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!

A900. Your Best Set Of Lenses

R

richard.L

Guest
thinking that the A's may be no more, and having found an excellent deal on some A900s, I have bought 3 of the beasties... after testing each for few hundred clicks, I plan on mothballing the two that are in lesser condition..

What set of lenses should I have... meaning to those of you that have gone through several lenses for the Sonys.. what are your favorites..

My Nikon set is heavy on macro ... low on wide.


thanks much.
richard.
 

Mark K

New member
I have quite an extensive list but for starting a Sony, I at least need 50/1.4, 50/2.8 macro, 100/2.8macro, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 135,
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I think most Sony glass is really good, minus a few exceptions. Zooms are mostly excellent: I have owned the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-300. The 70-200 and 70-400 are both top performers. If you prefer primes, look at my signature.
 
R

richard.L

Guest
so a good first pass (prime is my favorite mode)

35/1.4
50/1.4 50/2.8 macro
100/2.8 macro
135/1.8

this would be close to my Nik kit...

thanks much. richard...
 

engel001

Member
Not a huge selection really available in this system. After the Zeiss 24-70, 85mm, 135mm, and 24mm, I acquired a Minolta 200mm/2.8. A Konica-Minolta (ex Tamron) 28-75mm/2.8 (great for light travelling), a Minolta 50mm/1.4 and a Minolta 100mm macro round out my A850 kit. My sharpest zoom is a converted Leica R Vario-Elmar Asph 28-90mm (Leitax). Slower to use but about as good as it gets in 35mm format.
 
Last edited:

Lonnie Utah

New member
To to OP, what type of shooting do you expect to do? Knowing this is the only real way to answer the question.

My PERSONAL kit which works for ME includes the CZ 16-35 f/2.8, the CZ 24-70 F/2.8, Sigma 70-200 F/2.8, minolta 50 f/1.7, and a minolta 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 (which is quite underrated on FF as a walk around street photography lens). I also have a set of extension tubes for macro work, which I don't really use very often. Most of what I do is landscape photography, with some pics of the wife, kid and dog thrown in for good measure....
 

edwardkaraa

New member
so a good first pass (prime is my favorite mode)

35/1.4
50/1.4 50/2.8 macro
100/2.8 macro
135/1.8

this would be close to my Nik kit...

thanks much. richard...
If you do not shoot too close the ZA 135 goes to 1:4 (around 72 cm) and is sharper than the 100 macro.

The reason why I have it is that I shoot often at 1:1.
 
R

richard.L

Guest
If you do not shoot too close the ZA 135 goes to 1:4 (around 72 cm) and is sharper than the 100 macro.
Good to know. I have them both in the cart.

What I shoot is whatever is around. I tend to use a lens until it gets in my way, then switch to a different one for awhile. Then....

In my Nik world, my 700 lives with a 60macro. I like the 60 so much I have 3 :)

On a recent trip I lived with a Zeiss 100 mounted on a F3. Since it was macro I was able to do snaps of people ... from way too close ... but then, this is for me, not them , nor the restaurant, hotel, gas company...

It is retirees prerogative. Back to my art school days, but now with supplies.

richard.l
// on a 2 year tour of texas
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Somehow I like heritage Minolta glass.

I have and really like the following primes:
20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2.8, CZ135/1.8 and 200/2.8

My prime zooms (no pun intended) are 28-70G and 80-200HS G
Also have a simple 17-35/2.8-4D, very good performer for the price, but not fully up to the quality of the G's above (especially the corners)

For simple "walk around" the 24-105/3.5-4.5 D isn't bad either and lots smaller/lighter than the CZ 24-70
 
K

Kirby Krieger

Guest
I don't think anyone has mentioned the Sony 135 STF. Very much worth a look. If you like sharpness, the Sony 100/2.8 Macro is a bargain (with these bonuses: comparatively light, and magnifies to 1:1), and the Zeiss 135/1.8 is probably unbeatable.
 

jsparks

Member
I have mostly Minolta lenses. Of them, I really like the 20/2.8, 28/2, 85/1.4. I also find the Konica Minolta 28-75/2.8 a really nice lens. Mine is a little sharper at the long end than the wide end, but usably sharp even wide open. The Sony 70-300 G is also very sharp and fast focusing. I only got it a few months ago and wish I had gotten it sooner. It's usable even wide open and the best zoom lens I've ever used.

The Sigma 70/2.8 Macro is a very sharp lens. I use it quite often, but it does have some focusing issues. Unlike the Minolta or Sony lenses I've used, it auto-focuses at a different position if the lens is focused from infinity or from the close focus direction. It's not a big deal at longer distances or smaller stops, but at close distances I've had some focusing problems.

The 35/1.4 is good stopped down and reasonably sharp in the center wide open (sharper than the 50/1.4 wide open but not as sharp as the 85/1.4 wide open), but it's rather big and heavy for what I consider a f/5.6 lens. I don't think it is ever as sharp as the 28/2, but the 35mm does have better bokeh. I have also had some focusing issues with it that I'm trying to work out with AF adjustment settings, but I don't really have a handle on it yet (maybe it needs different settings for different focus distances). I did find that I couldn't use the same setting for f/1.4 and f/2, the focus shift between these 2 stops was enough that when the f/1.4 shot is sharp, the f/2. shot is out of focus. I've sometimes had great results from this lens, but often feel that the results are not what they should be. I've read that there are some tweeks to the design for the Sony version and it may well be a much better performer.

I'm not completely happy with the 50/1.4 I have (old version with 49mm filter ring). It is not bad at f/2.8, but I find it unusable at wider settings. Like the 35mm, I also have had focusing issues with mine and I don't know if the AF adjustments are constant with focus distance. I've had some out of focus shots with this lens that should have been simple and worked find with other lenses. I really hope that Sony comes out with a Zeiss replacement for this lens. I like using 50mm a lot, but I'm not really happy with this one. I do sometimes wonder how it compares with the current Sony lens. I also wonder about the Sigma 50/1.4, but I've read that it has focus issues and based on my Sigma 70mm experience, I believe it.

The Minolta 135/2.8 is a decent lens and a nice small longer lens to stick in the bag. It focuses quickly and accurately. It is sharp, but has rather low contrast. I don't use 135mm all that much and don't want to spend the money or carry the weight of the Zeiss 135 although I'm sure it would be a much better lens.

Unlike other reports I've read, I've never been very happy with my 24-105. It is a little sharper at the wide end than the 28-75, but I find it rather soft at the long end. Maybe part of my problem is that I like working hand held in low light where I'm not using it at f/11 where it seems to work best. I would like Sony to make a G version of this lens that works as well as the 70-300.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I have absolutely no sharpness issues with my 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 (both Sony). They are both quite sharp wide open (obviously not at landscape distances) and very sharp stopped down. I've had no focusing issues with any of my current primes, they are all very accurate.
 

roweraay

New member
I just acquired a Sony 35/1.4 G. Since I already had a Minolta 35/2, I plan to do some back-to-back testing to see how they both stack up against each other.

The 35/2 is of course far smaller/lighter than the 35/1.4 but want to look at the other characteristics to see which would suit me better.
 

alphaman

New member
I.M.O. the 35/2 is sharper at 2 than the 35/1.4 if you are looking at clinical sharpness, however the 35/1.4 does have a lovely dreamy quality when wide open. This may be due to the lower resolution it has at wide apertures.

Both are excellent lenses and having had both I kept the 35/2 partly due to it's smaller size and that suiting my needs.

As to my list for the A900; M20/2.8, CZ24/2, M35/2, CZ85/1.4, CZ135/1.8 and M200/2.8. I am a primaholic, so zooms are good for work (where necessary) and primes rule supreme otherwise. If I had to cut it down to two lenses only it would have to be the 35/2 and the 135/1.8.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I'm not sure about this, but my understanding is that the 35/1.4 is better than the 35/2 in other important aspects of wide open shooting like coma and CA, even though the 35/2 may be sharper. So the 35/1.4 may be better suited for wide open shooting for these reasons. Stopped down they seem to be very similar. This is not 1st hand experience because I have never owned the 35/2 just the impression I have from distilling a lot of info from the web.
 

alphaman

New member
There is an informative review here http://kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_35mm_f_2_reviewid204.html, which I would agree; with based on my experience of this lens.

When both lenses are stopped down, say to 5.6, I would say that they were both equally superb. For clinical wide open sharpness the 35/2 is a winned IMO, but when that extra stop is required the 35/1.4 is more than acceptably sharp and will save the day.

As an observation, in my experience, wide aperture wide-angle lenses perform worse than their telephoto counterparts, so whereas the 85/1.4 is great at 1.4, I wouldn't expect the same level of performance from a 35/1.4. Perhaps this is why Zeiss made the 24mm a f2 and not a f1.4 ...?

I wouldn't let my comments put anyone off the 35/1.4. I would be more than happy to own one. Facing the ultimate challenge of choosing between them (I had both), I chose the 35/2 because I thought the wide open performance was closer to my Zeiss lenses (we're talking tiny amounts here) and also just because it fitted into my kit-bag more comfortably. Ultimately, it's down to personal preferences.
 

roweraay

New member
I have both the 35/1.4 and the 35/2....the 35/1.4 was acquired just a couple of weeks back and I had the 35/2 for several months now. I agree that the 35/2 (weighing a featherweight 240gms !) is sharper than the 35/1.4, when both are shot at f/2. However, I shot with the 35/1.4 and found, like alphaman above, that it is "acceptably sharp" at f/1.4 and I truly valued that extra light that was available, over the f/2......both shot on the A900.

I have now listed my Minolta 35/2 (in absolutely mint condition) on sale here in the Gear for sale forum. Would have liked to keep both, but just want to keep the gear acquisition in balance.

For Sale link here
 

philip_pj

New member
35/1.4
50/1.4 50/2.8 macro
100/2.8 macro
135/1.8

I'd look into a Contax 35mm f1.4 (M42 fit from memory), a Pentax 50mm f1.4, a Leica 60mm f2.8 Makro, Leica 100/f2.8 APO Makro, via Leitax mounts. The ZF Zeiss range is also an easy remount to Sony. I doubt you would find better.

Now since you ask, my go is currrently: Contax 21mm f2.8, Contax 28mm f2.8, Contax 35-70mm f3.4, Contax 100mm f3.5 and 100-300mm f4.5-f5.6. I think there is something to the idea that AF lenses have more play in the AF focusing mechanism, and that manual focus lenses can be made to very high tolerances, leading to better images.

Maybe see if you can try the OEM lenses before buying, see what you like for your subject matter and style. I bought the 24Mp body to put alt lenses in front of, for landscapes.
 

FlypenFly

New member
The 100/2.8 macro is a direct Minolta port without any updates, its a bit wooped by the Nikon 105mm VR and even the Canon 100mm Macro F2.8.

Personally I think the best in class lenses for the Sony A900 are:

85mm ZA F1.4
135mm ZA F1.8
16-35mm ZA F2.8
135mm STF F2.8/4

You're not going to find better lenses in that range for any platform. The only lens that beats the 85mm ZA F1.4 is the Canon L F1.2 85mm.

The 24-70mm F2.8 while being a good lens has much poor corners than other lenses of its class.
 
Top