 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Maxxum/Dynax 7D wide-angle lens?
I've recently purchased a 7D and am using it with the lenses I used to have on my old 500si. Stock 35-70 and 75-300 I'ld like to get some wider angle of view and am looking for some advice on which lens(s) I should be considering Recommendations anyone? Alan? Toa New Zealand > I've recently purchased a 7D and am using it with the lenses I used to have > on my old 500si. Stock 35-70 and 75-300 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Toa > New Zealand I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper. And then there's this fresh from KM's news page... http://tinyurl.com/b48u7 or... http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_News/cam_NewsDetai l/DT_Lenses?header=aboutus  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_News/cam_NewsDetai l/DT_Lenses?header=aboutus > jer Thanks, appreciated Toa > I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough stick > time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper. f/3.5 you mean? It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4. > And then there's this fresh from KM's news page... > > http://tinyurl.com/b48u7 Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough >> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price > is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 53933&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation or http://tinyurl.com/agnfs I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned. >> And then there's this fresh from KM's news page... >> >> http://tinyurl.com/b48u7 > > Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you > want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well. True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming I ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough >>> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned. Yes. Variable aperture (f/2.8 - f/4). The older Minolta model is fixed aperture ( f/3.5 ) and about 3.5X more expensive. That is the one I've been intending to buy. But for 2/7 the money I could get the "Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version. >> Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you >> want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well. > > True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward > compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming I > ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D. If you do, you'll likely have to ship both the flash and the camera back to Minolta for calibration of some sort. I haven't done this yet although there is about a 1.5 - 1.7 stop under flash. In the fall I'll be shooting film only, so I'll ship both back then for calibration and probably buy a secong 5600HS at the same time. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough >>>> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Cheers, > Alan I don't do a lot of work with strobes, but I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > But for 2/7 the money I could get the > "Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version. "Brand name continued on next camera." ;^) I bet Minolta is beginning to look back fondly on the time when their only problem was getting sued by Exxon for overlapping the 'X's in 'Maxxum'... Bob ^,,^ > It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price > is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4. > Alan What's your view on Sigma? Say the 24mm f1.8 http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4 Or the 18-125mm F3.5 http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3287&navigator=6 Toa >>It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price >>is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Toa I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience with them. They seem to offer competitive lenses at reasonable price points. The nice fella at the local shop was pushing... http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?navigator=3 ...mainly because he knows I like really long lenses and he only wanted a grand for it. I borrowed it for a while outside and doofed around with it, seemed to do okay, but I've already deleted the playtime shots. :( Maybe someone else can chime in with some Sigma experiences. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience > with them. They seem to offer competitive lenses at reasonable price > points. The nice fella at the local shop was pushing... > jer I like the look/price of the 18-125 lens http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3287&navigator=6 But I'm unsure if these lenses give a sufficiently clear image in comparison to other lenses. Toa >>It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price >>is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Say the 24mm f1.8 > http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4 Given that it's a prime, there is a good chance that it is at least "okay", possibly very good. The photo example at the Sigma site is not a great example (poor contrast or possibly a poor scan). > Or the 18-125mm F3.5 > http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3287&navigator=6 There are few Sigma's I would buy. The only one that comes to mind right now is the 180mm f/3.5 macro. My SO bought a 28-200 f/var that is 'okay'. Since she prints to 4x6 in order to use scene material for her oil painting, it is fine for the job. She (who is not terribly interested in photography itself) prefers the look of the 50 f/1.7 when she can use it. I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very good. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for > the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very > good. > Alan I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand" equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands? Toa [] > I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about > "name-brand" equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable > difference between say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron > > Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between > brands? Even if the optical design were the same, cost savings can be achieved by doing less quality control, so it's possible that some sources will produce more bad lenses than others. But the optical design will be different, more elements or fewer, using different glass, optimising for best performance wide-open or stopped down, optimising for the wide-angle or telephoto end of the zoom range. The answer to your question: Yes. David >> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between >> brands? > > The answer to your question: Yes. > David Thought so <g> Toa >>> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between >>> brands? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Toa Even so, considering MTF for example, some people may prefer a lens with a long tail of MTF, providing detail at higher spatial frequencies, but at a lower contrast level, whereas others may prefer a lens with a sharper roll-off, but a higher MTF at mid spatial frequencies, so whilst you can measure a difference, the measurements sometimes need to be interpreted in accordance with your own tastes or needs. Cheers, David >>I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for >>the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands? Sigma make a few very-optically-good lenses. Construction is not as good the as better OEM lenses. The mechanics feel cheap (esp. zoom) in many Sigma lenses. Tamron make several very good lenses. Tamron has (v. Sigma) a fairly narrow line of lenses which include some jewels like the 90mm f/2.8 macro. Tokina make several very good lenses, however, nits such as migrating lubricants were a problem with some lenses in the past. In the end, Nikon, Canon, Minolta et al make some real dogs too. But in their better lenses, one cannot go seriously wrong. Just pay the piper. With a patience and a bit of searching, you can get near new lenses and save a lot of money. Is it a personal thing? Sure. I would rather pay the premium and have something that does what it is purported to do than pay half the price and not have what I was expecting. To read the various magazines, many third party lenses are "great value". Remember what value means and how marketeers use the term. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.