New camera! Lens questions...

[Jon Anderson]

After years of dreaming and lusting, I finally have a quality camera, a
Sony A700. Bought the body only, but my brother has loaned me several
lenses until I can get my own. My overall interests are scenery and
closeup (flowers, insects, etc). But I'm also quite interested in taking
great photos of airplanes, static and in the air. I don't have a lot of
money to blow on fancy lenses. And boy in looking around, cameras are
like a Bridgeport mill. Machine itself may not be cheap, but tooling up
to make it useful is where the money really is...

But this group inspires me, and so I thought I'd inquire here.
So looking for recommendations on some good basic lenses. Zooms are a
given, but also quite open to fixed focal.
And, any sites to recommend with tips on getting good aviation shots?

Looking forward to finally taking shots worthy of sharing here.

Thank you,


Jon

[Indrek[_2_]]

"Jon Anderson" > wrote in message
...
> After years of dreaming and lusting, I finally have a quality camera, a
> Sony A700. Bought the body only, but my brother has loaned me several
> lenses until I can get my own. My overall interests are scenery and
> closeup (flowers, insects, etc). But I'm also quite interested in taking
> great photos of airplanes, static and in the air. I don't have a lot of
> money to blow on fancy lenses. And boy in looking around, cameras are like
> a Bridgeport mill. Machine itself may not be cheap, but tooling up to make
> it useful is where the money really is...
>
> But this group inspires me, and so I thought I'd inquire here.
> So looking for recommendations on some good basic lenses. Zooms are a
> given, but also quite open to fixed focal.
> And, any sites to recommend with tips on getting good aviation shots?
>
> Looking forward to finally taking shots worthy of sharing here.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Jon

Congrats on the new camera.

To deal with the range of photography that you are contemplating, I doubt
that a single lens would be fully satisfactory. For flying aircraft you will
want a zoom lens that goes at least to 200 or 300mm, Fixed aperture would be
much more $$$ than variable aperture, but the latter would be OK provided
that there is a reasonable amount of light.

For close ups of flowers and insects, you would ideally have a macro lens of
about 90mm focal length. A zoom lens would produce fairly good images
provided that the lens can can focus from a close enough distance.

For landscapes you will need 18mm focal length, or less.

I recommend that you check out the forums at dpreview.com for lots of advice
on lenses and photo techniques.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.S. Churchill

[D. St-Sanvain]

Hello,

Jon Anderson a écrit :
> After years of dreaming and lusting, I finally have a quality camera, a Sony
> A700.
....
> So looking for recommendations on some good basic lenses. Zooms are a given,
> but also quite open to fixed focal.
> And, any sites to recommend with tips on getting good aviation shots?
>
> Looking forward to finally taking shots worthy of sharing here.

As I know nothing about Sony cameras, I'll speak only of focal length,
not of the quality of the lenses which I have never used.
But let's see at your need closer.
What you want is spotting outside fences (in flight), attending to
airshows (in flight, rolling, static), visiting museums (static)...

The A700 has a x1.5 factor : a 100 mm focal long lens, fitted on a A700
body, will give you pictures as if they were taken with 150mm lens on
argentic films.

Sony cameras may be fitted with non-Sony lenses (Tamron, Minolta...)
which are sometimes cheaper.

For taxiing a/c, something like a Tamron 55-200 would be ok.
For fly past, you may need someting like 300 or 400mm. They have a
28-300, Sigma has a 70-300.
Image stabilisation is interesting at these lenths...
Next steps are 400 and 500mm, but the price is "longer" too :s

That's for the focal. Hope you'll find information about quality/price.

Bye,

--
D52D520
Light aviation : http://tagazous.free.fr
Roundels of the World :
http://cocardes.monde.online.fr/v2html/en/accueil.html
Delta Reflex ! http://bdd.deltareflex.com

[Chris Richardson]

On Sun, 22 May 2011 09:59:12 -0800, Jon Anderson wrote:

> I don't have a lot of
> money to blow on fancy lenses.

A good camera needs a good lens. This is absolute.

Many people, after sinking a lot of money into a good SLR body,
will become reluctant to invest further in good lenses. Instead,
they may become tempted by the cheaper models offered by third-party
vendors such as Tamron and others. These third-party models
are not worth the price. Buy only from the same manufacturer
that builds the camera.

If you can only afford a single lens, make it a zoom. However,
zoom lenses are the most difficult lenses to make in high quality.
Every zoom lens is destined to be inferior to a fixed focal length
counterpart, and this is especially true for zoom lenses that
attempt to cover a very long range (e.g. 20-200mm). Zoom lenses
that cover a shorter range can be made in higher quality, and
I would suggest acquiring a zoom lenses for wide angle and another
zoom for telephoto.

For aircraft photography, a zoom in the range of 70-200mm can
be obtained in high quality. For other subjects, a range of
20-60mm would also be recommended.

Close up photography can be done with some zoom lenses but
the best solution would be a dedicated fixed focal length macro
lens.

You should maybe begin with a high quality 70-200mm zoom and
as the years go by you can acquire other lenses later.

Unless you have lots of money, I would avoid fixed focal length
lenses. They may be superior in optics but zooms are far more
convenient.

Rule #1: Avoid third-party suppliers (especially their zoom
lenses).

Rule #2: Avoid extreme-range zoom lenses that promise to do
it all for you.

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

On 5/22/2011 9:23 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:

> Rule #2: Avoid extreme-range zoom lenses that promise to do
> it all for you.
>

I don't know, my Canon 100mm-400mm USM IS L does a tolerable job.


--
Dale G Elhardt
Cypress Ca
I welcome change. But I prefer bills.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702

[Jon Anderson]

Thanks for the inputs. I currently have:

Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5
ProSpec 28-70 f3.5-4.5
ProSpec 75-300 f4.5-5.6

He's now given them to me officially, which takes some pressure off
replacing them and returning them to him.

So looks like a 70-200 something in a quality lens would probably be the
first one to buy, and that's helpful.

Generally, looking at airshow type shots, both static displays and
flybys. Here at the Grass Valley airport, one cannot get too close to
the runway along which most flybys occur, but one can get fairly close
to the taxiway. And in the static displays, close enough to touch for
the most part.

I do understand the cost/quality issue. It's not that I am a cheap
tightwad, but probably not going to be buying $1000 lenses anytime soon
unless I find a screaming deal on a CZ 16-35... I'm moving to Australia
next year and struggling to come up with the $20k it'll take to move my
machine shop and pay immigration fees. But stuff like this is cheaper to
buy and have shipped here, so want to get a good basic kit together
before I move.


Jon

[Chris Richardson]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 15:57:48 -0700, the Legend of LAX wrote:

> I don't know, my Canon 100mm-400mm USM IS L does a tolerable job.

100-400mm is not an extreme range.

By extreme range I am referring to zoom lenses that attempt to
capture both the wide angle and the telephoto focal lengths, e.g.
24-200mm. (I assume that 35-50mm is the dividing point between
wide angle and telephoto.)

100-400mm is within the telephoto focal lengths and so the design
of this lens is not that difficult (comparatively speaking.)

But any serious consumer should always check the MTF data for
the lens in question. Most manufacturers provide this data
somewhere, but independent MTF test data is the best.

Buying a lens is always something of a gamble. The on-line reviews
are not at all reliable, and any model of lens will exhibit variation
due to differences in manufacturing. Even MTF can be unreliable
because some MTF data is based on simulation rather than actual
testing.

I hate to sound pessimistic. I suppose that unless one is
obsessed with quality most high-end lenses will do a good
job.

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Sun, 22 May 2011 22:21:08 +0200, D. St-Sanvain
> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Jon Anderson a écrit :
>> After years of dreaming and lusting, I finally have a quality camera, a Sony
>> A700.
>...
>> So looking for recommendations on some good basic lenses. Zooms are a given,
>> but also quite open to fixed focal.
>> And, any sites to recommend with tips on getting good aviation shots?
>>
>> Looking forward to finally taking shots worthy of sharing here.
>
>As I know nothing about Sony cameras, I'll speak only of focal length,
>not of the quality of the lenses which I have never used.
>But let's see at your need closer.
>What you want is spotting outside fences (in flight), attending to
>airshows (in flight, rolling, static), visiting museums (static)...
>
>The A700 has a x1.5 factor : a 100 mm focal long lens, fitted on a A700
>body, will give you pictures as if they were taken with 150mm lens on
>argentic films.
>
>Sony cameras may be fitted with non-Sony lenses (Tamron, Minolta...)
>which are sometimes cheaper.
>
>For taxiing a/c, something like a Tamron 55-200 would be ok.
>For fly past, you may need someting like 300 or 400mm. They have a
>28-300, Sigma has a 70-300.
>Image stabilisation is interesting at these lenths...

Nice thing bout Sony (and the Minolta DNA they contain) is that the
camera body has image stabilization built in. Any lens attached then
becomes stabilized by default.

>Next steps are 400 and 500mm, but the price is "longer" too :s

Rob a bank and go for the Sigma 50~500 "Bigma" super zoom. I love
mine and get very good results; the zoom range makes it useful for
almost any airshow situation beyond closely packed static displays.
Hefty *******, though - you'll need a strong arm...

>That's for the focal. Hope you'll find information about quality/price.

Second that. Looks like you are already getting good info from the
great folks here.

Bob ^,,^

[Indrek[_2_]]

"the Legend of LAX" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/22/2011 9:23 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
>
>> Rule #2: Avoid extreme-range zoom lenses that promise to do
>> it all for you.
>>
>
> I don't know, my Canon 100mm-400mm USM IS L does a tolerable job.
>
>
> --
> Dale G Elhardt
> Cypress Ca
> I welcome change. But I prefer bills.
> http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702
>
>
No argument about great picture quality. There may be an issue with the
price of such a lens, however. I just checked on Amazon and the Canon EF
100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM is quoted at $1,649 down from a list price of
$2,700 WOW!!!!

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.S. Churchill

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

On 5/24/2011 7:34 AM, Indrek wrote:
>
>
> "the Legend of LAX" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/22/2011 9:23 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> Rule #2: Avoid extreme-range zoom lenses that promise to do
>>> it all for you.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know, my Canon 100mm-400mm USM IS L does a tolerable job.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dale G Elhardt
>> Cypress Ca
>> I welcome change. But I prefer bills.
>> http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702
>>
>>
> No argument about great picture quality. There may be an issue with the
> price of such a lens, however. I just checked on Amazon and the Canon EF
> 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM is quoted at $1,649 down from a list price of
> $2,700 WOW!!!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Indrek Aavisto
>
>
That's about right. I paid about $1400 for it a few years (holy cow! has
it been seven years already?) ago from B&H.

--
Dale G Elhardt
Cypress Ca
I welcome change. But I prefer bills.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702

[Jon Anderson]

On 5/24/2011 12:03 AM, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:

> Rob a bank and go for the Sigma 50~500 "Bigma" super zoom. I love
> mine and get very good results; the zoom range makes it useful for
> almost any airshow situation beyond closely packed static displays.
> Hefty *******, though - you'll need a strong arm...

Interesting. My brother recommended staying away from Sigma lenses due
to inconsistent quality. He's well known in the family for having a
distinct taste for quality stuff. I've been looking at lenses on Dyxum,
a great resource for Sony and Minolta users btw. I'll see what's posted
on that lens and maybe start looking for one. I know you are taking and
posting great shots, so says something for the lens.
Probably going to go with a Beercan next, but I've always had a
hankering for honking big lenes...

Thanks,


Jon

[oldman[_2_]]

Jon,

Don't forget that Sony still also uses older Minolta lenses. You might
be able to get some good deals on used Minolta lenses at your local
photography shop. Make sure the autofocus works.
A friend of mine got an excellent 50mm f1.4 for about $50.00.
He also purchased a newer Sony 70-300 G Series lens for around
$900.00. It is very sharp.

Good Luck,

Oldman











On Sun, 22 May 2011 09:59:12 -0800, Jon Anderson
> wrote:

>After years of dreaming and lusting, I finally have a quality camera, a
>Sony A700. Bought the body only, but my brother has loaned me several
>lenses until I can get my own. My overall interests are scenery and
>closeup (flowers, insects, etc). But I'm also quite interested in taking
>great photos of airplanes, static and in the air. I don't have a lot of
>money to blow on fancy lenses. And boy in looking around, cameras are
>like a Bridgeport mill. Machine itself may not be cheap, but tooling up
>to make it useful is where the money really is...
>
>But this group inspires me, and so I thought I'd inquire here.
>So looking for recommendations on some good basic lenses. Zooms are a
>given, but also quite open to fixed focal.
>And, any sites to recommend with tips on getting good aviation shots?
>
>Looking forward to finally taking shots worthy of sharing here.
>
>Thank you,
>
>
>Jon

[Jon Anderson]

On 5/25/2011 3:12 AM, oldman wrote:

> Don't forget that Sony still also uses older Minolta lenses. You might
> be able to get some good deals on used Minolta lenses at your local
> photography shop. Make sure the autofocus works.
> A friend of mine got an excellent 50mm f1.4 for about $50.00.
> He also purchased a newer Sony 70-300 G Series lens for around
> $900.00. It is very sharp.

Yeah, looking into that too. One lens I really want is a 100mm true
macro. They are not cheap, but just found a Minolta 100mm Macro w/1:1
tube, and MD mount. Looks like I can get an adapter for around $30. For
this type of close up, not having auto focus doesn't seem like a bad
thing, but for other lenses, I would want direct compatible mounts w/AF.
I'm even looking at entire camera kits. With patience and luck, just
might bag a couple useful lenses, filters, and a bag in one shot, for
what a lens alone might cost. I've seen a few go for under $50.

I did get sorta wowed by AF, never had a film camera with that feature.
But really, unless it's a moving subject, I'm perfectly capable of doing
that myself. But it sure is nice having all the other features of the
digital age!

Thank you,


Jon

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:00:23 -0800, Jon Anderson
> wrote:

>On 5/25/2011 3:12 AM, oldman wrote:
>
>> Don't forget that Sony still also uses older Minolta lenses. You might
>> be able to get some good deals on used Minolta lenses at your local
>> photography shop. Make sure the autofocus works.
>> A friend of mine got an excellent 50mm f1.4 for about $50.00.
>> He also purchased a newer Sony 70-300 G Series lens for around
>> $900.00. It is very sharp.
>
>Yeah, looking into that too. One lens I really want is a 100mm true
>macro. They are not cheap, but just found a Minolta 100mm Macro w/1:1
>tube, and MD mount. Looks like I can get an adapter for around $30. For
>this type of close up, not having auto focus doesn't seem like a bad
>thing, but for other lenses, I would want direct compatible mounts w/AF.
>I'm even looking at entire camera kits. With patience and luck, just
>might bag a couple useful lenses, filters, and a bag in one shot, for
>what a lens alone might cost. I've seen a few go for under $50.
>
>I did get sorta wowed by AF, never had a film camera with that feature.
>But really, unless it's a moving subject, I'm perfectly capable of doing
>that myself. But it sure is nice having all the other features of the
>digital age!

I believe 'oldman' was specifically referring to the Minolta
Maxxum/Dynax line of AF lenses, which are compatible with the Sony AF
mount. Most of my lens collection dates back to the early 1990s and
even a couple from the first Maxxum 7000 from 1985. All work fine
with my current Sony.

[Jon Anderson]

On 5/25/2011 2:25 PM, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:

> I believe 'oldman' was specifically referring to the Minolta
> Maxxum/Dynax line of AF lenses, which are compatible with the Sony AF
> mount.

Yes, I knew that, and I'm watching several on ebay. But my brother had
also talked about using an adapter with the older MD lenses which can
often be had real cheap. No AF, and a few other compromises, but for
macro work, that's not an issue. Wouldn't use MD mount lenses to shoot
action or just walking around taking pictures.

And, the airshow is in Grass Valley this year (they alternate every with
nearby Auburn). My brother might come up for this. With his help and
advise I should get some shots worthy of posting!


Jon

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:10:20 -0800, Jon Anderson
> wrote:

>On 5/25/2011 2:25 PM, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
>
>> I believe 'oldman' was specifically referring to the Minolta
>> Maxxum/Dynax line of AF lenses, which are compatible with the Sony AF
>> mount.
>
>Yes, I knew that, and I'm watching several on ebay. But my brother had
>also talked about using an adapter with the older MD lenses which can
>often be had real cheap. No AF, and a few other compromises, but for
>macro work, that's not an issue. Wouldn't use MD mount lenses to shoot
>action or just walking around taking pictures.
>
>And, the airshow is in Grass Valley this year (they alternate every with
>nearby Auburn). My brother might come up for this. With his help and
>advise I should get some shots worthy of posting!

Please share your results with us!

Bob ^,,^

[oldman[_2_]]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:27:54 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:10:20 -0800, Jon Anderson
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/25/2011 2:25 PM, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
>>
>>> I believe 'oldman' was specifically referring to the Minolta
>>> Maxxum/Dynax line of AF lenses, which are compatible with the Sony AF
>>> mount.
>>
>>Yes, I knew that, and I'm watching several on ebay. But my brother had
>>also talked about using an adapter with the older MD lenses which can
>>often be had real cheap. No AF, and a few other compromises, but for
>>macro work, that's not an issue. Wouldn't use MD mount lenses to shoot
>>action or just walking around taking pictures.
>>
>>And, the airshow is in Grass Valley this year (they alternate every with
>>nearby Auburn). My brother might come up for this. With his help and
>>advise I should get some shots worthy of posting!
>
>Please share your results with us!
>
>Bob ^,,^


Bob,

Since you're the Sony owner, I thought I'd ask a question.
My buddy that has the A-55 also has a Minolta lens with an internal
zoom. It's about the same size as a beer can. Probably 80-200 f4 or
something similar. He says it's pretty rare.

Have you ever seen one?

Just wondering.

Thanks, Oldman.

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 17:42:58 -0400, oldman > wrote:

>Bob,
>
>Since you're the Sony owner, I thought I'd ask a question.
>My buddy that has the A-55 also has a Minolta lens with an internal
>zoom. It's about the same size as a beer can. Probably 80-200 f4 or
>something similar. He says it's pretty rare.
>
>Have you ever seen one?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>Thanks, Oldman.

Haven't seen one, but is this it?

http://minolta-camera.out-fox-the.net/zoom-lenses/70-210mm-f4-aka-the-beercan/

Bob ^,,^

[oldman[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 May 2011 01:48:24 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2011 17:42:58 -0400, oldman > wrote:
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>Since you're the Sony owner, I thought I'd ask a question.
>>My buddy that has the A-55 also has a Minolta lens with an internal
>>zoom. It's about the same size as a beer can. Probably 80-200 f4 or
>>something similar. He says it's pretty rare.
>>
>>Have you ever seen one?
>>
>>Just wondering.
>>
>>Thanks, Oldman.
>
>Haven't seen one, but is this it?
>
>http://minolta-camera.out-fox-the.net/zoom-lenses/70-210mm-f4-aka-the-beercan/
>
>Bob ^,,^




That's it!! Obviously, not as rare as I was told. But, a good lens
just the same.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Oldman.