Next Step Advice

Discussion in 'Sony Lenses' started by dkmi, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. dkmi

    dkmi TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, Michigan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'm certainly no pro, but I like quality at a bargain price (who doesn't?). That's what got me into the Sony A mount systems. I started with an a300 with the 18-70 and 75-300 kit lenses. I never added to these lenses. That camera had a bad control wheel and I replaced it with an a55 I got for cheap. Since then, I have finally started to acquire additional lenses. So far, all are Minolta. Here is my current stable of lenses:

    Sony 18-70 kit
    Sony 75-300 kit
    Minolta 50 1.7
    Minolta 35-70 old/good one
    Minolta 28-135 secret handshake
    Minolta 70-210 beercan

    • I still find myself needing that 18-70 to for its width, otherwise don't care for it.
    • The 75-300 I almost never use, but the extra 100mm came in handy at the zoo vs beercan.
    • The 50 1.7 was a garage sale find in mint condition for $10, and it really has surprised. But 50 isn't all that useful of a focal length, but that 1.7 is great in low light.
    • The 35-70 hardly gets used. It is a nicer lens than I thought it would be. I do appreciate the light weight, but 35 isn't wide enough.
    • The 28-135 is my main lens right now. While I love it, it definitely isn't perfect. It is the lens that has the most resale value among what I have.
    • The 70-210 is nice, but sharpest at f8. I'm wondering why this lens gets so much love while the 100-200 4.5 goes unnoticed. Less than 1/2 stop difference wide open, but is sharp wider than the beercan and not nearly as bulky. It seems to me it would be more useful overall because of that. Am I crazy? Why is it worth less than half of the beercan?
    I'm not married to any of these lenses. I realize the SH and Beercan are going to bring me the most money if I sell them, but even their prices have dropped quite a bit lately. What's the most cost effective way for me to improve upon what I have? The best way for me to describe the kind of shots I take is to say I shoot memories. Mostly people and places. I'd like to explore macro, but can't see myself doing a lot of it.

    Sorry about the length of the post. I wanted to give as much insight to my thoughts up front to help with replies.


     
  2. dxqcanada

    dxqcanada Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Location:
    Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I got rid of my Sony 18-70mm soon after I got my camera.
    I also had the Minolta 28-135mm ... and it was my primary lens for a while.
    I replaced it with the Sony 16-105mm, as I got tired of not having something wider.

    I found that I was not satisfied with keeping it cheap ... I realized that sometimes you have to spend some $$$ ... and also reduce the number of lenses I had.
    For better IQ I hunted for newer used lenses ... and ended up with the Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 (their best kit lens), coupled with a Sony 70-400mm G1.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. dkmi

    dkmi TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oxford, Michigan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit


    Hmmm. I just did a quick search on eBay and that 16-105 can be had for under $200 in excellent condition. The 16-50 2.8 for about $250. Certainly not ridiculous prices. I’m thinking that I could sell my existing lenses and cover the 16-105 and a Minolta 100-200 4.5. Don’t see myself ever getting something like that 70-400, but that 16-50 would be sweet for indoor photography. Might even make for a decent portrait lens on an APS-C. Thanks. This is exactly the kind of input I’m looking for.
     

Share This Page