Lenses for the alpha?

[shorty6049]

So i kind of want to buy a new lens for my sony alpha. right now i have a minolta 50mm f/1.7, sony 18-70, and a tokina 35-200, and a sigma 28-105. What would the the next logical choice of lens that i get? I like wide angle stuff, but dont know how useful it would be... whats the difference between a macro lens, and a zoom lens that can be used for macro? If i bought another lens from sony, would it be better quality than the stock lens? the stock one is mostly plastic (except for the optics of course) and just feels really cheap, and doesnt look all that great either...

 

[Don Simon]

whats the difference between a macro lens, and a zoom lens that can be used for macro?

The difference is the zoom is not a macro it just allows closer focusing than some other zooms. For real macro work IMO you either want a true macro lens, or if on a tighter budget then one of the various improvised methods, e.g. lens reversal, extension tubes, filters etc.

If i bought another lens from sony, would it be better quality than the stock lens? the stock one is mostly plastic (except for the optics of course) and just feels really cheap, and doesnt look all that great either...

The reason the standard kit lens is mostly plastic and feels cheap is not because it's a Sony... it's because it's a standard kit lens. The equivalent from most companies looks and feels equally unimpressive. Most of Sony's lenses are Minolta's desigs re-badged and they should be just as good as they were before now they have the Sony name on them.

As for the next logical choice, it seems you have a fairly good range of lenses already. Are you sure you need more lenses at the moment, or is it more a case of buying more stuff just for the sake of doing so (not that there's anything wrong with that if you can afford it ) anyway if you're unhappy with the kit lens you could consider getting a better zoom in that range. A proper wide-angle zoom (something like 12-24mm) would be more expensive but maybe worth it if you would use those focal lengths often. A dedicated macro lens would be a less expensive choice than either (at least if you buy a third-party e.g. Tamron or Sigma) and would offer excellent optics.

 

[e999sam]

It really depends on what you want to shoot. I’ve got virtually the same set up as you apart from the Tokin 85-200mm I have a Minolta 75-300mm. I’m really interested in macro and at the moment I’m watching a Minolta 100mm macro on EBay. If I don’t get that then it will either be a Tamron 90mm macro or the Sigma 105mm macro. After that I want to replace my 18 -70mm kit lenses with a similar Sigma then start saving some serious money for a replacement for my Minolta 75-300mm.
A macro lenses should have a 1-1 magnification which I don’t think most zoom macros are.
I agree with you that the kit lenses feels cheap if you look at the price of the 18-70mm you will realise why it feels cheap.
Have a look at this site for loads of info on Sony and Minolta lenses.
http://www.dyxum.com/

 

[shorty6049]

i want to clarify, that i didnt think all sony lenses were cheap, but i just wanted to know, if i bought another sony lens, such as one that was more expensive, would i be able to expect a higher quality build? Do they even make lenses with metal in them anymore?

 

[Zatodragon]

If you took a sony version and a Sigma version of a lens with similar stats, the difference is usually very minimal so in a lot of cases it will be good to go with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, or the other few lens manufactures. And yes, there is still a large amount of metal mount lenses in production. Usually on medium to higher quality glass.

But if you went with sony glass, you won't be disapointed. They are using the same blueprints basicly from minolta when they purchased their imaging department. I might find going with the minolta ones to be just as good, but at a lower price.