IF you had to pick ONE Sony or Minolta or aftermarket "alpha-mount" lens to shoot with your Sony FOREVER (for maximum overall/average sharpness and consistent satisfaction)...what say YOU?!
Name your SINGLE favorite alpha mount lens for overall sharpness and consistent image satisfaction!
CZ Digital
Posts: 50
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
I second that...awesome for a kit lens :-)
I'm also liking the 85 2.8 - lots of bang for the buck for portraits and it tested well on the review sites. The Tamron 90mm macro is A+ in my book too.
ArtisticGlamour wrote: MY new favorite...Sony 16-50/2.8.
I haven't used all the fancy high dollar lenses you guys have, I did rent a CZ 85mm once and loved every minute of it. That said if I could only use my Minolta 50mm 1.7 the rest of my life I would not feel bad. Magical bokeh and crystal clear sharpness (where you want it).
ArtisticGlamour wrote: IF you had to pick ONE Sony or Minolta or aftermarket "alpha-mount" lens to shoot with your Sony FOREVER (for maximum overall/average sharpness and consistent satisfaction)...what say YOU?!
Name your SINGLE favorite alpha mount lens for overall sharpness and consistent image satisfaction!
55,000 shots with my 50mm 1.4. Probably every shot in my port.
Untitled Photographer wrote: I did rent a CZ 85mm once and loved every minute of it. That said if I could only use my Minolta 50mm 1.7 the rest of my life I would not feel bad. Magical bokeh and crystal clear sharpness (where you want it).
Yup, even with the new 16-50/2.8, I believe that for model work I will be using the 50mm/1.7 quite often!
It's hard to justify the expense of the f1.4's knowing that the old Minolta f1.7 is in the bag for narrow DOF shots. Is an f1.4 REALLY that much better than the old Minolta? LOL!
I also wonder if a fast "35mm/f1.8" would be a better option for me on the a77's cropped sensor...and how they rate for sharpness.
Legacys 7 wrote: I'm a wide angle shooter. But I'd have to go with the Minolta 85 G.
This is also my quandary. I shoot a lot of outdoor landscapes, and I LOVE the 16-50/2.8 for this too, but I'm wondering if I would still be better with a prime?
In other words the fast "narrow DOF" isn't as important as the "overall sharpness" and "color rendering and lack of artifacts". The 16-50 does fantastic, but I just wonder if for my wide-angle stuff if a PRIME would still be better...and which one? I don't need (or like) the super-wide stuff, but I am shooting an a77's cropped sensor.
I have the Minolta 28mm/2.8 and the 50mm/1.7, and the Sony 16-50/2.8 zoom, but I'm wondering if there's something in there for SUPERSHARP landscapes that MAY be even better that I'm overlooking? I'm VERY happy with what I have...but just wonder if I'm overlooking anything. I notice that most of my "landscape" shots (on the a77's cropped sensor with the 16-50zoom) are in the 24-28mm "wide angle" range...so maybe I should just shoot with my old Minolta 28mm (or maybe a 35mm/1.8). LOL!
Guys like Kurt Munger swear by the 35mm 1.8. He says if he could only have one Sony lens that would be it. I have that one too and probably use it the most. I don't think my photos do the lens justice though, it's much more sharp than my photography skills.
When i get the 16-50 2.8 I'll feel like I have the major bases covered in the affordable, good optics department.
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,119
San Francisco, California, US
ArtisticGlamour wrote: This is also my quandary. I shoot a lot of outdoor landscapes, and I LOVE the 16-50/2.8 for this too, but I'm wondering if I would still be better with a prime?
In other words the fast "narrow DOF" isn't as important as the "overall sharpness" and "color rendering and lack of artifacts". The 16-50 does fantastic, but I just wonder if for my wide-angle stuff if a PRIME would still be better...and which one? I don't need (or like) the super-wide stuff, but I am shooting an a77's cropped sensor.
I have the Minolta 28mm/2.8 and the 50mm/1.7, and the Sony 16-50/2.8 zoom, but I'm wondering if there's something in there for SUPERSHARP landscapes that MAY be even better that I'm overlooking? I'm VERY happy with what I have...but just wonder if I'm overlooking anything.
Hard to say. The only wide angle zoom that I have is a Minolta 24-150 lens for my Sony A99. It was my lens for my Minolta Maxxum 7 film camera. The only wide angle that I have that's wider than this is made for my aps A700 camera. Sigma 8 to 16 mm. That lens is damn sharp. And it's quiet compared to my Minolta glass. Quiet like the Nikon and Canon glass.
I'm looking to buy the 20 mm Sony prime. From what I've read, the distortion is very low. That's really one of the things that I don't like about wide angle glass.
Untitled Photographer wrote: Guys like Kurt Munger swear by the 35mm 1.8. He says if he could only have one Sony lens that would be it. I have that one too and probably use it the most. I don't think my photos do the lens justice though, it's much more sharp than my photography skills.
When i get the 16-50 2.8 I'll feel like I have the major bases covered in the affordable, good optics department.
Exactly! I LOVE the 16-50 for model photography...it's the perfect combination of speed, quality, and convenience!
And for my outdoor landscapes it's fantastic too, but I notice I don't often shoot in the "superwide" 16mm range...and mostly I fall in the 24mm-28mm range. Perhaps I should shoot with the old Minolta PRIME 28mm for that, or perhaps even think about a 35mm/1.8 if that would be sharper than the old 28mm.
I guess I need to take the time to REALLY do some "twilight" test shots and compare the various 20mm-35mm options for sharpness and color noise, etc.
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,119
San Francisco, California, US
A good way to see what lens work for you is to rent from Borrow Lens. They rent everything. Including everything from Sony. Cameras, camcorders, glass etc.
Legacys 7 wrote: I'm looking to buy the 20 mm Sony prime. From what I've read, the distortion is very low. That's really one of the things that I don't like about wide angle glass.
This may be a great solution also for landscape stuff, on the cropped sensor of the a77. It would be about like shooting a 30mm...with the image taken from the "center" (cropped area) of the lens. Since I'm shooting around +/- 24mm anyway, this may be worth looking into as well.
Art of the nude wrote: 55,000 shots with my 50mm 1.4. Probably every shot in my port.
I debated going to a 50mm/1.4, but I opted for the fast zoom instead because I knew I had the 50mm/1.7 already.
I wasn't sure how much better the 50mm/1.4 -really is- over the old Minolta 50/1.7? And how the CZ -vs- the Sony f1.4's compare?
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,119
San Francisco, California, US
ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Legacys 7 wrote: I'm looking to buy the 20 mm Sony prime. From what I've read, the distortion is very low. That's really one of the things that I don't like about wide angle glass.
This may be a great solution also for landscape stuff, on the cropped sensor of the a77. It would be about like shooting a 30mm...with the image taken from the "center" (cropped area) of the lens. Since I'm shooting around +/- 24mm anyway, this may be worth looking into as well.
I debated going to a 50mm/1.4, but I opted for the fast zoom instead because I knew I had the 50mm/1.7 already. I wasn't sure how much better the 50mm/1.4 -really is- over the old Minolta 50/1.7? And how the CZ -vs- the Sony f1.4's compare?
Indeed. I'm going to rent from Borrow Lens. It's not too far from me. This will give me an opportunity to test out the glass and see what works for me and what doesn't, before I decide to invest to a particular glass.
I'm glad that they're around. It's one of the few places that rent Sony.
| 
| 
| edu