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!

Which lens do you use with A850/900?

durrIII

New member
I am considering getting an A850 or 900. Which lens would you start with? I shoot mostly candid portraits and some landscapes. Thanks
 

rchisholm

Member
Well, I will say first that I chose the a850 as a complement to my M8 system. The a850 is a fantastic camera! Great file IQ, very easy files to work with in post, excellent skin tones, etc... Just love the camera!

While there are not a ton of FF Sony lenses (discarding the Minolta offerings), Sony has a great lineup for people who want one thing: great IQ. Of course I am talking about the Zeiss lenses! I bought the 16-35 and the 135... What can I say, other than fantastic lenses! For my midrange zoom, I chose the Tamron 28-35 (loved it on my Canon 5d/5d2, Nikon D700, and love it on the Sony). Cheap, great color, sharp, and the bokeh (IMHO) is more "desirable" than the busy bokeh of the Zeiss 24-70. I also picked up the sony 50 1.4... Not blown away. Decent lens, but seems to have average sharpness and bokeh, and is not up to Canon's 50 1.4.

Anyway, I think that with the 16-35, the tammy 28-70 and the 135, that you have a fantastic lens kit. The 135 is a gem, with smooth bokeh (unlike the other Zeiss offerings. --rob
 

Terry

New member
I don't have a huge Sony Kit
A900

Sigma 12-24
Zeiss 24-70
Sony 70-300
Zeiss 135
Minolta 24-105 (incredibly inexpensive for a very nice TINY lens under $250)

If I were buying again today I might
skip the 12-24
buy the 16-35 (seems to not vignette as much as the 24-70 with filters)
 
Last edited:

ecsh

New member
I was using the Minolta 85 1.4D version, but, now i love the CZ 135 for candids. Superb lens.
I also have the CZ 16-35 for landscapes.
Joe
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Obviously my answer is in my signature. I have already purchased all the lenses that I consider worthwhile having in the current Sony line-up. I will probably get rid of the 70-300 in favour of a 200mm prime (Zeiss or G) with 1.4X converter when I need the longer reach. The 50 and 100 macro will also be replaced eventually when better options are available from Sony (probably Zeiss). As a first lens though, I would very seriously consider the Zeiss 24-70.
 

Eoin

Member
I'm like Edward, the lenses I have and like are in my signature.
However while the Zeiss zooms 16-35 & 24-70 are both excellent.

The Zeiss 85 & 135 are in another league all together. The 135 is just a stunning portrait lens and where space allows is my go to lens. Failing that, when space is tight the 85 works wonders.

I guess if I was to limit myself to a 2 lens setup, it would have to be either the 16-35 / 85 ZA or the 24-70 / 135 ZA combination to give the best focal spread. IMO the 135 would win out in this choice, regardless of the space needed to shoot this FL.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
I use the following on my A900

CZ ZA 16-35
CZ ZA 24-70
CZ ZA 135
Sony 100/2.8 macro
Sony 70-300G
Tamron 200-500 AF (A mount)

All the ZA's are great lenses with only the 24-70 open to criticism for vignetting wide open, but the 16-35 doesn't so I use that for wide view use.

I agree with Edward, the 100 macro is a very capable lens but not in the ZA class, so we need a macro from Zeiss please!!

The huge Tamron is the big surprise......it is incredibly sharp at 500 mm but of course slow at F6.3 max aperture and a definite need to stop down to at least F8, but F10 is better. It is very light for such a huge lens, not much heavier than the ZA 135. So far I have only used it hand held too, it should be stellar on a tripod. The bokeh is nice it also has a fairly fast AF for such a big lens.

The Sony anti shake system works really well particularly with this lens which I have successfully used as low as 1/80 at F10 at ISO 400 handheld.

There are so many used and excellent Minolta lenses available that the Sony way of life is a never ending adventure of discovery!
 

JimU

Not Available
sounds like the best choices for u would be...

Landscape: Minolta 20mm f/2.8 RS ~ $350usd
Candid Portraits: Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G RS ~ $850 usd

People who have owned both the 20/2.8 & 16-35CZ have found the 20 prime is sharper and the 85G just almost matches the 85CZ for sharpness and bokeh, but it has warmer classic Minolta G colour.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm pretty much with everyone else here.

I have:
Sigma 12-24
SZ 24-70
SZ 135 f2.8
Sony 70-300 G (great lens if you don't want the size or colour or expense of the 70-400)
Sony 100 macro
sony 20 f2.8
sony 50 f1.4

I'd like the 16-35, but can't quite qualify buying it!

Like Terry, I bought a 24-105 secondhand for silly money. I love it, it's small, it's an excellent focal length range, and it produces good results. Can't lose with it really! I think we both feel that it's the best photographic value ever!
 

Mark K

New member
I started my a850 using 24-105. However my dad insists having that lens so I moved to a new 24-70. I usually will add 85/1.4 and 50/2.8 macro in my camera bag
 
W

wbhstlouis

Guest
I hope it’s OK if I join in. I am seriously looking into getting an 850 and have many of the same questions as durrIII. The 24-105 looks like a good first lens for my needs. Is there any difference between a Minolta version and a Sony version? I see the Minolta version at KEH for an acceptable price. Is this lens noisy?

After the 24-105 the next choice is between selling off existing toys and going for the Zeiss 135/1.8 or adapting some of my Leica R lenses to alpha mount (Leitax). I know most of you have good things to say about the Zeiss but does anyone have any experience with adapted R lenses? The Zeiss has auto focus, which in the end maybe the determining factor but the 135 is huge/heavy. I really like my R lenses (24, 50 cron, 80, and 180 telyt) and would like to get more use out of them.

Perhaps off topic but what is the best way to go for flash (F58 or F42)? I am an amateur (probably quite obvious by now) but I use flash fill on travel photos a lot and I do some portraits. So the ultimate studio set up is not important but price, flexibility and size are.

Thanks for any advice and by the way I have enjoyed this forum a lot.
 

apsheng

Member
Anyone tried Leica R with the Leitax replacement mounts? I understand several of the lenses (19mm current, maybe even 35Lux) that do not clear Canon FF will clear the Sony. I am very tempted by the A850/900 and will get it once Leitax figures out a way to fit the ROM zooms.

Alan
 
Anyone tried Leica R with the Leitax replacement mounts? I understand several of the lenses (19mm current, maybe even 35Lux)
Currently using Leica 15/3.5 (need to sell for a 19 or 21), 50/2, 90/2 and 180/2.8. Need to get an adapter for my 35-70/4 ROM now that he lists it as an approved lens.

The Leitax mount is a generic mount/adapter and leaves the aperture rign pretty loose. David said that if you know what specific lens you will use a mount on he can customize it for that lens. While the mount is a quality product, I'm not blown away by the end result. He offered to tweak my mounts so they would fit better, but I really didn't want to take them off and ship everything back to Spain for an undetermined period of time.

I also am using a Minolta 35-70/4 and it is a decent lens. Wish it went down to 28, wish it had a closer min. focus distance, and wish it handled flare better, but overall I'm quite pleased with it.

figures out a way to fit the ROM zooms.
No problem with the ROM zooms, just have to do a little surgery on the lens to bury the wires. Not a big deal compared with what the Canon guys are doing to clear the mirror.
 

apsheng

Member
Currently using Leica 15/3.5 (need to sell for a 19 or 21), 50/2, 90/2 and 180/2.8. Need to get an adapter for my 35-70/4 ROM now that he lists it as an approved lens.

The Leitax mount is a generic mount/adapter and leaves the aperture rign pretty loose. David said that if you know what specific lens you will use a mount on he can customize it for that lens. While the mount is a quality product, I'm not blown away by the end result. He offered to tweak my mounts so they would fit better, but I really didn't want to take them off and ship everything back to Spain for an undetermined period of time.

I also am using a Minolta 35-70/4 and it is a decent lens. Wish it went down to 28, wish it had a closer min. focus distance, and wish it handled flare better, but overall I'm quite pleased with it.



No problem with the ROM zooms, just have to do a little surgery on the lens to bury the wires. Not a big deal compared with what the Canon guys are doing to clear the mirror.
Thank you very much for your reply. Really appreciate your input. Forgive me for asking more questions. I am struggling with the decision whether to go Canon or Sony with my R glass. I would like to use all my R glasses. The 19 current vers, 35 Lux, 80 Lux, and the two f4 ROM zooms 80-200, 35-70.

The loose aperture ring does not sound good. Does the lens at least mount solidly to the camera? What exactly does the ROM zoom conversion involve? Can it be converted back? And lastly, how do the pictures turn out?

Alan
 

GrahamB

New member
I hope it’s OK if I join in. I am seriously looking into getting an 850 and have many of the same questions as durrIII. The 24-105 looks like a good first lens for my needs. Is there any difference between a Minolta version and a Sony version? I see the Minolta version at KEH for an acceptable price. Is this lens noisy?

I have the a850, and I've been a Minolta/Sony user for the past 6 years. I have no eperience with the 24-105, but you might check Dyxum or Kurt Munger (http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html).

Munger is strong on the Minolta 28-135 "I really like the Minolta AF 28-135mm lens, and would prefer it over the Sony 24-105mm F/3.5-4.5. At the time of this review, I think the Minolta AF 28-135mm F/4-4.5 is the best walk-around lens for a Sony full frame camera; are you listening Sony?".

I can recommended the Tamron/Minolta 28-75 f/2.8. I also like the Sigma 20 f/1.8 and the Sony 50 f/1.4. The new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM is well regarded (and compares well to the Sony CZ 24-70).

After the 24-105 the next choice is between selling off existing toys and going for the Zeiss 135/1.8 or adapting some of my Leica R lenses to alpha mount (Leitax). I know most of you have good things to say about the Zeiss but does anyone have any experience with adapted R lenses? The Zeiss has auto focus, which in the end maybe the determining factor but the 135 is huge/heavy. I really like my R lenses (24, 50 cron, 80, and 180 telyt) and would like to get more use out of them.

Your R lens collection would seem to make the Leitax solution attractive. Of course, if you're not a manual focus shooter... . I think I'd have to consider the resale value of the Leica lenses and investing in Sony CZ lenses. On the other hand, I'm personally intending to purchase several Contax CZ primes and mount them with the Lietax adapter. Contax lenses seem to be a bargain compared to the Leica R's.

Perhaps off topic but what is the best way to go for flash (F58 or F42)? I am an amateur (probably quite obvious by now) but I use flash fill on travel photos a lot and I do some portraits. So the ultimate studio set up is not important but price, flexibility and size are.

The Sony HVL-f20am flash would be an excellent solution for you. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/sony-hvlf20am-bought-heres-a-report_topic49630_page1.html


Regards,
Graham
 
Alan, I went with Sony because I liked the feel of the body and ergonomics, the overall look of the images, and Sony's apparent commitment to image quality over gadgets I don't want. The lenses were secondary.

The lens mount is very solid, but it does not exert as much pressure on the aperture ring as the stock Leica mount giving a bit of play in the ring. David said that the adapters are designed to work on all lenses, some of which required a little play. If you ask, he can adjust the mount for the individual lens.
 
Last edited:

apsheng

Member
Thank you Bill. I am definitely leaning towards the Sony since it has better IQ (at lower ISO anyway) and can utilize all my R glasses.

Alan
 
W

wbhstlouis

Guest
Many thanks to GrahamB and Bill Green for your replies on this subject – very helpful.

I am going to settle on the 24-105 (or maybe the 28-135) and adapt my 50 cron. The plan is to get some experience with the A850 and these lenses and then decide whether to adapt other R lenses or go for the CZs. Who knows, by the time I get there maybe other choices will be available too.

The Sony HVL-F20AM looks like a perfect flash for my needs, great suggestion.

Thanks again.
 
Top