These are my only two Sony lens that I use on the A900. I really don't have any need for much else. I shoot beauty/fashion work primarily. The 135 is my go to lens, and the 24-70 grabs everything else.
I toy with the purchase of the 70-200 G, but I just can't rationalize ~$2K for a lens that will be used ~5-10% of the time (i.e. when I need more/less reach than the 135).
I also looked at the 100 macro. That is still a possibility...not sure though. The 135 focuses extremely close for my beauty/makeup work.
I am finding that I REALLY want the 135mm f/1.8, mostly because there are no 135mm f/2.8 primes for the Sony other than it and the STF and I want at least an f/2.8, autofocus, and good build quality. Minolta autofocus 135s are practically impossible to find, a major lack as far as I'm concerned along with the lack of a 200mm. A large zoom like the 70-200G or Tamron equivalent just seem too long to use as a walk about. The second lens I got when I got my Canon (FT?) at 15y.o. was a 135 f/2.8. It seems like a versatile lens to me and I don't know why there isn't a variety of them with the Alpa mount. I probably will still use my 24-70 90% of the time so I am having trouble justifying the price.
Since I have a great passion and liking for photography hence suggesting you the best lens suited with A 850/900 would be a G type or screen with a really good resolution fulfilling your purpose of capturing portraits and landscapes.
Both are small enough that you can slip one one in your camera bag and you'll hardly notice them alongside the 24-70!
Well this is a good thread...
Although having no camera, (maybe November), I just won auction a Minolta 20mm 2.8 and might go for the 24-105D also, because some here have it...
Found a great site, lens comparisons etc, that some here are familiar with...
If Theresa revisits this thread, consider a used Minolta 200 f2.8 APO. I use one (sometimes with the matching 1.4TC) for distant shots of buddhist monasteries across high Himalayan valleys, a pretty exacting task. I am fully satisfied with the resolution and can adjust for the soft, Leica-like, Minolta look in post - I am a Zeiss guy...too bad the dills at Sony did not permit a Sony mount for the ZE/ZF/ZK/ZS series - talk about taking aim at both feet with a shotgun!
Other lenses I use, if anyone is interested, are the workhorse 35-70mm f3.4 Contax zoom, my wunderlens...and a Distagon 28mm f2.8 (tremendous centre res and graceful corners), Sonnar 100mm f3.5 (very high res everywhere). Soon to be joined by another fine Distagon, the 21mm f2.8 - all on Leitax mounts. Then, to the relief of my wallet, I can stop buying. So Sony missed out with me, but their sensor and electronics are a gem for my work.
My stuff is almost all slow tripod use, so light slow lenses are fine, provided the 3D look and appropriate resolution, contrast and colour rendition are there. Nothing matches Zeiss for the colour/contrast blend, IMO, together with graceful focus fade rather than Leica uber-bokeh.
I saw a good thread recently where Ed was saying he found the ZS lenses to have more preferable colour and contrast, and speculated that Sony had a hand in the formulation of the ZA series to make them more resemble the Minolta/Sony lenses...
The timelines are the clearest indicator that these can only be pre-existing Zeiss Auto-focus designs (never deployed in any mount) that were then adapted with the necessary changes for compatibility with A-mount.
I have 4 Sony/Zeiss lenses (85, 135, 24-70 and 16-35) along with several premier Sony/KM lenses (including their "G" lenses) and the Zeiss lenses have a signature look that is totally different from the rest of the Sony lenses - excellent micro-contrast, razor sharpness and superb color fidelity comes to mind for the ZA lenses. Every single one of these ZA lenses also have a unique Zeiss Serial# on them, that is different from the unique Sony Serial# that is also present in each and every one of them.
The manual focus Zeiss lenses built by Cosina on the other hand, may very well be using glass from a catalog (probably Hoya ?) that is different from the glass from the Schott catalog that the Sony/Zeiss lenses use. And thus might have a different look, for all we know. I am speculating here.
A900 with a few lenses, flashes etc.