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!

the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

nostatic

New member
Well, as usually when I dive in I go head first. I have sold everything and now have 3 Sony bodies: a77 (for work), a65 (for the g/f), and 5N. I sold my DLux4 and all of my Canon stuff. I likely will break down and get the NEX7 because I'm thinking that the ergos will be about perfect (5N could be a tad bigger for my hands).

With the NEX I'm happy with the 18-55 and 55-210 combo, especially the latter. I've warmed to the 16 and have the 50/1.8 on order. So I'm pretty much set there. For the alphas I'm in a bit more of a quandry. I got the 16-50/2.8 with the a77 and am liking that lens the more I use it. I got the 18-250 for the a65 but frankly was reminded that I don't like superzooms. And I tried the 18-55 kit lens that comes with it and was relatively impressed so I'm swapping the body/lens combo for the proper kit setup.

That leaves a lot of gaps though. I was thinking that to save money I'd get the 70-300 with the kit (only $150 as they knock $100 off). I don't shoot that long very often so seems like an inexpensive way to cover that. The other one I'm thinking of getting is the 50/1.4 as we both shoot in a lot of low light.

Any ones that I'm missing? I know the Zeiss zooms are highly regarded but seems like overkill to get a FF size lens for the APS body. And the cheaper 18-70 Zeiss DT gets so-so reviews.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Any ones that I'm missing? I know the Zeiss zooms are highly regarded but seems like overkill to get a FF size lens for the APS body. And the cheaper 18-70 Zeiss DT gets so-so reviews.
I don't know a 18-70 Zeiss DT, but maybe you mean the 16-80 DT. Early copies had some mechanical problems and got a bad rap, but it's a fantastic sharp lens so I wouldn't discard it out of hand.

The Minolta 70-300 is not the best there is, might do the job if you don't use it for critical work but for a little more money you can get the new Tamron 70-300 (not the old LC version, but the newer VC) which gets you much better IQ as well as a focus motor in the lens. If you can live with 200 at the long end consider the 55-200 DT, very sharp, light, good IQ and not high cost.

Seems you're not looking for anything under 16 mm but just in case you do: when I was exclusively APS-C I had the Sigma 10-20 and was very happy with it. Tamron 10-24 is also a popular lens and there's now also the very good Sigma 8-16. If you want to let in more light, spend a little more money and have built quality of a tank the Tokina 11-16/2.8 comes to mind.
 
Top