Help

[rdgent]

What to do? I am shooting A700 and CZ16-80 and 70-300G
I shoot a lot of flowers and general photo for printing at 8x10-13x19.
I want sharpness but I am not ready for new FF and Lens so I
am looking at 135mm f1.8 or CZ24-70.
The 16-80 is a good lens but not for landscapes . It is just not that sharp at
less than 50mm ,in my opinion.
I guess I need advise from someone that ownes both 24-70 and 135.
Current economics limit my investments.
If I purchase A850 I would still need 16-80 replacement.
If 24-70 is sharp enough on A700 I may never go FF.
I do understand that 135 F1.8 is supposed to be sharpest Sony from
center to edge.
Help with decision.

I am new to this forum but not to Photography.
I was drawn to this site by the appearance of more experienced photogs.

Thanks Rick

 

[Terry]

135 on a smaller sensor is going to be pretty long. It is a wonderful lens but not sure it will do what you want. 24-70 is my workhorse lens and i'm very happy with it.

 

[nautilus]

I think that you already have the perfect kit for general photography. If you want more 'sharpness' you could use a tripod. This advice is not meant as a joke, please think about it. I'm sure you will see a difference in 'sharpness'.
My 16-80 is sharp. But not only that. The colours are very good and it has good microcontrast. I don't think that the 24-70 is sharper and it's range is much less versatile than that of the 16-80. I tried the 24-70 on my A700 and wouldn't have bought it for the price of the 16-80.
If the 16-80 and 70-300 are your only lenses an economic solution for your flowers could be the 30mm macro. For shorter distances and macro related usage it's a fine lens.

If your money is limited I wouldn't go the FF route. If your 16-80 isn't broken I believe that you can only win if you improve your shooting technique. The problem isn't the lens.
I can compare it for landscape shooting with lenses like 2,8/20, 2,0/35 1,4/50 and don't hesitate to use it. It's much sharper than the 2,8/20, equal to the 2,0/35 and better than the 1,4/50. It falls back only in respect of distortion compared to the 35 and 50mm lens.

 

[nautilus]

Rick, to illustrate a bit what I meant with shooting technique in my last answer.
I just found an example of the effect of mirror lock-up with a Sony camera.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=33818763&changemode=1

If you look at the 100% crop you see a lot of improvement in the picture with MLU. You would have to compare a very bad lens with a very good lens to see such a difference under same circumstances.
Of course MLU is just one example that shows its best effect with certain slow shutter speeds but there exist other situations where you can improve the picture quality:
without tripod and without SSS
without tripod and with SSS
with tripod
with tripod and MLU