Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Is the difference gained by using a Carl Zeiss lens really that noticeable over a kit lens for normal shooting?
Not used one because they are WAY out of my price range, though I have noticed a difference in image quality between the kit lens that came with my a300 and the newer SAM kit lenses. I've also got a Sigma EX DG macro lens which I think is better again. My instinct is that you get what you pay for, though it might be a case of diminishing returns and what you're [i]actually [/i]paying for is that little blue badge.
If I have time this afternoon, I might conduct some kind of semi-scientific experiment to compare them semi-objectively... Need to go to the optician and get out for a couple of hours on the bike first.
Will likely be getting an A55 with 18-55 kit and as a starter for 10 a Tamron 70-300 with macro
Do you mean the 16-80 (which would be the closest to a kit lens)?
The range is more convenient. It certainly gets good reviews (have a look at dyxum.com), but in reality it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For posting on the web I doubt you'll see any difference. If you print very large photos and really care about minute detail you may.
The 55-200 is generally thought to be a better lens than the 70-300 (in either sony or tamron guise).
Yeah 5thElefant 16-80, but also in general.
Am I right in thinking the 55-200 in either guise doesn't do macro though?
Fancy the 18-250 PZD Tamron as an all rounder, but not spending that much alongside the original body purchase - that will come with time.
Yeah 5thElefant 16-80, but also in general.
They're the best you can get and you pay for the pleasure. The next rung down are all but identical in performance for a lot less money. If you must know you have the best they're the ones to have.
The 18-55 is a well regarded lens by the way. Don't discard it because it's a kit lens as it is very good in its own right.
Am I right in thinking the 55-200 in either guise doesn't do macro though?
No, but neither does the 70-300. Depending on whether you're looking at the old one or the new one they're 1:2 and 1:4 magnification respectively (macro is 1:1). The 55-200 is 1:3.5. But... the old 70-300 is certainly closer to a macro.
EDIT: you really need to get over to [url= http://www.dyxum.com ]dyxum.com[/url] - it is the the font of all alpha knowledge and very friendly with it.
Tamron 70-300 @ Jessops £99 reduced from £169
I dont know about macro magnification ratios, but it has a macro switch and is stated in th spec as having macro @ 1:2
Specifications:
• Model: A017
• Lens Construction (Groups/Elements): 9/13
• Angle of View: 34°21'-8°15'
• Type of Zooming: Rotation
• Diaphragm Blade Number: 9
• Minimum Aperture: F/32
• Minimum Focus Distance : 59in.(1.5m) in normal setting/ 37.4" (0.95m) in macro mode (f=180mm-300mm range)
• Macro Magnification Ratio: 1:2 (at f=300mm MFD 0.95m)
• Filter Diameter: ø62
• Weight: 435g (15.3oz)
• Diameter x Length: ø3.0 x 4.6in. (ø76.6 x 116.5mm)
• Mount: Sony AF
The Tamron PZD that I mentioned is actually 18-270 (not 300) and is stated to have macro @ 1:3.8 - however it is £499
OK - I never pass up the opportunity for a geek fest...
A comparison of three Sony system lenses - DT 18-70 f3.5-5.6, SAM 18-55 f3.5-5.6(both Sony) and Sigma EX-DG 50 f2.8.
All shots taken at ISO100, 50mm, Aperture-priority, Single AF using 2 second timer and a tripod. For each lens, I've taken shots at three different apertures: f5.6, f8 and f16.
Shots are labelled alpabetically for easy side-by-side comparison and you've also got 100% centre and edge crops for pixel-peeping purposes.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/sets/72157627191462113/detail/
My thoughts are that the Sigma lens is noticeably sharper and the SAM (current kit) lens lags behind in terms of sharpness, which surprises me a bit.
Some samples:
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/5991202094_8dcd2d12b8_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5991202094/ ]G Sony DT f8 Centre[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6133/5991203518_0725dfbfa1_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5991203518/ ]H Sony SAM f8 Centre[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6024/5991160458_c808546b3e_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5991160458/ ]I Sony SAM f8 Centre[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6006/5991201794_f99c228679_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5991201794/ ]J Sony DT f8 Edge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6127/5990646949_7f8816d5ea_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5990646949/ ]K Sony SAM f8 Edge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6024/5991205426_7a33e4dfde_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5991205426/ ]L Sigma f8 Edge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
Thoughts?
Wow stuartie, that's some serious comparisons! Hats of for making the effort. Not sure that looking just at contrast, sharpness etc tells the whole story however.
for the OP:
IMHO, from a died in the wool cannonite (sorry), if you went for a good, fast zeiss prime in Sony mount, you would TOTALLY notice the difference. The 18-55 (28-70) zoom range is what I would call a 'foot zoom', I.e. you can get the same zoom of width with a good 35 or 50mm prime and moving your feet. I would humbly suggest not a good investment.
To me, a fast prime would be a much better investment and would give you serious WOW to you photos.
The differences in quality between wide to mid focal length zooms are marginal and pixel peeping only. the difference in overall photo feel and quality when you go to 50mm 1.2/1.4 type lenses is stunning.
Good quality long zoom is a different conversation.
HTH!
Kev
True Kev. I only have these three lenses (and a Tamron 55-200) at my disposal and I know a fast prime would blow them all out of the water. I periodically trawl ebay for a Minolta 1.7 lens but have never yet taken the plunge.
Might get bidding this evening...
Stuartie, I know this is a hijack, but I totally would. I used to have one for my 7D many moons ago and it was awesome. Really opens up the creativity in your photography as well, as when you don't have a zoom to make you lazy it forces you to think a little more interestingly. 🙂
The differences in quality between wide to mid focal length zooms are marginal and pixel peeping only. the difference in overall photo feel and quality when you go to 50mm 1.2/1.4 type lenses is stunning.
There's no way you can see any difference in sharpness between a good zoom and a prime without pixel-peeping. The big advantage is depth of field control, but thin DOF isn't a requirement in the majority of photos. Having said that I do like my primes... but I see them as specialist tools.
Sony do a nice line of affordable primes these days though. Worth a look.
5thElefant, true to en extent, it kinda depends on the quality of the prime, but IME it can be really quite a large difference. Maybe take the famous bokeh, chromatic aberation, distortion into account as well?
Thin DoF is not essential all the time you are right, but it is fun! But low light capability is nice, as is the ability to isolate the subject even at reasonable distances without having to resort to longer focal legnths. 8)
Anyhoo, it is deffo something of a personal preference thing, and I think the prime V zoom debate is not only off topic (my fault, sorry!), but also has hints of SS v HT v FS type discussions. 😀
Kev