Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

  1. #1
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by nostatic View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

    Sorry, I meant the 16-80 Zeiss

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_Carl.html

    The long lens isn't for critical stuff - more just to have a long lens for those days when you want one. For work I used to use the 16-35L/2.8 on the 5D2 as I had to shoot indoors in tight quarters a fair amount. So I might want to get a 10-20 or 11-16 at some point.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    384
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: the "must have" a77/a65 lenses

    70-210/f4, Minolta or 70-300G
    35/1.8,

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •