And I thought my hobby was expensive, ha (help w/Sony lens)

penny

Hello grinners,

I'm back and looking to get my wife some more stuff. This said, my wife uses a sony a200 with a 55-200mm/4-5.6 and 50mm/1.4 lens. I am looking to up her equipment as well because she has me sold on making this a profession/passion. Currently, I am looking for a better lense. Her 55-200 is her current prime lens, she also uses this one for portraits. I am looking for a faster lens. I would like to get her a prime lens that is also great for portraits. I was looking at the higher end sony lenses but, I don't know if $1500 is a good deal for a carl zeiss. I have heard that I am just paying for the name and I should go with a sigma or tamron lens, there cheaper in price. Also, I am looking for a new lens, I want the warranty unless I can get an excellent used lens.

Penny

Pupator

The great thing about shooting Sony is that the entire Minolta lineup is at your disposal. You should become very familiar with KEH's "Minolta Auto-Focus" section where you can find lots of great things.

I shoot the A700 and have gone through a couple dozen lenses getting my kit (almost) where I want it.

I would suggest the following:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - you can get this new at B&H with a warranty if you like. (~$400)

Minolta 50mm f/1.7 - you can find these used on forums and Craigslist. Ought to be able to pick one up for about $100. This is a fabulous low-light portrait lens.

Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (pretty good <$100) or Minolta 24-105 f/3.5-4.5 (fantastic $200+). You'll have to get these used, probably your best bet is KEH.

Minolta 70-210 f/4 (beercan - $150-250 depending on condition). This is a lens that I've bought and sold about 10 times (now selling one again). The lens is great, the bokeh is incredible, it takes fantastic portraits (at 90-100mm) but it's just too big and heavy for me and doesn't fit well in my bag. I've switched to the f/3.5-4.5 version though it's not quite as good.

Higher zoom range you're on your own. I've had a Sigma 100-300APO (didn't like it - $100) and a Sony 75-300G (great, but so expensive $750) and sold both. I'm still looking for a great Minolta/Sony 200mm+ lens. (I'm going to try the "big beercan" Minolta 75-300 next.)

penny

Pupator wrote:

The great thing about shooting Sony is that the entire Minolta lineup is at your disposal. You should become very familiar with KEH's "Minolta Auto-Focus" section where you can find lots of great things.

I shoot the A700 and have gone through a couple dozen lenses getting my kit (almost) where I want it.

I would suggest the following:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - you can get this new at B&H with a warranty if you like. (~$400)

Minolta 50mm f/1.7 - you can find these used on forums and Craigslist. Ought to be able to pick one up for about $100. This is a fabulous low-light portrait lens.

Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (pretty good <$100) or Minolta 24-105 f/3.5-4.5 (fantastic $200+). You'll have to get these used, probably your best bet is KEH.

Minolta 70-210 f/4 (beercan - $150-250 depending on condition). This is a lens that I've bought and sold about 10 times (now selling one again). The lens is great, the bokeh is incredible, it takes fantastic portraits (at 90-100mm) but it's just too big and heavy for me and doesn't fit well in my bag. I've switched to the f/3.5-4.5 version though it's not quite as good.

Higher zoom range you're on your own. I've had a Sigma 100-300APO (didn't like it - $100) and a Sony 75-300G (great, but so expensive $750) and sold both. I'm still looking for a great Minolta/Sony 200mm+ lens.

Pupator,

As I mentioned, she currently uses a 50mm/1.4 as her low light lens. the downside is that she cannot zoom. Hence, I want to get her a better lens that will not only work as her prime lens, but will do as a good portrait lens. Her current prime lens is the sony 55-200mm/4.5-5.6. I want a lens similar to this one (zoom capacity) but, one that is faster and works better in lower light.

Pupator

penny wrote:

Pupator,

As I mentioned, she currently uses a 50mm/1.4 as her low light lens. the downside is that she cannot zoom. Hence, I want to get her a better lens that will not only work as her prime lens, but will do as a good portrait lens. Her current prime lens is the sony 55-200mm/4.5-5.6. I want a lens similar to this one (zoom capacity) but, one that is faster and works better in lower light.

Yeah - I read what you wrote but was trying to steer you towards a more useful kit in general. I have not been nearly as impressed with the Sony lenses as I have with the old Minolta stuff. Part of the confusion is that you're using "prime" in two different ways. I see that now and realize what you're asking for - sorry!

If all you want to to go from a 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 to something similar, but faster and great for portraits, get a beercan. It's THE lens to have in that range for Minolta/Sony. It has a 4.57 overall rating (out of 5) from 212 reviews at Dyxum.

penny

Pupator wrote:

Yeah - I read what you wrote but was trying to steer you towards a more useful kit in general. I have not been nearly as impressed with the Sony lenses as I have with the old Minolta stuff. Part of the confusion is that you're using "prime" in two different ways. I see that now and realize what you're asking for - sorry!

If all you want to to go from a 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 to something similar, but faster and great for portraits, get a beercan. It's THE lens to have in that range for Minolta/Sony. It has a 4.57 overall rating (out of 5) from 212 reviews at Dyxum.

I just buy the stuff, lol. My wife loves her Sony a200. I just want a better prime/portrait lens for her. I want something that is better built and over quaility. Don't get me wrong, I too like sony, I just don't see myself buying a sony carl zeiss lens for 1500-$2500. If I can get a Sigma or tamron for half the price and just as good why not. I just don't know anyone who shoots them. It also hurts that there are not to many Sony users where we live. As always everyone uses Canon or Nikon. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put them down, my wife justs likes to use different things.

Pupator

penny wrote:

It also hurts that there are not to many Sony users where we live. As always everyone uses Canon or Nikon. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put them down, my wife justs likes to use different things.

Doesn't really matter where you are - you won't find many stores that stock good Sony lenses. KEH.com, BHphotovideo.com, and Craigslist really are your best options. I think, besides the large size and heavy weight, she'll love a beercan. The results are generally fabulous.

Art Scott

penny wrote:

Pupator,

As I mentioned, she currently uses a 50mm/1.4 as her low light lens. the downside is that she cannot zoom. Hence, I want to get her a better lens that will not only work as her prime lens, but will do as a good portrait lens. Her current prime lens is the sony 55-200mm/4.5-5.6. I want a lens similar to this one (zoom capacity) but, one that is faster and works better in lower light.

As a Konica Minolta user currently....I can recommend the Sigma 24-70 and 70-200 both F2.8 and together should be less than your designated $1500......HOWEVER ....I have found that 24 ins't wide enuff a lot of times and since I have been shooting sigma for over 25+ yrs I would recommend the 17-70 f2.8-4.5.............I also have a for sale thread with minolta stuff being added as time goes on and I get nearer to my brand switch............

As for places to acquire lenses.....EBAY and also dyxum.com

penny

Art Scott wrote:

As a Konica Minolta user currently....I can recommend the Sigma 24-70 and 70-200 both F2.8 and together should be less than your designated $1500......HOWEVER ....I have found that 24 ins't wide enuff a lot of times and since I have been shooting sigma for over 25+ yrs I would recommend the 17-70 f2.8-4.5.............I also have a for sale thread with minolta stuff being added as time goes on and I get nearer to my brand switch............

As for places to acquire lenses.....EBAY and also dyxum.com

Art, as an experienced photographer, will the 70-200/2.8 work as a portrait lens? I was told by a local photographer that standard portrait lens is a 50-200mm. How true this is, I have no idea. I know you mentioned the 17-70/2.8-4.5. Is the 17-70 used primarily for portraits? Could the 70-200 be used for portraits and a prime?

DoctorIt

Penny,
It sounds like you need more advice - when you've identified what you're looking for, come on back to the market. I'm moving this into the Gear discussion forum where you're likely to get more opinions and feedback.

thanks,

swintonphoto

I would look at the 3rd party lenses- they are a much better price than the Sony's.
Normal Range:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5
Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro
Telephoto Zoom:
Sigma 70-200 2.8
Tamron 70-200 2.8

All will serve you well. If you have the budget, pick up a normal and telephoto. That will meet just about all her needs. And if you shop around you could get both for around $1100

swintonphoto

penny wrote:

Art, as an experienced photographer, will the 70-200/2.8 work as a portrait lens? I was told by a local photographer that standard portrait lens is a 50-200mm. How true this is, I have no idea. I know you mentioned the 17-70/2.8-4.5. Is the 17-70 used primarily for portraits? Could the 70-200 be used for portraits and a prime?

I use Olympus cameras so I understand your wife's frustrations that a lot of people don't use the same cameras. But, Sony's are great and she should be very happy with her camera. I use the Olympus equivalent of the 70-200 for most of my individual and couple portrait pictures. I use my wider zoom for groups and landscape shooting. So, the 70-200 is a good portrait lens. I am friends with another professional photographer here in town who does all of his portraits with a 135mm lens. So, I think the 70-200 would serve very well. If you have the extra $$ I would also get one of the standard zooms I referenced in my previous post. If she is serious about doing this professionally she will need a good lens in that range too.

Art Scott

penny wrote:

Art, as an experienced photographer, will the 70-200/2.8 work as a portrait lens? I was told by a local photographer that standard portrait lens is a 50-200mm. How true this is, I have no idea. I know you mentioned the 17-70/2.8-4.5. Is the 17-70 used primarily for portraits? Could the 70-200 be used for portraits and a prime?

The 70 end will work as a portrait lens, given you have the necessary distance to subject.....out doors no problems......but after years of using JUST the 70-210 I got a 24-70 which is better but I believe the 17-70 would be FANTASTIC replacement for my 24-70 on the wide end......It is not very often one shoots wide open (2.8)....when shooting portraits my startng aperture is in the 5.6-8 area.....so having a slightly slower lens here doesn't bother me ..............