Maxxum/Dynax 7D wide-angle lens?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Toa, Jul 23, 2005.

  1. Toa

    Toa Guest

    I've recently purchased a 7D and am using it with the lenses I used to have
    on my old 500si. Stock 35-70 and 75-300

    I'ld like to get some wider angle of view and am looking for some advice on
    which lens(s) I should be considering

    Recommendations anyone? Alan?

    Toa
    New Zealand
     
    Toa, Jul 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Toa

    Jer Guest


    I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough stick
    time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.

    And then there's this fresh from KM's news page...

    http://tinyurl.com/b48u7

    or...

    http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise..._News/cam_NewsDetail/DT_Lenses?header=aboutus
     
    Jer, Jul 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Toa

    Toa Guest

    Toa, Jul 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Toa

    Alan Browne Guest

    f/3.5 you mean?

    It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
    is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.
    Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you
    want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Toa

    Jer Guest


    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...933&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
    or http://tinyurl.com/agnfs

    I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned.

    True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward
    compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming I
    ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D.
     
    Jer, Jul 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Toa

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yes. Variable aperture (f/2.8 - f/4). The older Minolta model is fixed
    aperture ( f/3.5 ) and about 3.5X more expensive. That is the one I've
    been intending to buy. But for 2/7 the money I could get the
    "Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version.
    If you do, you'll likely have to ship both the flash and the camera back
    to Minolta for calibration of some sort. I haven't done this yet
    although there is about a 1.5 - 1.7 stop under flash. In the fall I'll
    be shooting film only, so I'll ship both back then for calibration and
    probably buy a secong 5600HS at the same time.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Toa

    Toa Guest

    Toa, Jul 24, 2005
    #7
  8. Toa

    Jer Guest

    I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience
    with them. They seem to offer competitive lenses at reasonable price
    points. The nice fella at the local shop was pushing...

    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?navigator=3

    ....mainly because he knows I like really long lenses and he only wanted
    a grand for it. I borrowed it for a while outside and doofed around
    with it, seemed to do okay, but I've already deleted the playtime shots. :(

    Maybe someone else can chime in with some Sigma experiences.
     
    Jer, Jul 25, 2005
    #8
  9. Toa

    Jer Guest


    I don't do a lot of work with strobes, but I'll keep this in mind. Thanks.
     
    Jer, Jul 25, 2005
    #9
  10. Toa

    Toa Guest

    I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience
    I like the look/price of the 18-125 lens
    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3287&navigator=6

    But I'm unsure if these lenses give a sufficiently clear image in comparison
    to other lenses.

    Toa
     
    Toa, Jul 25, 2005
    #10
  11. "Brand name continued on next camera." ;^)

    I bet Minolta is beginning to look back fondly on the time when their
    only problem was getting sued by Exxon for overlapping the 'X's in
    'Maxxum'...

    Bob ^,,^
     
    Bob Harrington, Jul 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Toa

    Alan Browne Guest

    Given that it's a prime, there is a good chance that it is at least
    "okay", possibly very good. The photo example at the Sigma site is not
    a great example (poor contrast or possibly a poor scan).
    There are few Sigma's I would buy. The only one that comes to mind
    right now is the 180mm f/3.5 macro.

    My SO bought a 28-200 f/var that is 'okay'. Since she prints to 4x6 in
    order to use scene material for her oil painting, it is fine for the
    job. She (who is not terribly interested in photography itself) prefers
    the look of the 50 f/1.7 when she can use it.

    I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped
    for the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not
    very good.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 25, 2005
    #12
  13. Toa

    Toa Guest

    I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for
    I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand"
    equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between
    say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron

    Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands?

    Toa
     
    Toa, Jul 25, 2005
    #13
  14. Toa wrote:
    []
    Even if the optical design were the same, cost savings can be achieved by
    doing less quality control, so it's possible that some sources will
    produce more bad lenses than others. But the optical design will be
    different, more elements or fewer, using different glass, optimising for
    best performance wide-open or stopped down, optimising for the wide-angle
    or telephoto end of the zoom range.

    The answer to your question: Yes.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Toa

    Toa Guest

    Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
    Thought so <g>

    Toa
     
    Toa, Jul 26, 2005
    #15
  16. Even so, considering MTF for example, some people may prefer a lens with a
    long tail of MTF, providing detail at higher spatial frequencies, but at a
    lower contrast level, whereas others may prefer a lens with a sharper
    roll-off, but a higher MTF at mid spatial frequencies, so whilst you can
    measure a difference, the measurements sometimes need to be interpreted in
    accordance with your own tastes or needs.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 26, 2005
    #16
  17. Toa

    Alan Browne Guest

    Sigma make a few very-optically-good lenses. Construction is not as
    good the as better OEM lenses. The mechanics feel cheap (esp. zoom) in
    many Sigma lenses.

    Tamron make several very good lenses. Tamron has (v. Sigma) a fairly
    narrow line of lenses which include some jewels like the 90mm f/2.8 macro.

    Tokina make several very good lenses, however, nits such as migrating
    lubricants were a problem with some lenses in the past.

    In the end, Nikon, Canon, Minolta et al make some real dogs too. But in
    their better lenses, one cannot go seriously wrong. Just pay the piper.
    With a patience and a bit of searching, you can get near new lenses
    and save a lot of money.

    Is it a personal thing? Sure. I would rather pay the premium and have
    something that does what it is purported to do than pay half the price
    and not have what I was expecting. To read the various magazines, many
    third party lenses are "great value". Remember what value means and how
    marketeers use the term.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 26, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.