One Lens to Replace 3?

[MLeeK]

I wouldn't buy the Tamron 70-300 either. The 17-50 is a great lens.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I wouldn't buy the Tamron 70-300 either. The 17-50 is a great lens.

Yeah, I would have saved and got the 70-200 but 70-300 is okay if youre not doing pro work.

 

[dmanning11]

I cant find a cheap Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 at the moment but I found a 70-300 for $85.00 (manufacturer refurbished) so at that price why not.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I cant find a cheap Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 at the moment but I found a 70-300 for $85.00 (manufacturer refurbished) so at that price why not.

$85 is a pretty hard price to beat. YOu really have to luck up on the cheap 70-200's. They go really quickly. If you check the sigma site periodically they post up refurbs 50-150 f2.8's every now and then for good prices.

 

[dmanning11]

Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it

I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.

Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.

On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00

 

[Dao]

Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it

I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.

Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.

On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC lens and that is my walk around lens. With that lens, I feel very comfortable to shoot it at f/4 or wider.


Now, I believe you just found that if you put the same amount of money towards a new Sony camera body, you may not get the same level of image improvement.

Also, keep in mind that how much you pay for your Sony camera and how much it worth right now. Then take a look at how much those good quality high demand lens cost and how much it worth after few years later. With that in mind, you should be able to justify the $700.

I bought my Tamron 17-50 used 3 - 4 years ago for $300, when I look at how much the lens worth in the used market now, it is still around $300 - $350. So if you are able to locate a used great lens in good working condition at good price, chances are you do not lose too much value when you need to get rid of it provide that the lens is still in great shape.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it

I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.

Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.

On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00

Easy, the lens will work on other bodies when you upgrade. The lens is the more important part of the equation.

 

[dmanning11]

Well I got my 70-300mm lens and it's faulty, autofocus keeps hunting even outdoors. So I have sent it back and got a full refund.

So now I am stuck with two issues do I buy the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8? (have found a new one for $650.00)

And second it turns out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 doesn't work with my extension tubes.
With a 28mm extension tube at 50mm the focus point is 1cm from the lens surface, at 35mm it's less than 3mm. Completely useless!

By comparison the 18-50mm Sony lense at 50mm with the 28mm extension tube the focal point is 17cm from the surface of the lens. Any ideas?

 

[Kolia]

Good exemple of "We get what we pay for!"


Why didn't you ask for a replacement 70-300 ?

 

[jfrabat]

It depends on what you want really; if you want to ONLY carry one lens, the SAL18250 will cover your basis, but, as stated, it is not the sharpest lens. It does have chromatic aberration, pinsushion and barrel distrotion, but if you are using a SLT-A77 (which is what I use), the camera corrects this automatically 8most of it, anyway). now, given what you WANT, I would recomend the SAL1680Z and the SAL70300G. They are advertised at the Sony Store at 999.99 each (so BOTH are the same price as the SAL70200G already mentioned above). You can probably find used versions a little cheaper than these prices even. I own a bunch of lenses, including some of the ones you have (the complete list is like this: SAL1855, SAL55200, SAL1870, SAL75300, SAL1680Z, SAL70300G and SAL18250), and I only use 3: the SAL1680Z as an everyday lens, the SAL70300 as the Telefoto lens, and I give my wife (who does not like changing lenses) the SAL18250 for her to use on her DSLR-A380.

hope this helps!

 

[dmanning11]

Good exemple of "We get what we pay for!"


Why didn't you ask for a replacement 70-300 ?

It was a refurbished item and they only had one, so money back was the only option.

Anyway I bought the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for $630.00, should be here next week. Hope its even half as good as the 17-50 f/2.8

 

[dmanning11]

So now i have the following lenses

Sony 50mm f/1.8 (For Portrait)
Sony 18-50mm f/4-5.6 reverse mounted on extension tubes (For Macro)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (Walk around lens and Landscapes)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (For Telephoto, Wildlife and some far off Sporting Events)

I think that should do me for lenses, I will upgrade my camera body if Sony can ever work out how to build a sensor with High ISO but Low Noise.

 

[Kolia]

... if you are using a SLT-A77 (which is what I use), the camera corrects this automatically 8most of it, anyway).

FYI: The vignetting, chromatic aberration and pincushion corrections only work when you shoot in JPEG. If you shoot RAW, the only correction that is applied is the vignetting compensation.

 

[jfrabat]

So now i have the following lenses

Sony 50mm f/1.8 (For Portrait)
Sony 18-50mm f/4-5.6 reverse mounted on extension tubes (For Macro)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (Walk around lens and Landscapes)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (For Telephoto, Wildlife and some far off Sporting Events)

I think that should do me for lenses, I will upgrade my camera body if Sony can ever work out how to build a sensor with High ISO but Low Noise.

I am happy with the SLT-A77 ISO noise level (as long as you keep it under 3,000, it's pretty decent), but I recently tried out the A99, and its freaking AMAZING! Look at this shot taken with almost NO light at ISO 25,000 and 16,000 of a painting I have at home:

 

[JusLookN]

dmanning11, what body are you using?