[leckie]

I recently bought a Sony Alpha 200 with the stock lens and a Tamron 70 - 300 telephoto.

I've read quite a bit about people saying the stock lens is less than fantastic, is there any recommendations on a replacement? Would picking up a cheap(ish) second hand minolta lens show better results?

Thanks in advance.

[leaky5]

Fantastic ?? Probably not. But I don't think it is as bad as some people think.

I do now tend to use my Minolta 35-105 most of the time, mainly because it provides the range I seem to use mostly and I am very please with the results. It cost me £22.50, but even these once very reasonable lenses are starting to shoot up on Ebay, one went for close to £100 the other day.

There are 2 versions, mine is one of these Minolta Sony AF 35 - 105 mm f3.5 - f4.5 Maxxum Lens on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 25-Jan-09 18:57:55 GMT)

On my Flickr, the Motor show pictures were all taken at Excel with the 18-70 without flash. The Wildlife and War & Peace sets were mainly taken with the 35-105.

[Dave]

If you have enough light, like erm standing next to a thermonuclear explosion then the kit lens is pretty good.

For replacements you have the option that leaky5 has chosen and that's to buy minolta glass second hand, much cheaper but prices are getting a bit silly for the in demand lenses. The lenses to look out for are the 35-70mm constant f4, the 28-85mm, the one leaky has and if you can find one a 24-105mm D f3.5-4.5. This has been rebranded by Sony and they flog it for 350 quid, superb lens.

Your second option is to buy new and here you're only limited by budget. Tamron 17-50 f2.8, carl zeiss 16-80, sigma f2.8 though I forget the focal length.

The second hand minolta lenses will easily show an improvent over the kit lens. I used it for the first time in ages the other day for the wide end and it was so poor I've just sold it on ebay.

[Zone]

Moved to Digital Photography Gear

Originally Posted by Dave W

If you have enough light, like erm standing next to a thermonuclear explosion then the kit lens is pretty good.

For replacements you have the option that leaky5 has chosen and that's to buy minolta glass second hand, much cheaper but prices are getting a bit silly for the in demand lenses. The lenses to look out for are the 35-70mm constant f4, the 28-85mm, the one leaky has and if you can find one a 24-105mm D f3.5-4.5. This has been rebranded by Sony and they flog it for 350 quid, superb lens.

Your second option is to buy new and here you're only limited by budget. Tamron 17-50 f2.8, carl zeiss 16-80, sigma f2.8 though I forget the focal length.

The second hand minolta lenses will easily show an improvent over the kit lens. I used it for the first time in ages the other day for the wide end and it was so poor I've just sold it on ebay.

What about the Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5?

How does that compare to the constant f4?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Boynielaad

What about the Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5?

How does that compare to the constant f4?

I can't say as I haven't used either but if my 70-210 beercan is anything to go by then the constant f4 should be absolutely stunning, it's very sharp indeed even at f4 and built like a tank. The 35-70mm constant f4, 28-85mm, 70-210mm f4 and 100-300mm f4 all come from the same period and are very highly regarded.

Generally it would seem that the later lenses are not on par with the beercan generation build quality wise but aren't far off pq wise.

You could always buy one from evilbay and try it out, if you don't like it then simply resell it on ebay or here. You're unlikely to lose any value and may even get more when selling.

Originally Posted by Dave W

I can't say as I haven't used either but if my 70-210 beercan is anything to go by then the constant f4 should be absolutely stunning, it's very sharp indeed even at f4 and built like a tank. The 35-70mm constant f4, 28-85mm, 70-210mm f4 and 100-300mm f4 all come from the same period and are very highly regarded.

Generally it would seem that the later lenses are not on par with the beercan generation build quality wise but aren't far off pq wise.

You could always buy one from evilbay and try it out, if you don't like it then simply resell it on ebay or here. You're unlikely to lose any value and may even get more when selling.

Good point - I'm keeping an eye on a few.

What I'm keen on is the macro function to catch insects, flowers etc etc.

Am I on the right lines here or should I be considering something else?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Boynielaad

Good point - I'm keeping an eye on a few.

What I'm keen on is the macro function to catch insects, flowers etc etc.

Am I on the right lines here or should I be considering something else?

Again, I haven't used them so don't take this as gospel but I've got a range of minolta lenses, 50mm f1.7, 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 D, 70-210mm f4 and did have the Sony kit lens. I also had a Tamron 50-200mm IIRC.

All of them claim to be able to do macro and all of them equally suck at it. You simply can't focus close enough to the subject to get any meaningful macro shots. I'm afraid if it's macro you want then it's a proper macro lens you'll need.

Just try it with the lens you have and you'll see that it's impossible to focus on the subject once you get a certain distance away and the longer the lens the bigger that distance is.

Lost my cool and committed to buy a Dynax 3xi with Minolta 35-70 (f3.5) for £25 incl postage.

I know this isn't as good as the little beercan but Dyxum reviews rate it not far behind.

I take your point, Dave, re the macro. Hence going for this one which I can use for portaits etc. I also understand it's likely to be better quality glass than my Sigma 28-200.

If wrong I can put back on Ebay as you say. It's only £25 after all!

Anyone want a Dynax 3xi? lol

[Lewis201]

I've got a Minolta 28-85 on the way. I'll let you know how it performs once I've got it.

[leckie]

Hey Dave,

What lens did you use for the bird pictures on your main page. They turned out really well.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by leckie

Hey Dave,

What lens did you use for the bird pictures on your main page. They turned out really well.

Thanks.

The vast majority of my wildlife pics are taken with the Minolta 70-210mm f4 beercan. Prices have gone up to around 140 quid now but it's still a bargain at that price.

Incredibly sharp even at f4 and though not as fast focusing as I'd like I think that's more to do with the camera than the lens.

If you can find a good example then bite someone's arm off, they're unlikely to go down in price for a while, especially considering there's no real modern alternative unless you shell out about 500 quid.

[anthony566]

Originally Posted by leckie

I recently bought a Sony Alpha 200 with the stock lens and a Tamron 70 - 300 telephoto.

I've read quite a bit about people saying the stock lens is less than fantastic, is there any recommendations on a replacement? Would picking up a cheap(ish) second hand minolta lens show better results?

Thanks in advance.

I would have to say if you had the cash then the 18-250mm is one of the best Sony lenses around without spending way to much, this lens will give you great coverage and is a perfect one stop shop lens " In my opinion"

[leckie]

I'm really looking for a wide angle lens, I'm fine with my Tamron just now. I'm really interested in the 35-70mm f4 beercan. What would be an acceptable price?

[Dave]

About 50 quid for the mini beercan.