Hi there ^_^ You might remember I made a thread wondering whether to buy a Sony A200 a while ago, and thank you all for your advice, I have bought the camera and I am extremely happy with it, and enjoying photography a lot. (I have also bought the Sony A200 guide by Alan Hess which if anyone else has the camera who is reading this, I would really recommend. I now fully understand all the things on the camera the manual didn't explain properly, and I am able to use all the manual/aperture/speed priority modes without trouble! It's deffo worth reading)
I am interested in purchasing a second lense for my camera, but I am a bit confused.
However I am a little confused because although the first one says it is for Sony cameras, no one in the reviews has mentioned using it with a Sony camera, and someone said they used it on a Nikon? Would this lense work with my Sony A200? I didn't want to buy it only to find it was a mistake on the titling and I'd wasted £140.. but equally, it is a fair amount cheaper than the other one, which is £170 - but would it be worth saving a little longer and buying the £170 one?
If there are any other lenses I've missed and should have a look at, those suggestions would be welcome. What I want is a longer focal length for photographing birds etc.
Chloe, All the independent manufacturers make lenses to fit the most popular brands. Optically they will be the same so the reviews should be OK. Except remember that the Sony versions do not have focussing motors and IS because it is in-camera. Having said that a good resource for Sony and Minolta stuff is the Dyxum.com web site. It has loads of review scores on all the lenses which fit. If you click on the lens you can see the actual reviews and make you're mind up. It also gives the vital statistics including weight - which could be a factor. A lot of the new digital lenses are lighter than the old stuff. I have to say that neither of the ones you mention gets that good a score (they are budget lenses after all). The Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 gets a slightly better score on Dyxum and is inexpensive (Amazon). There are the usual mixed bag of Amazon reviews though. Alternatively the Minolta beercan 70-210 rates well and is built like a tank (but costs over £100 on ebay). The Tamron 55 - 200 scores pretty well at £99 new. The Minolta 70-210 f3.5 to 4.5 isn't as good as a beercan but isn't bad compared with the kit lens and is cheap as chips on Ebay (I have one). As Ed will tell you the digital sensors are sensitive to flare so a good score in that category is best. New digital lenses are designed accordingly. If you do buy a Minolta lens on Ebay watch a fair few auctions first to gauge the market and only buy when you can get a good deal - or buy a new lens designed for digital cameras. I bought an old Sigma on ebay and when I got something better I sold it for much the same price I bought it for. Be careful though if buying secondhand on Ebay because there are a lot of variants of lenses and some can be a bit difficult to distinguish - see http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses and you will see what I mean. If in doubt leave them alone. Some are real dogs (based on Dyxum scores). I have no doubt I shall be shot for my views (Ed?) but hope I have given more food for thought than confusion.
This is the Sony 75-300mm f4-5.6. It's a good lens but comes bottom of the list due to price, I would get the sharper Sigma APO version (top of the list) instead of this. The Sigma does macro, the Sony does not, so another reason to go for the Sigma APO instead of this at a similar price.
Basically if you can afford the Sigma APO at the top of this list, get it. If that is too much of a stretch, then definitely the Tamron, not the cheaper Sigma non-APO.
If I were to buy the Tamron AF 70-300mm lens, would it work with the auto focus in the sony A200? I read that it works with other lenses, I wasn't sure if that only applied to Sony lenses however
Also what does APO mean, and how much softer is 'soft' for the Tamron 70-300? Do you think this would begin to get annoying, or would it be OK? Is it possible to counter the softness with your aperture setting or anything...?
I could save up for the £170 one but, £120 is a much more attractive price and it would mean I could probably get it for Christmas, rather than having to save even more, which would be good
Also another thing I was wondering was, what do they come with when you buy them in order to keep them safe? Will I be required to buy any cases or lens caps etc to go with them, or are lens caps supplied?
The lens is an AF lens so has autofocus. The AF on my Tamron works fine. "APO is just is shorthand for apochromatic, meaning non color fringed." Every lens I have bought has front and rear caps. They are cheap to replace if you lose one. I keep my lenses in comparments in my camera bag but have used individual squashy cases in the past when I had everything loose in a holdall. You don't want lenses and cameras to chink against each other or bounce about.
The Tamron 70-300mm is fully functional for the A200. I wouldn't recommend a lens that wasn't ;)
APO is just a marketing name for the type of higher grade glass used in the APO versions of Sigma lenses. It does give a sharper image compared to their non-APO lens.
Zoom lenses tend to get softer at their longest focal lengths, the Sigma APO is better than the Tamron in that it gets softer a bit later. It really does come down to how long you are willing to wait.
Not being a long shooter, I would get the Tamron and put up with the softness. If I was going to spend a lot of time around 250mm and above then out of the bunch it would definitely be the Sigma APO.
I don't know the box contents for these lenses, but they will have caps for both ends. The lenses I have bought did not have a case.
Ok cool! Thanks loads ^-^ Also that camera website with all the lenses for sony alpha mounts is really useful, I think I will use that in future!
You've both really helped me out there because I hadn't seen that lens before and it is a much more affordable price for me, you've saved me a long wait I think!!
I have been managing pretty OK with my 18-70mm length so I think that it will be ok for me to have it as I don't suppose I will always be at 300mm the whole time
One last question! xD Do you need to use this lens on a tripod, or could you hand hold it too? I know that with long focal lengths you do sometimes have to use tripods because of the blurring of being so zoomed in, but I wasn't sure exactly at what length it becomes necessary to use one. I do have a tripod, so it's not really a problem if so though.
In the old days it was often said that the shutter speed you could hand hold at was in inverse proportion to the focal length e.g. 500mm lens needed 1/500sec and so on. However, your "steady shot feature" should give you a extra stop or two so 1/250 or even 1/125 could be hand held. But if you really want sharpness a physical device is better. I very occasionally use a tripod (clumsy) but more often use a monopod when taking moving objects because I can pan with it. I believe its better to turn off the steady shot feature when using a tripod. Other tips include holding the camera against something and use the 2second delay to avoid shaking it when pressing the shutter or get a cheap remote cable release. I do have a gorilla pod (small bendy grippy tripod) but have had little use from it. It seemed a good idea but I haven't really felt the need or found the opportunity to use it. it depends if you have planned what you want to photograph e.g landscape at dusk (tripod), kids sportsday (monopod), restaurant party (mini tripod on table) and so on. I think though that you should take the shot if you want too and worry about the sharpness later because you can always delete it. Take a bunch of shots and see if there is a good one. I'm sure your book will give tips. I took about 10 shots of my son's graduation with a compact on full optical and digital zoom and one was passable on a small print. OK for a memento but not great art!
You will not need a tripod in adequate light, I don't have sharpness problems shooting at 210mm using slow shutter speeds. The stabilisation on the A200 is very good.
I think I am actually going to go for the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO because my Dad said I could have it if I can give him 75% of the money before xmas and pay the rest after, as he thinks it's best to go for the best lens but I did want to have a christmas present on christmas day! I'm really happy about this, thanks so much for all your help ^_^
I think it's probably best to get that because it does seem to be a better lens and also it has got no 1 or 2 star reviews as opposed to the other
i have the a200 and the sigma lens and i am very happy with the results. the only problem is the AF is slow, considerably slower than the kit lens. but i dont know about the AF on the sony lens but i have heard that the sony lens has bad purple fringing around the high contrast edges. with the a200 in "normal light" with the steady shot on you can take sharp pictures at 300mm with a shutter speed as slow as 1/200ths of a second maybe a few stops slower if you have a steady hand. also another advantage of the sigma over the sony is it has a macro switch that allows you to focus as close as 0.95 metres and a ratio of 2:1.
I was recommended a Minolta AF 100-200mm lens which is non digital but all the lights will light up on the Sony viewfinder and works like a digital lens- I have taken lovely pictures everything from landscapes to close-ups of animals. This lens is the equivalent of a 300mm on digital at the maximum. You can easily pick up a good 2nd hand one for £50. It's fairly compact in length and takes sharp pictures. You must buy a Minolta non dig AF lens if you want it to work on auto. Hope this helps.
![[Add comment]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._V20569588_.gif){kind=small}
RSS Feed
