Favorite lens on Sony DLSR?

[Sabrowenie]

I looked at the 28-75 Tamron but with the 1.5x crop it did not fit my needs. Since I have no intention of getting a FF camera the 17-50 f2.8 works out well as my go to lens.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by Rocketlily

When everyone is saying their "beercan", is this what they are talking about: Minolta 70-210mm f4 BeerCan lens

Yes, the Beercan lens is the Minolta 70-210/4 lens.



Bob S.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by williamkazak

Are you just being a wiseguy Bob? That was pertinent information.
An AF lens marked Sony or Minolta can also be used on Minolta bodies/Sony bodies in any combination. It is wise to try the combination of your favorite AF Sony/Minolta mount lens before you commit to the combination financialy. I am sure that many have come from the Minolta/Konica tradition and are now are going Sony all the way as they can afford to.
I am out of this discussion.

No I wasn't trying to be a wiseguy - I just had no clue as to what you were saying in your post when you said:

"I noticed that the AF on the older Minolta bodies was rather pathetic in comparison to my Nikon D300 bodies."

You are comparing technologies that are nearly 10 years apart. The AF on the Minolta HTsi film camera (which you referred to in a previous post) cannot possibly compete with a new Nikon D300 or a Sony A700 or a new Canon, Pentax or Olympus.

But to just drop in and throw around inflammatory terms like "pathetic" with no further explaination was rather rude on your part. If I dropped in on the Nikon forum and said anything even close to that - I would be burned in effigy.

But since you are out of the discussion - I guess it doesn't really matter anyway.


Bob S.

[Wolfdagon]

I use my Beercan and the 35-70 f/4 about equally and love both of them. I got the 135 STF when Circuit City closed and love the bokeh, but don't use it that much ince it is manual focus.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by Wolfdagon

I use my Beercan and the 35-70 f/4 about equally and love both of them. I got the 135 STF when Circuit City closed and love the bokeh, but don't use it that much ince it is manual focus.

If you ever get tired of lugging around your Beercan, try the old Minolta 100-200/4.5. It's half the size and weight of the Beercan, has roughly the same focal lengths and is just as sharp and contrasty. It's only downfall is the minimum focus distance of roughtly 6-feet.

I love my Beercan, but there are times when it's just too dang heavy - so I switch to the 100-200/4.5 and I don't feel as though I'm missing out on anything that the Beercan delivers.



Bob S.

[Wolfdagon]

Even though it is heavy I will stick with the Beercan, at least until I can get a 70-210 f/2.8G.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by Wolfdagon

Even though it is heavy I will stick with the Beercan, at least until I can get a 70-210 f/2.8G.

Even after you get a big f/2.8 zoom - keep the Beercan. I may seem redundant to have two very similar lenses with only a minor difference in aperture, but the f/2.8 zooms are pretty big and heavy compared to the Beercan.

Hard to believe that the Beercan would ever be considered "light", but compared to my 80-200/2.8 - it weighs almost nothing!


Bob S.

[fjbyrne]

Originally Posted by rshunk

Even after you get a big f/2.8 zoom - keep the Beercan. I may seem redundant to have two very similar lenses with only a minor difference in aperture, but the f/2.8 zooms are pretty big and heavy compared to the Beercan.

Hard to believe that the Beercan would ever be considered "light", but compared to my 80-200/2.8 - it weighs almost nothing!


Bob S.

Completely agree. I have kept my beercan even after getting the 70200G for the reasons Bob stated above.

[Rocketlily]

I would like to thank everyone for this thread. I bought a Beercan lens, the Minolta 70-210/4 because of the posts and after using it for 2 days, it is my favorite lens.

[Confusion Circle]

Mine would be my 200mm f2.8 APO HS G.

PS... I can't believe people complain about the weight of the Beercan. It's not heavy at all.

[rshunk]

Originally Posted by Confusion Circle

Mine would be my 200mm f2.8 APO HS G.

PS... I can't believe people complain about the weight of the Beercan. It's not heavy at all.

Of course, compared to that monster lens you mentioned as your favorite, the Beercan would weigh almost nothing!


Bob S.

[AlphaLad]

I like the Sal-24-70 f2.8 and the 16-35 although I hardly used the 16-35 and it was preproduction on top of it. The old Minolta lenses I had had 2 BeerCans neither was great <not bad either> would probably be 17-35 2.8-4. ALthough I got to play with a 1x2x3 Macro but that really doesn;t count

[Confusion Circle]

Originally Posted by rshunk

Of course, compared to that monster lens you mentioned as your favorite, the Beercan would weigh almost nothing!


Bob S.

What, the 200mm? It's not very heavy either. My Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR is the heavy one.

[Warpspasm]

My new favorite lens is my Sigma 17-70mm. Not only does it have great range, excellent IQ and speed, but also has an extremely close focusing distance. If I can figure out how you guys attached photos, I'd do that. I do have one of my daughter holding her cat in our gallery here.

[malt]

I've been using the Sigma 17-70 for just over 2 years, and it's a great lens. A few weeks back, I treated myself to the CZ 16-80. All I can say is WOW!
Favourite lens - probably the CZ, but also love the beercan. Agree with another poster that the 100-200 f/4.5 is nearly as good, but it doesn't have the same feel somehow.

[t_hedlund]

I have a 4.5-5.6 70-300 SSM on my A700 , it is awesome.

[alpha200]

Sony 18-250, great one solution lens.

[MiPr]

Maybe strange but, hmm, no favorite for me. Or maybe different: my favorite is the one(s) which I have in my bag

The one I use the most is M 24-105/3.5-4.5 - that range is the most usable for me and the speed is not bad too. Ideally I would like something like 16-135/3.5-4.5

Anyway in addition to that 24-105 I'm using KM 17-35/2.8-4 if I need to go wider than 24mm and 70-210 (either beercan or that 3.5-4.5 one, depending on how much weight I'm "eager" to carry on my shoulder) or 75-300/4.5-5.6 (a.k.a. Big Beercan) if I need something even longer.

Sometimes instead of 17-35 I take M 20/2.8. And usally I have M 28/2.8 and M 50/1.7 with me.

Somehow I do not like M 28-135/4-4.5 - I feel that 28mm is a bit too much on a wide end (I'm thinking about my A700 in here - that would be perfect on A850/900). Similarly M 35-70/4 or M 35-105/3.5-4.5 do not get as much use as they deserve (well, my 35-105 has a bit oily blades - nut much but still).

Oh, and I like my Tammy 90/2.8 for macro work or flower shooting but I get some acceptable results also with extension tubes or reversed lens setup.

BTW, nowadays I'm playing with M42 lenses a bit - usually in "full manual" mode: great experience and teaches to learn a lot about various camera settings

[photoshooter49]

Well Bob, my favorite lens is my Sigma EX 70-200 2.8.

[lasmith00]

My favorite is the Minolta 50mm 1.7 prime. I use it in low light situations and for portraiture. I had actually sold my original with a Minolta SLR but found myself purchasing it again for about $50. I also use a Tamron 17 - 50mm 2.8 quite frequently for it's zoom capabilities and speed. As others have stated, can't beat the beer can lens. Glad I kept that one.