To much Minolta in our bag?

darth maul

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,392
0
76
Ok have a Sony a57 coming on Monday. Had a Sony a230.

Now we (wife and I), have three Minolta lenses in our bag of tricks, and one Sony kit lens coming. When all said and done we will have Minolta: 50mm prime, 70-210mm beer can, and a 35-70mm mini beer can + the Sony 18-55mm.

So how much are we missing not having a $300+ lens in our bag?

If we were to splurge on a lens what lens would you get knowing what we have already, keeping it under $400~?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Ok have a Sony a57 coming on Monday. Had a Sony a230.

Now we (wife and I), have three Minolta lenses in our bag of tricks, and one Sony kit lens coming. When all said and done we will have Minolta: 50mm prime, 70-210mm beer can, and a 35-70mm mini beer can + the Sony 18-55mm.

So how much are we missing not having a $300+ lens in our bag?

If we were to splurge on a lens what lens would you get knowing what we have already, keeping it under $400~?

I don't know, what shots have you missed because the lens you were using wasn't a sufficient tool for the job? People agonize over gear too much.
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
Do you get the photos that you want with the lenses you have today? If so, you probably don't need any new lenses. However, if you're trying to do some new things that your current lenses don't allow you to do, then it might be time for some new gear.

So, what are you hoping to capture tomorrow that you are unable to capture today (low light, macro, shallow dof...)?
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
My only suggestion based on your list of lenses and not knowing your photography goals is to get a Tamron 17-50. With patience, you should be able to find a used one for around 300.

If you need longer reach, the Tamron 75-300 had been well reviewed.
 

slashbinslashbash

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,945
8
81
I think you've done a good job. The access to decent and cheap-ish old Minolta lenses is the best thing going for the Sony bodies. With the kit lens coming in, you'll have all your focal lengths covered. (35mm as the widest end for an APS-C body is, well, not wide at all.) I would try picking up some more primes, maybe a 100mm Macro and a 35mm? Actually, this one is probably what I would get:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=REG&A=details

It's like your 50mm but wider. The 50mm is a good portrait lens on a crop body, but too long for general use. The 35mm would be a lot more of a general use lens in low light situations, i.e., indoors.
 

darth maul

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,392
0
76
Thanks guys, Tamaron 17-50mm looks great, if we get rid of the kit lens I think that would be right up our alley. 35mm prime wouldn't be a bad idea either. Lots to think about.

Oh and ya a longer reach lens would be nice but NOT really, really, needed, at the moment, but something to think about after maybe the 17-50~ range is covered with a better lens. And actually the kit lens we had with the a230 was our most used lens or close to it. The Minolta 35-70 is going to be a new lens for us, that is coming in this week. So we will see how that does first, gut feeling is not wide enough.

Oh and I mainly asked the questions because I have never tried a expensive lens, well expensive for us, $300 tamron would be expensive but not out of reach. Our most expensive lens the 70-210 beer can was $85-90 something when we got it from ebay, or was it keh.....
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
Thanks guys, Tamaron 17-50mm looks great, if we get rid of the kit lens I think that would be right up our alley. 35mm prime wouldn't be a bad idea either. Lots to think about.

Oh and ya a longer reach lens would be nice but NOT really, really, needed, at the moment, but something to think about after maybe the 17-50~ range is covered with a better lens. And actually the kit lens we had with the a230 was our most used lens or close to it. The Minolta 35-70 is going to be a new lens for us, that is coming in this week. So we will see how that does first, gut feeling is not wide enough.

Oh and I mainly asked the questions because I have never tried a expensive lens, well expensive for us, $300 tamron would be expensive but not out of reach. Our most expensive lens the 70-210 beer can was $85-90 something when we got it from ebay, or was it keh.....

An "expensive lens" will only give you better pictures compared to the lenses you have if you know how to take advantage of their qualities. Otherwise, the upgrade in glass quality will struggle to manifest itself in better pictures.
 

slashbinslashbash

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,945
8
81
An "expensive lens" will only give you better pictures compared to the lenses you have if you know how to take advantage of their qualities. Otherwise, the upgrade in glass quality will struggle to manifest itself in better pictures.

Very true. Once you have a basic kit (which you do) the way that you determine what to buy next is by using your existing equipment, and determining where its deficiencies lie. If your existing skill level isn't pushing the limits of your equipment, then you can be happy with your equipment until you get better. So take lots of photos, and critique them; and keep notes of your common complaints while shooting. Learn your common criticisms/problems and determine whether they stem from your equipment, or from you.

Examples would be "I wish this 50mm f/1.8 were wider." "It's a pain to use this zoom lens in Manual mode because of the variable maximum aperture." "I just couldn't get a steady shot." "I wish I could zoom out more." "I don't like the way the colors turned out." (Note: Most of these could be either technique or equipment.... or both. The proper equipment can compensate for some aspects of poor technique, and vice-versa.)

You've got a variety of lenses that show you both sides of the zoom/prime equation, so you know what's possible (I usually recommend people to get a prime with aperture < f/2.0 as their 2nd lens after the kit lens, because if the kit lens is all you know, you never know what you're missing).
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I have a beercan and it's not that great a lens. You'd probably get much more sharpness from a 70-200 f2.8

The 18-55 kit lens sucks. So you're missing a good telephoto and a good wide angle, and so am I
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Thanks guys, Tamaron 17-50mm looks great, if we get rid of the kit lens I think that would be right up our alley. 35mm prime wouldn't be a bad idea either. Lots to think about.

Oh and ya a longer reach lens would be nice but NOT really, really, needed, at the moment, but something to think about after maybe the 17-50~ range is covered with a better lens. And actually the kit lens we had with the a230 was our most used lens or close to it. The Minolta 35-70 is going to be a new lens for us, that is coming in this week. So we will see how that does first, gut feeling is not wide enough.

Oh and I mainly asked the questions because I have never tried a expensive lens, well expensive for us, $300 tamron would be expensive but not out of reach. Our most expensive lens the 70-210 beer can was $85-90 something when we got it from ebay, or was it keh.....


I got a Tamron 17-50 and it was soft so I returned it
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
I have a beercan and it's not that great a lens. You'd probably get much more sharpness from a 70-200 f2.8

The 18-55 kit lens sucks. So you're missing a good telephoto and a good wide angle, and so am I

No offense, but if this isn't the understatement of the year, I'm not sure what is. A $95 "super-zoom" isn't going to stand a chance in a battle with a $2000 lens, everything else being equal. I don't think the OP is looking to spend anything like that on a lens, though.
 

darth maul

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,392
0
76
Me, no, not yet. Waiting for the 35-70mm to come, from an ebay deal. Then it will be time to play...
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
I'd swap out the mini beercan for a Minolta 28-75 f/2.8. Fantastic lens and not terribly expensive. It's my normal "walk-around" lens because it's sharp, has nice bokeh, covers a usable range (moreso on a full-frame, but still nice on APS-C), and is fast enough to cover most available light situations I come across. It does suffer zoom-creep if I have the camera carried lens-down though.

That said, if the mini beercan's f/4 aperture isn't limiting you, then it might not be worth switching over to the 28-75 since the main draw of the 28-75 is its f/2.8 aperture. It's one of the best f/2.8 zooms in its range at any price though (IMO).

ZV
 

darth maul

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,392
0
76
Thanks guys, I think the next purchase is a 17-50 Tameron or the 28-75 Minolta. I should have also mentioned this will be used for video from time to time, so a constant aperture lens is a big plus, from my understanding, using as an example a f2.8 over the whole range of the lens is better because the ISO won't be needed to change much if at all depending on lighting etc.

PS....I played with Minolta mini beer can (35-70 f4) and it seems soft in the focusing, meaning the pictures came out a little soft. Not terrible either though, and I was using the macro mode switch on the lens, so that could be it too. Either way, stepping up in sharpness is kinda what I am after.
 
Last edited: