[too_funky]

Hi, iv been doing abit of photgraphy with my Sony A200 and its 18-70mm wide-ish angle lens. However im starting to feel a bit limted by it, im looking to buy a 300mm telephoto lens. I cant justify spending professional ammounts of money on a pro lens as im still very much an amature. So far iv found 3 lens that look gd,

1. The own brand Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 DT Lens
2. Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Macro Lens
3. Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro Super DG Lens

Im tempted by the Tamron as its the cheapest, the Sigma looks nice but is the most expensive and iv read that the sony is just a rebranded Konica/Minolta lens designed before they made dslr's. Found good things said about all of them so should i just go for the cheapest option or is the sigma alot better etc. Also im swayed by the Sony as the filters i use with my current lens fit the Sony 300mm lens thread. Id also like a fairly fast autofocus for taking sharp action shots if possible. so which ias fastest out of the three?

Basically i cant make my mind up, so if anybody has any views or opinions that may help me id love to hear them. Or are there any lens's that iv overlooked that i should also consider.

Thanks in advance

[Holowlegs]

Hello there


I don't know much about the Sony.

I would go for the Sigma over the Tamron, its well thought off on here as a value for money zoom lens.


Cheers Holo

[anthony566]

I have the Sony one and its a nice lens but at this level knowing what I now I would not pick any of the ones you have listed. My advice is to pick up one of the older Minolta lenses:-

Minolta*AF 70-210 F4 (beercan)*2555-110 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

Minolta*AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 New*2649-110 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

Minolta*AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6*2561-100 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

Minolta*AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 D APO*2681-110 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

you will get a much better lens for your money.

[too_funky]

thanks for the reply, what do you mean by, knowing what you know now? which particular specs or whatever put you off, cos im fairly new to lens specs and details so id like to learn as much as possible before buying one, thanks

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by anthony566

I have the Sony one and its a nice lens but at this level knowing what I now I would not pick any of the ones you have listed. My advice is to pick up one of the older Minolta lenses:-

Minolta*AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 D APO*2681-110 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

you will get a much better lens for your money.

Evening,

I have the non-APO version of the 100-300, I managed to get it for £70 and think its really good.

I took some photos with the lens last weekend at the BTCC (Brands Hatch)

Still Improving :- Picasa Web Albums - MJHenderson - BTCC 05-04-09

[jay mc]

I had a cheap tamaron 70-300mm lense that i got from currys for £195 and i hated it so much it went back a few days latter. Mine was the cannon fit version and it had a lot of focusing issues that where more then me being a newbie to dslr stuff.

On the advice of a few people i spoke to at a local nature reserve im buying a sigma lense next from camra world in chelmsford who said i can also try them befor buying

[anthony566]

Originally Posted by too_funky

thanks for the reply, what do you mean by, knowing what you know now? which particular specs or whatever put you off, cos im fairly new to lens specs and details so id like to learn as much as possible before buying one, thanks

I have had a 10 year break from Photography and only got back into it in November last year, I made the mistake of thinking the new Sony range would be better than the older Minolter lenses this was wrong on so many levels ....... Thats not to say the Sony lenses are not good they are very good you just pay a bit more i feel for the brand name in this range of lenses.

If you look at the links to the lenses you will see what people are saying about the glass in these lenses and if you look at the other minolta lenses listed it will help guid you to the best Minolta ones to go for, The ones i have listed are a level up from the ones you have listed and will help give better images. One thing to remember is that when useing any lense on you DSLR you need to times the numbers by 1.5 to get a true idea of the lens range ie

a lens that is a 70-300mm on your DSLR is realy a 105-450mm lens and for this reason I have just got hold of a Minolta 100-300mm as this turns into a 150-450mm lens on my DSLR I hope this is not messing with you head to much as it did with mine for a while but you will work it out use Home of the Minolta / Alpha-mount dSLR photographer :Dyxum forums to find out all you need to know about Sony/Minolta DSLR's and the lenses that fit this range.

Here is the Minolta 70-210mm ( 1.5 x = 105-315mm ) Review link http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=49

Sale link on evilbay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ayphotohosting

[too_funky]

hmm, im tempted by minolta lenses, however has technology not moved on since old miniolta lenses so newer ones may be better, although i do like the fact that the minolta ones are the same filter thread as my current lens. Although iv read that alot of minolta lenses have a sluggish autofocus too? Is this the case?

[Biscuit761]

Sigma far better than the Tamron - lots of purple fringing with my one - make sure you get the APO version of the Sigma, you will not regret it.

Bill

[Monopot]

Have a look at the 18-250 Sony lens. I picked this up and since then sold my kit lens and have not taken the 18250 of my A200 as it covers pretty much all ranges I use it for.

[Pirate!!]

State your budget please.

Possibly one of the best all-rounders. Better get this one quick. Compare prices. Monopot has another decent lens.

You could always try a Big Beercan, Minolta 100-300 APO, Minolta 100-400 APO, Tokina AT-X 340 AF-II 100-300 F4 (if you can find one).

[too_funky]

Well i dont want to spend more than £200 ish max, unless its a really amazing deal. That lens you suggested has a impressive range, but reviews iv read have said that due to its range, its compromised image sharpness, which has put me off. And i already have a lens covering the wide angle range, so i would rather just have a better quality telephoto lens, all be it with a smaller range. Does anybody know the answer to the previous question, as in are the old konica/minolta lenses a bit slow when autofocussing?

Thanks alot for all the input and replies, i really didnt expect such a gd response

[waffley]

I'm in the same boat as you too-funky. I have the A200, and I am looking for a 300mm zoom. At the moment I am torn between the Tamron 28-300mm that Pirate linked to, and the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO.
I am a wildlife nut, especially birds, butterflies, dragonflies, and flowers, although I also like taking landscape images, so I want to be able to shoot at a distance and close up. Like you I am on a limited budget and although the Tamron would cover all my needs, I too am concerned by the reviews I have read about lack of sharpness at either end.
I know I have been no help at all, but at least you know you are not alone

[Monopot]

Originally Posted by waffley

I'm in the same boat as you too-funky. I have the A200, and I am looking for a 300mm zoom. At the moment I am torn between the Tamron 28-300mm that Pirate linked to, and the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO.
I am a wildlife nut, especially birds, butterflies, dragonflies, and flowers, although I also like taking landscape images, so I want to be able to shoot at a distance and close up. Like you I am on a limited budget and although the Tamron would cover all my needs, I too am concerned by the reviews I have read about lack of sharpness at either end.
I know I have been no help at all, but at least you know you are not alone

The Sony 18-250 also can be a little soft at both ends but only at the smallest fstop (3.5-6.3) but knock it down a few and it goes much sharper! Not sure if this is the same with the Tamron but might be worth having a look on dxyum and see what they say.

[Pirate!!]

Plan B.

Minolta 70-210mm F/4 Beercan and a 1.4x teleconverter. Best of both Worlds. Constant F4 for intermediate zoom and with 1.4x TC 98-294 @ F/5.6 and no loss of AF. No bigger than a 1.5x TC to retain IQ.

TBH, I'm wondering if at the budget end of the lens market you're expecting too much for your money. Nearly all zoom lenses will suffer at either end of the focal range in one way or other (barrel distortion or softness). Unless you can bag an older 300mm prime, I think pretty much all your options are listed somewhere in the posts above.

[Pirate!!]

Or you could go extreme . . . and get one of these.

So, what do you want? The Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 costs about US$30.000 . . Get yourself a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro (red ring). I don't think there are any gear-stripping issues with A200, but best you check first.

Also, are you shooting at 300mm? If so, you'll be better off with the Minolta 100-400mm (if you can find one for your budget), as it covers the 300mm range and you won't get and softness or distortion at that distance.

[leaky5]

You could always go for an older Sigma 70-300. This is a pre digital one, so would also work on a FF camera if ever required. They are built like a tank.
One of these went for about £80 a week or two ago. All the Southend Airshow and some of the football pictures on my Flickr were taken with one of these.

Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro AF zoom for Minolta on eBay, also To Fit Canon, For 35mm SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 21-Apr-09 19:00:41 BST)

Dyxum link & reviews

Sigma*70-300 APO macro* lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

[Strobe]

Out of the three I would go for the Sigma APO DG Macro, a cracking lens for the money (check out jomike recent bird pics a thread or two up or Holo's older duck/swan sets). The Minolta 70-200 F4 beercan is also a fine lens but it's a heavy lump, cracking bokeh though. I had the Sigma on a Sony A100 (the forerunner to your A200) for 18 months and I was very happy with it. Not used the Tamron but the from my experience the Sigma is much better than the Sony equivalent.

[Monopot]

Originally Posted by Strobe

Out of the three I would go for the Sigma APO DG Macro, a cracking lens for the money (check out jomike recent bird pics a thread or two up or Holo's older duck/swan sets). The Minolta 70-200 F4 beercan is also a fine lens but it's a heavy lump, cracking bokeh though. I had the Sigma on a Sony A100 (the forerunner to your A200) for 18 months and I was very happy with it. Not used the Tamron but the from my experience the Sigma is much better than the Sony equivalent.

Agreed on the sigma as I brought Strobe's lens from him and it was brilliant! Only sold it on because I wanted just one lens to travel with but can highly recommend it!

[Pirate!!]

Sidebar . . . .

Does the A200 have both FAST and SLOW AF menu settings like the A700. If not, is it like the A100 (slow AF)? If the latter, then the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro will be fine.

[Monopot]

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

Sidebar . . . .

Does the A200 have both FAST and SLOW AF menu settings like the A700. If not, is it like the A100 (slow AF)? If the latter, then the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro will be fine.

Think there is only 1 AF speed on the A200. The APO DG Macro worked fine when I had it.

[too_funky]

After much switching and swapping and changing of my mind, i was finally convinced to go for the sigma 70-300mm apo lens that a few of you have mentioned above. I found it in the bargain basement section of warehouse express for £130

Thanks for all the help guys, as soon as i take some gd pics ill be sure to get them up in the photo sharing section