Looking to Replace the kit lens, would like advice please!

[Silchuki14]

Hi guys,

Yesterday, I was impressed at how sharp my friends were able to shot with their Canon lens (Have no idea about the spec) and it made me realize that my Kit Lens was not really sharp. After some research, seems like it's not just me that feels that.

Looked here and on the web, I've found some "possible" choices that could do it, and that's where I need your advice. I'm would like to keep the cost below 200$ (Even thought some of the choice cost more than that.) but if I have to pay more to get what I'm looking for, so be it. Also, I would like to be able to use the lens on a Full-Frame (A99) because I plan to upgrade to one in a couples of years; I have no idea if I can do it with the lenses I've found.

Note: I already own the Minolta Beercan (70-200 f4 I believe?)

1. Minolta AF 50mm 1.7 + Minolta AF 28mm 2.8
Just found that out before posting, what do you think of that duo? I know for a fact that everyone and their mother advise to buy the 50mm. The review on the 28mm are not bad and it seems a affordable possibility. I'm losing the zooming ability of the kit lens but believe I can still get great coverage from those to lenses.

2. Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5
Higher than the price I was looking for, but it seems to be a great zoom lens that cover more focal length than the kit lens.


3. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR
Higher priced that what I aim but if I recall correctly, I've heard really good thing about that lens from here. A good kit lens replacement and it seems it would be better than the Sigma posted above...

Thought about this? Any other suggestion? I hardly use my Beercan now because it's too long for what I do. (Although I need to use it and learn with it) and I like the fixed F-Stop, colors and construction of it. In a way, I'm going toward the Minolta combo but I don't like the fact that I'm losing that "zooming feature" that I find really convenient sometimes. For that matter, the Tamron seems like a better choice.... I don't know!

Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[minicoop1985]

If only you were looking at the 35-70 f/4... lol.

That Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is a FANTASTIC deal on ebay. They can be had from $30 in pretty good shape. A 50mm prime is a great lens to have, and there's a reason so many old film SLRs came with them.

 

[Kolia]

Salut,

200$ is a bit tight for your budget if you want really sharp images. Make sure you are using your current setup in a well lit condition and you should have good images.

The 50 f1.7 has a really good reputation. I would go with that until I could have a larger budget.

 

[Silchuki14]

Thanks for the comment guys.

minicoop1985: Shoot me a PM with more info...but be advised that I am in Japan right now. (That is, if you want to sell the lens) The thing is, I would need another lens to cover the 18-35mm pat I lose. But we never know.

The Tamron is more money than I was planning but would that be a good investment IF I decide to go with it? The Minolta 50mm 1.7 will sooner or later come in my hand but I would rather be able to cover more focal range right now. What I scared is that Prime Lens tend to be more sharp than zoom lens from what I've read. (That's what makes me hesitate)

Thanks again!

 

[Kolia]

That Tamron lens is designed for a cropped sensor. If you do move on to an A99 in the future, it will work but you will not benefit from the larger sensor size.

Ask yourself if you will really go to a full frame sensor before getting that lens.

I would love an A99 myself. But realistically, it's not going to happen. I'll probably go with the A77's replacement when it comes out. Mainly for the added controls it offers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DiskoJoe]

Salut,

200$ is a bit tight for your budget if you want really sharp images. Make sure you are using your current setup in a well lit condition and you should have good images.

The 50 f1.7 has a really good reputation. I would go with that until I could have a larger budget.

He could get the tammy for not much more then that.

@op - go ahead and get a copy of the 50mm f1.7. Its super sharp and the prices on them are always pretty favorable. I have a friend that has a copy of the tamron. Its really nice for the price.

 

[runnah]

Make sure you are using your current setup in a well lit condition and you should have good images.

This would be my suggestion because if it's user error not equipment error you are going to have the same issues with a new lens.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Thanks for the comment guys.

minicoop1985: Shoot me a PM with more info...but be advised that I am in Japan right now. (That is, if you want to sell the lens) The thing is, I would need another lens to cover the 18-35mm pat I lose. But we never know.

The Tamron is more money than I was planning but would that be a good investment IF I decide to go with it? The Minolta 50mm 1.7 will sooner or later come in my hand but I would rather be able to cover more focal range right now. What I scared is that Prime Lens tend to be more sharp than zoom lens from what I've read. (That's what makes me hesitate)

Thanks again!

This lens is typically used for portraits. This is not really a walk around lens. And it wont be too sharp if thats your worry. Ive only heard about that happening with Zeiss lenses.

 

[Silchuki14]

Thanks for the comment guys.

About user error: I'm still learning, it well lighted place I can manage to some sharpness but it's never as sharp as I would like it to be (when seen on computer). I also shoot a lot in not very lighted places. That being said, I don't plan to throw the lens away, but I would like something faster and sharper.

I was not aware that the Tamron was not Full-Frame friendly... I do plan to go there (Maybe in 2-3-4 years) so I would like lenses that work with it. So it's a no for the Tamron.

If I go with the Minolta 50mm 1.7, is there other lenses that you would suggest to cover the lost range? (Ex: The 28mm 2.8 stated in original post)

Thanks again guy, really appreciated!

 

[Silchuki14]

EDIT: Nevermind that post. I've made my decision. (Well, for now!)

Bought the 50mm 1.7, will keep the Kit Lens and the Beercan. Will buy the 28mm 2.8 when I come across a good one.

Will be the set-up till I get some free money to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8 since it seems to be a very good "Ultra-Wide" lens.

Thanks

 

[minicoop1985]

I FINALLY see this thread... Sorry I never got back to you. Didn't see your reply until today. I think you're making the right call, personally, since I have experience with the 50 f1.7, and there's nothing bad I can say about it. The Beercan I've heard some great things about, and, if I ever went Sony, I'd have one for sure.

 

[Silchuki14]

I really like the 50 1.7 and the feeling of Prime lenses. I want the 28 2.8 because something I need a shorter range.

Is 140$ (US-CND) too much paid for a like-new 24 2.8 ? That's the only thing I found locally for now.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Thanks for the comment guys.

About user error: I'm still learning, it well lighted place I can manage to some sharpness but it's never as sharp as I would like it to be (when seen on computer). I also shoot a lot in not very lighted places. That being said, I don't plan to throw the lens away, but I would like something faster and sharper.

I was not aware that the Tamron was not Full-Frame friendly... I do plan to go there (Maybe in 2-3-4 years) so I would like lenses that work with it. So it's a no for the Tamron.

If I go with the Minolta 50mm 1.7, is there other lenses that you would suggest to cover the lost range? (Ex: The 28mm 2.8 stated in original post)

Thanks again guy, really appreciated!

Tamron makes full frame lenses too but you have to get the 24-70 and use an adaptor.

Sigma makes a full frame 24-70 that you can use for sony.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-70mm-f28-if-ex-dg-hsm-refurbished

Lots of good deals to be had at the sigma outlet.