Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

He is what I have
50mm f1.4
70-300mm

What I want
12mm fisheye
upgrade to my 70-300 daughter is starting softball so would be nice to have a good quality lens
something with some range 24-70,16-35
A nice lens for portraits

Dream lenses
Sigma 35mm art
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8

There is the new 70-300 SSM G2.... but that might be a good chance to get the G1 version used. Prices should drop as the new version comes out.
The Tamron 70-300 is also very good.
Though my favorite for telephoto was the Minolta 200/2.8. Sure, you are losing the 300 range. But gaining 2.8, absolutely amazing IQ, in a compact body. I used it extensively for little league. (And I want to get the new Nikon 300/4).

Range: The Tamron 24-70/2.8 is the most bang for the buck for premium. But there is nothing really wrong with the Sony 28-75 (except not wide enough), and the Tamron 28-75 (same lens, without SAM). Also take a look at the Minolta 28-135, the "secret handshake" gets very good reviews.

Portraits: 3 prime recommendations:
The Sony 85/2.8 SAM -- Very very good, compact, under $200.
The Minolta 100/2.8 -- EXCEPTIONAL... also a macro lens, around $300. Old screw drive is the downside. But you will have zero complaints optically.
The Minolta 135/2.8 -- Around $300. I find this lens a bit overrated. But it is good, and the 135mm is a great length for headshots on full frame.

Truthfully, I'd go with the Minolta 100 and never look back.

 

[Hockeyman]

There is the new 70-300 SSM G2.... but that might be a good chance to get the G1 version used. Prices should drop as the new version comes out.
The Tamron 70-300 is also very good.
Though my favorite for telephoto was the Minolta 200/2.8. Sure, you are losing the 300 range. But gaining 2.8, absolutely amazing IQ, in a compact body. I used it extensively for little league. (And I want to get the new Nikon 300/4).

Range: The Tamron 24-70/2.8 is the most bang for the buck for premium. But there is nothing really wrong with the Sony 28-75 (except not wide enough), and the Tamron 28-75 (same lens, without SAM). Also take a look at the Minolta 28-135, the "secret handshake" gets very good reviews.

Portraits: 3 prime recommendations:
The Sony 85/2.8 SAM -- Very very good, compact, under $200.
The Minolta 100/2.8 -- EXCEPTIONAL... also a macro lens, around $300. Old screw drive is the downside. But you will have zero complaints optically.
The Minolta 135/2.8 -- Around $300. I find this lens a bit overrated. But it is good, and the 135mm is a great length for headshots on full frame.



Truthfully, I'd go with the Minolta 100 and never look back.

What's the early word on the new Tamron 15-30? Also any feedback on the Tamron 28-300mm

The Tamron 24-70 is pretty high up there in price

The Sony 85mm is intriguing and is priced reasonably.

 

[havoc315]

What's the early word on the new Tamron 15-30? Also any feedback on the Tamron 28-300mm

The Tamron 24-70 is pretty high up there in price

The Sony 85mm is intriguing and is priced reasonably.

Haven't heard anything about the 28-300. But beware, that superzooms are never as good as primes or regular zooms. Never. They have gotten to the point where they can be pretty good, but I know you're picky -- they won't be good enough for you.

No real reviews of the 15-30 yet, but the charts suggest the resolution should be amazing.

I had the 85, I liked it very much. But once I got the Minolta 100/2.8, I never used the 85 again.

Here are a few portraits with the Minolta 100:

untitled-22-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

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

untitled-14.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(not just amazingly detailed, but look at the gorgeous bokeh)

july-17.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(Bokeh-licious!)

And here is the 85:

holidayparty-16.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

holidayparty-13-Edit-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And don't forget the advantage of the 100 being a true macro -- It will open up new avenues of photography for you.

macro-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

https://www.keh.com/236298/minolta-100mm-f-2-8-macro-alpha-mount-autofocus-lens-55

Don't look back.

 

[Hockeyman]

Haven't heard anything about the 28-300. But beware, that superzooms are never as good as primes or regular zooms. Never. They have gotten to the point where they can be pretty good, but I know you're picky -- they won't be good enough for you.

No real reviews of the 15-30 yet, but the charts suggest the resolution should be amazing.

I had the 85, I liked it very much. But once I got the Minolta 100/2.8, I never used the 85 again.

Here are a few portraits with the Minolta 100:


Don't look back.

Never knew that about the superzooms, makes me a little more cautious.

How was the IQ between the Sony 85 and Minolta 100? Im always weary of buying older glass, especially on Ebay.

Im kind of hoping that Tamron 15-30 isn't a fortune. Saw It was a little over $1k converted from yen right? But then with that I have to ask myself if I have a need for the 12mm fisheye if I decide on the 15-30. If money grew on trees Id have both but would have to decide on one for now.

 

[havoc315]

Never knew that about the superzooms, makes me a little more cautious.

How was the IQ between the Sony 85 and Minolta 100? Im always weary of buying older glass, especially on Ebay.

Im kind of hoping that Tamron 15-30 isn't a fortune. Saw It was a little over $1k converted from yen right? But then with that I have to ask myself if I have a need for the 12mm fisheye if I decide on the 15-30. If money grew on trees Id have both but would have to decide on one for now.

Buy from KEH, with their 6 month warranty. Costs slightly more than eBay, but it is safer. The IQ on the Minolta was far far better than the Sony 85, which was pretty darn good. The Minolta is really identical to the current Sony 100, so look at these:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/378-sony_100_28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/599-sony85f28?start=1

These are APS-C tests, so be aware that the corners will be worse on full frame. But honestly, with the 100, even the corners hold up very well. At least according to these charts, the 100 and 85 give very similar resolution, but in my experience, the 100 was a bit better.

If you check out the user ratings on Dyxum, the Minolta 100 scores a fair bit higher than the Sony 85.

And finally, if you look at the testing on DXOMark, you will find the Sony 100 outscores the Sony 85. (and the Minolta 100 is identical to the Sony 100, except that the Minolta has a better build quality but older coatings).

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...2.8-on-Sony-Alpha-900___727_0_276_371_371_371

Also with the A99 -- DMF will work with the Minolta 100, but it will not work with the Sony 85 because it has SAM.

In terms of comparing superzooms to regular zooms...
Here are a couple examples. Not enough published reviews on Sony, so I'll use Nikon...

Here is the Nikon 28-300, which is considered to be a very very good superzoom:

Notice the extreme distortion, heavy vignetting, and marginal resolution over 200mm..

Now here is the Tamron 70-300, tested on the same Nikon:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx?start=1

You'll see that it's just better, all around. It weakens at 300mm as well, but not nearly as much as the Nikon superzoom.

I know you're super picky.. which is why I say to avoid the superzooms. And also why I know you will prefer a good copy of the Minolta over the Sony. It's the difference between a very very good lens, and a truly something special lens. (I don't like Ken Rockwell, but read his review of the Minolta 100 macro.. even he calls it the greatest lens he ever tested).

 

[havoc315]

Never knew that about the superzooms, makes me a little more cautious.

How was the IQ between the Sony 85 and Minolta 100? Im always weary of buying older glass, especially on Ebay.

Im kind of hoping that Tamron 15-30 isn't a fortune. Saw It was a little over $1k converted from yen right? But then with that I have to ask myself if I have a need for the 12mm fisheye if I decide on the 15-30. If money grew on trees Id have both but would have to decide on one for now.

Forgot to address the Tamron.... Only you can decide if you need/want to have both lenses. To me, a 12mm fisheye is very very different than a 15-30 zoom. 12mm isn't even that close to 15mm.
If the US price really is about $1200, that's pretty reasonable if the quality is as high as expected.
BUT... remember, they will release Canon and Nikon first. Who knows how long until they release A-mount. Might be quick, might not.

 

[Hockeyman]

Forgot to address the Tamron.... Only you can decide if you need/want to have both lenses. To me, a 12mm fisheye is very very different than a 15-30 zoom. 12mm isn't even that close to 15mm.
If the US price really is about $1200, that's pretty reasonable if the quality is as high as expected.
BUT... remember, they will release Canon and Nikon first. Who knows how long until they release A-mount. Might be quick, might not.

Yeah, the 15-30 Tamron may turn into a next year lens, well that's if im still using Amount by then. By they 2nd-3rd week of Feb I should have my new lens. We are headed up to weekend of Feb 21st and want to make sure I have the lenses before the trip.

 

[Hockeyman]

Buy from KEH, with their 6 month warranty. Costs slightly more than eBay, but it is safer. The IQ on the Minolta was far far better than the Sony 85, which was pretty darn good. The Minolta is really identical to the current Sony 100, so look at these:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/378-sony_100_28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/599-sony85f28?start=1

These are APS-C tests, so be aware that the corners will be worse on full frame. But honestly, with the 100, even the corners hold up very well. At least according to these charts, the 100 and 85 give very similar resolution, but in my experience, the 100 was a bit better.

If you check out the user ratings on Dyxum, the Minolta 100 scores a fair bit higher than the Sony 85.

And finally, if you look at the testing on DXOMark, you will find the Sony 100 outscores the Sony 85. (and the Minolta 100 is identical to the Sony 100, except that the Minolta has a better build quality but older coatings).

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...2.8-on-Sony-Alpha-900___727_0_276_371_371_371

Also with the A99 -- DMF will work with the Minolta 100, but it will not work with the Sony 85 because it has SAM.

In terms of comparing superzooms to regular zooms...
Here are a couple examples. Not enough published reviews on Sony, so I'll use Nikon...

Here is the Nikon 28-300, which is considered to be a very very good superzoom:

Notice the extreme distortion, heavy vignetting, and marginal resolution over 200mm..

Now here is the Tamron 70-300, tested on the same Nikon:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/619-tamron70300f456fx?start=1

You'll see that it's just better, all around. It weakens at 300mm as well, but not nearly as much as the Nikon superzoom.

I know you're super picky.. which is why I say to avoid the superzooms. And also why I know you will prefer a good copy of the Minolta over the Sony. It's the difference between a very very good lens, and a truly something special lens. (I don't like Ken Rockwell, but read his review of the Minolta 100 macro.. even he calls it the greatest lens he ever tested).

The Minolta 100 is intriguing but for budget purposes I think I might be leaning towards a 70-300mm lens for now. Between that and the 12mm it will put me in the budget range I am aiming for.

By the way I got a flash over the holidays, a cheap Minolta 5200i and of course have no clue what im doing yet, lol. I have messed around with it a little bit around the house. I know its not compatible with the flash metering system but its better than nothing right?

 

[havoc315]

The Minolta 100 is intriguing but for budget purposes I think I might be leaning towards a 70-300mm lens for now. Between that and the 12mm it will put me in the budget range I am aiming for.

By the way I got a flash over the holidays, a cheap Minolta 5200i and of course have no clue what im doing yet, lol. I have messed around with it a little bit around the house. I know its not compatible with the flash metering system but its better than nothing right?

Can you bounce it?

 

[Hockeyman]

Can you bounce it?

Yes, it swivels and bends and flips and all that funs stuff lol

 

[havoc315]

Yes, it swivels and bends and flips and all that funs stuff lol

Then you're all good. Read up on bouncing the flash.

The Tamron 70-300 is a very good value. But be warned, you're used to a couple premium primes -- it won't match up. But it is versatile and can give you very nice results. You can take some nice portraits with it.

I became a bit of a snob on my a99 and stopped using telephoto zooms, I simply used my Minolta 100 and 200, for vastly superior results.

Problem with great glass.... It becomes hard to step back down to lesser glass.

By the way, if you ever did want to be tempted to fully switch brands... With your style of shooting, rent the d750 and 14-24 for a Disney day. It's the gold standard for ultra wide.

 

[Hockeyman]

Then you're all good. Read up on bouncing the flash.

The Tamron 70-300 is a very good value. But be warned, you're used to a couple premium primes -- it won't match up. But it is versatile and can give you very nice results. You can take some nice portraits with it.

I became a bit of a snob on my a99 and stopped using telephoto zooms, I simply used my Minolta 100 and 200, for vastly superior results.

Problem with great glass.... It becomes hard to step back down to lesser glass.

By the way, if you ever did want to be tempted to fully switch brands... With your style of shooting, rent the d750 and 14-24 for a Disney day. It's the gold standard for ultra wide.

If anything I kind of have a camera crush on the D810, lol. Ive seen some crazy awesome photos coming out of that camera

The Tamorn 70-300 would be leaps better than my old Sigma 70-300 that I have been using. The Minolta 100 would be a lens I get after the fact I think. Sort of to finish rounding out my glass for the year.

I was bouncing the light off the ceiling in the living room the day I got just messing around, even was bouncing it behind me just to get a feel for it. Still have to learn what all the buttons do though lol.

 

[havoc315]

If anything I kind of have a camera crush on the D810, lol. Ive seen some crazy awesome photos coming out of that camera

The Tamorn 70-300 would be leaps better than my old Sigma 70-300 that I have been using. The Minolta 100 would be a lens I get after the fact I think. Sort of to finish rounding out my glass for the year.

I was bouncing the light off the ceiling in the living room the day I got just messing around, even was bouncing it behind me just to get a feel for it. Still have to learn what all the buttons do though lol.

This is from Tom Bricker's blog recently, about the D810, which he loved:
--
With all of that said, I do love the D810, but as a blogger and ‘documenter-of-everything’, that camera and its huge file sizes were a bit of overkill. This point was really driven home after our fall trip to Asia, when I returned with nearly half a gigabyte of raw files. This camera is dynamite for photographers who are primarily landscape photographers, and I’m currently carrying it as my “backup” camera to use during sunset and nighttime landscape shooting when it does slightly outperform the D750 thanks to its base ISO and slightly better dynamic range and color depth. However, it’s only still in my bag because I haven’t yet had a chance to sell it; I can’t justify having this expensive of a camera as my backup. Soon, this camera will be replaced in my bag with my 3rd string camera, the Nikon D600. (Yes, I have a camera hoarding problem…but I’m working on addressing it!)
--

For my tastes and uses, price aside --- The D810 is too big, and the file sizes are much too big. Using the A99, how often have 24mp not been enough for you?

Yes, the Tamron 70-300 is a nice upgrade from your Sigma. I rarely see the Sigma even pop up in your photostream. Just don't expect results like you get from your 50mm.

I've never really mastered all the buttons on any flash system, lol. But since you can't use TTL on your flash, you will need to figure out how to set the power manually.

And in terms of bouncing... You have the right idea. It's good to bounce it behind you, or against walls, or at angles.. Not just straight up at the ceiling. You want to mimic realistic lighting situations, and how often does someone have a light right above them? Light usually comes in at angle.
The good and bad thing about bouncing flash, you get very low contrast. You often want low contrast for portraits, but I find it reduces contrast so much, that I need to boost it up in post. No big deal.

Light bounced to the upper right:

baseball-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Havoc,

Have you had any issues with "lens flare" with your D750?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc,

Have you had any issues with "lens flare" with your D750?

After I read about the issue, I took the camera outside... sun in mid morning position, positioned the sun just out of the frame, took a few shots at a few angles... and I couldn't re-create the "flare" issue. It's actually supposedly a banding issue, in cases with flare. Regardless, I haven't seen the issue pop up. I'm betting my camera isn't immune. I guess if the light source was just right, and the angle was just right, I'd probably get that little bit of banding.
But unless you love taking shots with intentionally bad lens flare, I just don't see it as being an issue.

In the age of the internet, people look to pounce at tiny issues that never would have even been reported upon before the internet. (iPhone Antenna-gate?)

 

[zackiedawg]

Similar threads popped up months ago about the A6000 having a similar banding/pattern issue with direct light in the frame or just off it, within the flare area. Though some people posted examples with it from their cameras - though it should be noted most took their shots in raw, heavily gained up the shadows, then posted 200% crops - many of us actually went out and tried to force this issue to arise and couldn't. I have yet to see the issue in any shots I've taken with mine, even after trying - so if it's that hard to make appear, if at all, then it simply isn't of concern to me. Either we got cameras that don't have the issue, or the issue will likely never come up in our normal range of shooting or processing...either way, nothing I need to bother discussing, or looking for, anymore!

 

[fractal]

After I read about the issue, I took the camera outside... sun in mid morning position, positioned the sun just out of the frame, took a few shots at a few angles... and I couldn't re-create the "flare" issue. It's actually supposedly a banding issue, in cases with flare. Regardless, I haven't seen the issue pop up. I'm betting my camera isn't immune. I guess if the light source was just right, and the angle was just right, I'd probably get that little bit of banding.
But unless you love taking shots with intentionally bad lens flare, I just don't see it as being an issue.

In the age of the internet, people look to pounce at tiny issues that never would have even been reported upon before the internet. (iPhone Antenna-gate?)

Thanks for the feedback. A friend of mine is considering the D750 but read something online about the "flare" issue. He was worried in light of the D600 issues with oil on the sensor. He's a bit neurotic; when I started talking Sony he brought up the "light leak" reports in the A7 and "shutter shake" in the A7r.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for the feedback. A friend of mine is considering the D750 but read something online about the "flare" issue. He was worried in light of the D600 issues with oil on the sensor. He's a bit neurotic; when I started talking Sony he brought up the "light leak" reports in the A7 and "shutter shake" in the A7r.

Exactly! If not for the echo effect of the internet, then these would be quaint little issues that were rumored around. Most people would never notice them. Examine almost any technology product under a microscope, you'll find something. Sometimes the issues are pretty significant (the oil issue on the D600), but more often they are extremely minor, bordering on irrelevant (light leak).

Imaging-resource did a nice analysis of the banding issue -- They found the issue existed in almost all traditional dSLRs, but was indeed a bit more pronounced in the D750. But it was not easy to reproduce, it only appeared at very very specific angles and lighting conditions.
The reality is, it only affects flared pictures, that most photographers wouldn't desire anyway, unless you are going for a flared look, with the intent of flare obscuring your subject.
And even then.. even in the worst examples I've seen of the flaring, you could correct the issue with a graduated lightroom filter, or just by cropping the photo slightly.

Nobody would ever find an entire days shooting ruined.

 

[fractal]

Some pics from last night HS basketball game. NEX-7+Minolta 200mm 2.8 with LA-EA1 adapter ( manual focusing ). Focusing with the EVF vs. the back screen is much more accurate. I am considering the LA-EA4 adapter to get some AF. The lens was a bit long for the close action but fine for mid and far court. The files are great - shot in RAW but very few adjustments needed in LR. I think these were all shot at f/3.2, 1/250 and iso 800.

 

[havoc315]

Some pics from last night HS basketball game. NEX-7+Minolta 200mm 2.8 with LA-EA1 adapter ( manual focusing ). Focusing with the EVF vs. the back screen is much more accurate. I am considering the LA-EA4 adapter to get some AF. The lens was a bit long for the close action but fine for mid and far court. The files are great - shot in RAW but very few adjustments needed in LR. I think these were all shot at f/3.2, 1/250 and iso 800.

I was always amazed at how little post processing that lens really needed. In some high contrast situations, need a touch of CA adjustment (but mostly when shooting with the teleconverter).

Those shots look great.. You would have needed to boost up the shutter speed if you were trying to get the fast action, but you had some ISO and aperture to spare.

And when you see those pros with their huge 70-200/2.8 lenses, you're actually getting better image quality in a much smaller and cheaper package. If you look at photozone.de, you'll see the old Minolta 200/2.8 tests better than the 70-200/2.8 at the long end.

Nikon just announced a new 300/4, that's about the same size as the Minolta 200/2.8. I'm lusting for the lens, partially because I miss my 200/2.8. A small compact 300/4 can be really amazing for so many situations. And it finally answers what I should do about wildlife on an upcoming Alaska cruise... 300/4 with 1.4 teleconverter= 420/5.6, but smaller and sharper than any of the super telephoto zooms out there. But it's going to cost me a whole lot more than the Minolta 200.... Need to decide whether to just rent it for my vacation, or bite the bullet and buy it.