The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Lenses for A55

Jeffg53

Member
I'm contemplating an A55 as a travel camera for when lugging a Hasselblad isn't reasonable. My initial contemplation was to get a 50 and 35 but looking around leaves me feeling that these are ho hum lenses with variation between units. Next I contemplated the Zeiss 16-80, a bit heavier but still OK. The reviews on this lense are consistently damning of unit variation and build quality.

When I had an A900, I had the 24-70, 85. and 135. They were all stellar, and a significant reason for buying Sony, but they are all heavier than what I want for the A55.

Can anyone comment on what might be a good, high quality choice for the A55?
 

pegelli

Well-known member
The new 35, 50 and 85 primes are cheap construction but optically very good for their price. I haven't heard big complaints about their consistency (I kinda live on Dyxum, so would have picked it up there)

Zoom wise for APS-C I'd choose the Tamron 17-50/2.8 over the Zeiss 16-80. Constant f 2.8, lot lower price, stellar sharpness from 2.8 and I don't miss the range (you can always take a step forward or crop a bit). If you really miss the range get a new 85/2.8 SAM with it, and you're probably still ahead in terms of cost.
 
C

curious80

Guest
Sony 50mm 1.4 is a very good lens specially for APS-C camera like A55 and it is pretty small and light. I have no idea about the 50 1.8 though. I will probably try out the 35 1.8 soon as well, though I was somewhat surprised to see that it is larger than the 50 1.4!
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I have the Zeiss 16-80 and the Sony 70-300 for my A55. I also have a Minolta beercan (which I love). The 16-80 and either of the two zooms is my travel kit.

A55, 16-80 at f/4.5 and 80mm





 
C

curious80

Guest
Nice Shot!

It is interesting that you use both the 70-300 as well as the beercan, as the range is completely overlapping. I am curious how do these stack up against each other in your opinion?

I have the Zeiss 16-80 and the Sony 70-300 for my A55. I also have a Minolta beercan (which I love). The 16-80 and either of the two zooms is my travel kit.

A55, 16-80 at f/4.5 and 80mm





 

Jeffg53

Member
I have the Zeiss 16-80 and the Sony 70-300 for my A55.
Cindy, almost everything that I have read about the 16-80 has been negative. Have you had any issues with it? Having used Zeiss lenses on Hasselbad and Sony cameras, I have great difficulty accepting that Zeiss would put their name to a dud.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Jeff, I will be the last to say the lens (and especially early copies) were void of problems. However to say that all is negative is in my mind a bit over the top.

First of all realize that bad press is always more abundant than good press, secondly look at these 176 user reviews on Dyxum over here. Most issues people found are there, but also lots of very happy users. Personally I choose the Tammy 17-50 over the CZ, but that was mainly for price and constant f2.8, and not related to stories on the net.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
They do overlap. I had the beercan first. I wanted more reach, so I bought the 70-300 more recently. I'm resisting selling the beercan because it is such a really nice optic for such a small investment. Also, I may decide that I want the 70-400 down the road...and it is big. I'd want the beercan then for times that 70-210 is enough.
If you don't feel the need for the extra reach, you can not beat the beercan for bang for your buck. The beercan also has the advantage of a constant f/4 through the range.

Nice Shot!

It is interesting that you use both the 70-300 as well as the beercan, as the range is completely overlapping. I am curious how do these stack up against each other in your opinion?
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Jeff, I will be the last to say the lens (and especially early copies) were void of problems. However to say that all is negative is in my mind a bit over the top.

First of all realize that bad press is always more abundant than good press, secondly look at these 176 user reviews on Dyxum over here. Most issues people found are there, but also lots of very happy users. Personally I choose the Tammy 17-50 over the CZ, but that was mainly for price and constant f2.8, and not related to stories on the net.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: Excellent advice.
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
Have you considered the Sony 18-250? I have one that lives on an old A200 that I let the wife knock around with. It's a good performer.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Cindy, almost everything that I have read about the 16-80 has been negative. Have you had any issues with it? Having used Zeiss lenses on Hasselbad and Sony cameras, I have great difficulty accepting that Zeiss would put their name to a dud.
Hi There
I have the 16-80 Sony/Zeiss, and I also think it a nice lens - I did have a 17-50 Tamron, but it was drastically soft in the corners on my A900 and went back (so I don't feel inclined to repeat the performance). The SZ isn't perfect, but it's small and neat, focuses well, has decent colour and (my copy at least) is pretty sharp (stop down a little wide open).

My son has the Sony 16-105, and he's really pleased with that. you pays your money.

I'm right with Cindy (and pretty much everyone else) on the 70-300, it's a fab lens, not just on APS-c, but it's fab on the A900 too.

all the best]
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I am very happy with my copy. I did have my dealer check mine out before I bought it, since I wasn't there to choose one and I had read all of the Dyxum reviews. I wish it was f/2 like my 50 planar zm or my 80 f/2 Contax 645, but then it would be a monster.

Cindy, almost everything that I have read about the 16-80 has been negative. Have you had any issues with it? Having used Zeiss lenses on Hasselbad and Sony cameras, I have great difficulty accepting that Zeiss would put their name to a dud.
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks folks. It sounds like the 16-80 and 70-300 would give me a good travel set with maybe a 50 1.4 for lugging around all day.
 
Top