Just a wild guess, but I expect the A79 body to be priced a little cheaper than the original price for the A77 body. I believe the "full price" for the A77 body was 1099.... If I had to guess, about $999 for the A79 body. (just overall, prices have dropped over the last couple of years).

Anyway, knowing your basic budget is $1000 + selling your current gear... You have a few interesting options:

Even when the A79 gets released, the best deals on the A77 might be right now.
You can get the A77 + 16-50 lens (a definite upgrade over your Tamron) + extra battery + grip for $1420. Sell the grip for about $150 (unless you really want it), sell your A55 (about $300), sell your Tamron 17-50 (about $250) -- So for $700 net, you have a new camera and upgraded lens. That leaves you $300 for another new lens, or a good external flash. (For your indoor family photography, the F43 flash will be a massive upgrade to your shooting experience).

You can also get the A77 body + grip + extra battery for about $820. Sell the grip and the A55.... And then you have only spent about $370 net towards a much upgraded camera body. Giving you another $630ish to put towards lens/flash upgrades.

Would I go from the A55 to the A77? Personally, I considered it and decided it wasn't a big enough upgrade. But it was a close call, and you might think it is worthwhile. The IQ won't be a huge upgrade. In fact, some people think the A55 has better ISO performance than the A77 (really, probably about the same). The A77 will give you marginally more dynamic range, and it will give you higher resolution. It will give you a weather sealed body, focus peaking, a better EVF, better focus tracking. For $370, it is a pretty nice overall upgrade to your shooting experience.

Let's assume I'm right, and the A79 is $999 for camera body. That is your budget. Sell your A55 for about $300, and you get a little wiggle room for flash/lens upgrades.
Will the A79 be a big upgrade over the A77? Really a big unknown. It will likely have an even higher resolution EVF, but the current A77 EVF is already fantastic. It might have even higher resolution, but personally, I wouldn't want more than 24 mp -- RAW files just become too big and unmanageable. It will almost certainly have wifi which could be useful at times. It might have some ISO improvement, but how much is really unknown. It could incorporate the AF-D mode from the A99, but I don't think any of your current lenses even support it. So of the things I've mentioned so far, not sure if it's worth a whole lot more than the A77. But there may be other features, maybe the high ISO performance will show some dramatic improvement. It's a question mark. There isn't much downside to at least waiting to see the A79 specs. Though you may never get a chance to buy the A77 brand new for any cheaper than it is right now. (though used prices will continue to decline).

The A99 --- If Sony releases a new full frame in the coming weeks..... Here there are a lot of questions. Though the rumor is an A99 successor, my gut tells me that doesn't feel right. They will want to compete with the D610 and 6d-- They need a sub-$2000 FF camera. So I can imagine them releasing a cheaper FF. Or a new premium FF, and dropping the price of the A99 to $1999. Or releasing 2 new models --- An A99upgrade at $2799... and an A99downgrade at $1999. (Like the A7r and A7).
Either way --- it could push used A99 prices even lower. I paid $1750 for the A99 about a month ago. I could easily see used prices of the A99 dropping to the $1500-$1700 range in the near future. (Not much lower than that for a while).
So let's say you can get the A99 for $1600. You sell your A55 and your APS-C lenses for.... $800? With your $1000 budget, that doesn't give you much wiggle room for lenses. And remember, the A99 does not have an internal flash. There are some cheaper lenses that could hold you over while you save up for better lenses. But would you be happy with lens limitations?
For example, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 would probably offer pretty similar performance to your current Tamron lens, for $300ish. But I know you love wide angle, and 28mm isn't particularly wide. (The Tamron 17-50 is the equivalent of 25.5-75). Your wishlist lens would be the Sigma 12-24, but that isn't cheap. You can cheaply get a Minolta 24-85 or 24-105. I'm playing around with the 24-85 now ($100), I haven't had a chance to try it outdoors in good light yet. So far, reasonably sharp when stopped down. Bad vignetting wide open at 24mm. And distortion isn't great. But heck, it was only $100 and I suspect I'll get some good images out of it.
You'd probably want to eventually replace your current fisheye with the Rokinon 14mm for fullframe.
Point is, on the A99, you'd be starting from scratch in lenses and flashes. It would be a great upgrade, but you may feel very constrained if the lenses are out of your budget for a while.
If your budget lets you get the A99, a couple lenses that you are happy with, and maybe the F42 flash (under $200 on eBay), then it would be a great upgrade.

Mike, don't get the A77 if you're looking for better iso performance. I much prefered the Nex 6 over the 7 in that area. You won't really notice the increased resolution unless you really pixel peep or print large.

I wouldn't get the A77, the small, if any different in IQO and ISO isn't worth the money or hassle of selling my A55 and switching to the A77. Now if the A79 is substantially better than I might consider it but we wont know until its released like you guys said.

My wife's budget is $1,000, my budget is a little higher . With that being said, im looking at spending $2,000 the absolute most out of pocket and that isn't including selling my A55 and lenses. So potentially im working with a budget $2,500-$2,800.

I would be happy if I was able to get the A99 and a 35mm f/1.4, the 50mm macro you use and maybe something wide/zoom. The flash is something I could get after the fact or down the road and still want to get but since I hardly use flash now it wouldn't really be missed. Fisheye would be a must but something I could wait on, would actually like a wide non fisheye before I got the fisheye.

 

[havoc315]

I wouldn't get the A77, the small, if any different in IQO and ISO isn't worth the money or hassle of selling my A55 and switching to the A77. Now if the A79 is substantially better than I might consider it but we wont know until its released like you guys said.

My wife's budget is $1,000, my budget is a little higher . With that being said, im looking at spending $2,000 the absolute most out of pocket and that isn't including selling my A55 and lenses. So potentially im working with a budget $2,500-$2,800.

I would be happy if I was able to get the A99 and a 35mm f/1.4, the 50mm macro you use and maybe something wide/zoom. The flash is something I could get after the fact or down the road and still want to get but since I hardly use flash now it wouldn't really be missed. Fisheye would be a must but something I could wait on, would actually like a wide non fisheye before I got the fisheye.

Alright, lets do the math:
A99 -- $1700ish
Let's stick to used lenses which are typically a better value unless it's a brand new model..
Let's skip the 35/1.4. Not trying to tell you what to do... But if you get a wide-zoom and a 50, then 35 is pretty redundant on fullframe. Not wide enough for truly wide. And 1.4 is also far less important on fullframe. Personally, knowing your shooting style, I think you'd be much happier with the Minolta 20/2.8 or 24/2.8. The 24 is about $175.

The 50 macro is about $150.

For a semi-wide zoom... If you don't want to break the bank, my 2 suggestions would be:
The Tamron 28-75 -- About $300
or the Sony 28-75 SAM -- About $450-650 used.

According to all the reviews I've seen, the 2 lenses are optically identical. So why would you spend extra for the Sony version?
On the A99 -- The Tamron would be cheaper, and because it is a screw lens, it would support DMF mode.
The Sony version would cost a bit more, and ironically.. because it is SAM, it does not support DMF mode. But it will support in-camera-lens corrections and it will support AF-D mode. So if you want AF-D mode and in-camera lens corrections, may be worth spending a little more for the Sony version

Now, if you get the 28-75, you don't absolutely need the 50 macro. You'll get good sharpness from the Tamron/Sony.
I might skip the 50 macro if I was buying the 28-75... and get the 100 macro instead. About $300. Ken Rockwell who usually hates Sony stuff, calls the Sony/Minolta 100 macro the most perfect lens he has ever tested. For real macro work, it's better than the 50. The 50 is a better walk-around of course.

So if you went with the 24, the 28-75 and the 100...
You'd have wide landscapes covered with the 24 (though not ultra-wide). You'd have the whole 28-75 range covered by a pretty good zoom lens. You'd have 100 for portraits and macro.

Aside from telephoto zoom, you'd be well covered. For telephoto zoom on a budget, either the Minolta beercan -- 70-210 f4.. About $100 these days. $250 for the Tamron 70-300 usd is a great great value. Performance may match the Sony "G" lens --- And -- The A99 thinks the Tamron is the "G" lens, so it supports AF-D mode.

Anyway, if I was in your shoes.. building fullframe lenses from scratch, that's the route I would take. Though it does lack ultra-ultra-wide.

 

[fractal]

havoc,

I hope I remember to ask your advise when I buy a new camera. That's a heck of an analysis!

 

[havoc315]

havoc,

I hope I remember to ask your advise when I buy a new camera. That's a heck of an analysis!

lol.... I do tons of research in anything I'm interested in. The reason I'm on this board is because of the ton of research I did before our first Disney vacation.
So now my wife is like, "you're still reading about cameras??? How much more can there be to know?"

But I need to stop posting analysis and get back to posting pictures..... I just am not a big winter shooter.

 

[Hockeyman]

Alright, lets do the math:
A99 -- $1700ish
Let's stick to used lenses which are typically a better value unless it's a brand new model..
Let's skip the 35/1.4. Not trying to tell you what to do... But if you get a wide-zoom and a 50, then 35 is pretty redundant on fullframe. Not wide enough for truly wide. And 1.4 is also far less important on fullframe. Personally, knowing your shooting style, I think you'd be much happier with the Minolta 20/2.8 or 24/2.8. The 24 is about $175.

The 50 macro is about $150.

For a semi-wide zoom... If you don't want to break the bank, my 2 suggestions would be:
The Tamron 28-75 -- About $300
or the Sony 28-75 SAM -- About $450-650 used.

According to all the reviews I've seen, the 2 lenses are optically identical. So why would you spend extra for the Sony version?
On the A99 -- The Tamron would be cheaper, and because it is a screw lens, it would support DMF mode.
The Sony version would cost a bit more, and ironically.. because it is SAM, it does not support DMF mode. But it will support in-camera-lens corrections and it will support AF-D mode. So if you want AF-D mode and in-camera lens corrections, may be worth spending a little more for the Sony version

Now, if you get the 28-75, you don't absolutely need the 50 macro. You'll get good sharpness from the Tamron/Sony.
I might skip the 50 macro if I was buying the 28-75... and get the 100 macro instead. About $300. Ken Rockwell who usually hates Sony stuff, calls the Sony/Minolta 100 macro the most perfect lens he has ever tested. For real macro work, it's better than the 50. The 50 is a better walk-around of course.

So if you went with the 24, the 28-75 and the 100...
You'd have wide landscapes covered with the 24 (though not ultra-wide). You'd have the whole 28-75 range covered by a pretty good zoom lens. You'd have 100 for portraits and macro.

Aside from telephoto zoom, you'd be well covered. For telephoto zoom on a budget, either the Minolta beercan -- 70-210 f4.. About $100 these days. $250 for the Tamron 70-300 usd is a great great value. Performance may match the Sony "G" lens --- And -- The A99 thinks the Tamron is the "G" lens, so it supports AF-D mode.

Anyway, if I was in your shoes.. building fullframe lenses from scratch, that's the route I would take. Though it does lack ultra-ultra-wide.

I wanted something f/1.4 for shooting on dark rides really lol. My lens selection really revolves around my theme park visits When I go to the parks now 80 percent of the time I have my Tamron 17-50 on. The rest to the time is a lot of fisheye but and sort of getting burnt out on the lens so would love something wide not a fisheye. The 35mm I break out really only on dark rides or walking around HHN. My Tamron 70-300 only comes out in a blue moon.

I wouldn't mind getting a 28-75 zoom over the 50 macro and use as my walk around/fireworks/landscape lens.

Fractal is right, you sure know your stuff

What do you think of that Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens? I see the 50 is coming out soon also and wonder how much that one will run.






.