If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
MF lenses on Sony a900
RolandRB wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:17 pm, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On 10 Nov., 08:31, RolandRB wrote: On 9 Nov., 20:21, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne saying something like: Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies? Often. Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies. If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it. I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that? I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the 16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't use it all that often. As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500 C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range within the next few years. I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden - - Zitierten Text anzeigen - Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does not need processing. At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden - - Zitierten Text anzeigen - I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden - - Zitierten Text anzeigen - But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with any accuracy? That's another reason why I prefer my 300 f/2.8 (which I've sold) for 300mm.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's just too expensive for me since I will probably only use that focal length a few times. If I were doing a lot of sports photography then maybe I would shell out. But then 300mm seems too short so I wonder what you use it for that justifies your expenditure. All sorts of things (nature, studio, portraiture, sports, theatre/concerts ....) But, like I said, I've sold it. (I bought it used in the first place for $2,000 with 1.4x and 2.0x TC's). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
MF lenses on Sony a900
RolandRB wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:16 pm, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On 9 Nov., 20:21, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne wrote: RolandRB wrote: On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne saying something like: Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies? Often. Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies. If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it. I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that? I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the 16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't use it all that often. As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500 C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range within the next few years. I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden - - Zitierten Text anzeigen - Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does not need processing. At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden - - Zitierten Text anzeigen - I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens? No idea how that would stack up. I don't like TC"s and I believe you're more likely to see CA with them than not.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I just purchased the Minolta 75-300mm budget zoom from ebay and judging through the viewfinder only then the lens is OK for my purposes. No poster sized prints from this one. The image at 300mm is a bit soft and auto focussing is hit and miss but I am not seeing the CA I was trying to avoid in the situations I was looking at. My main aim for the lens is to photograph the jackdaws in Biberach an der Riss where I live and it will be OK for that. Jackdaws in the snow might be a slight problem but then its Photoshop time or smaller prints and just because I am using a digital camera it will give me nasty fringe effects in the snow quite apart from what the lens can do. That's a known lens design that is good up to about 200mm and then gets soft towards 300. To avoid purple fringes attempt to reduce contrast in shots with snow, iow place the snow a little below the right edge of the histogram instead of right at it. Unfortunately, this will reduce details in the dark areas of the birds as well. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony, nothing good since the A900? | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 26th 09 04:47 PM |
Sony, nothing good since the A900? | van dark | Digital Photography | 0 | August 26th 09 03:05 PM |
Some Sony a900 100% crops. | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 28th 08 06:02 AM |
Sony a900 ordered | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | November 8th 08 09:40 PM |
DPReveiew - Sony a900 | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 23 | October 28th 08 12:37 PM |