How to best spend my $300-400 (Sony lens question)

[Pupator]

I should have asked this before asking my 1:1 macro lens question - but I didn't. Silly me.

I have: a700 body and a nice Sony flash

I have the following lenses:
Minolta 28-105 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 50mm f1.7

I shoot:
Wherever I am! Sometimes landscapes, sometimes portraits, often events (church, friends, etc.). We have a baby on the way (due in 2 weeks) as well. I'm not doing any pro gigs, just shooting for myself and my family as it's a hobby I enjoy.

I'm looking to add a lens to the collection in the $300-400 range and three options have come to my attention. I'm curious if there's a "right" one to get at this point.

Sony DT11-18 f4.5-5.6 - I'd like this because I really lack any wide lenses. I'd use this for group shots on trips I take and landscapes as well.

Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di 1:1 AF Macro - I'd like this because I could try out macro photography which I think I'd enjoy, and living in the mountains I have plenty of opportunities to see macro critters and foliage.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II - I might like this because it would, again, help me out on the wide angle and probably be more useful to me than the Sony 11-18. But I do have that it has so much overlap with the Minolta 28-105 which I really like as a walkaround lens.

Ideas? I can get a used version of any of them and stay within my price range... :scratch

[swintonphoto]

I'd go for the Tamron 17-50. While it does have some overlap with your current setup, it will be a superior lens optically compared to the 28-105. If I were you I would sell the 28-105, buy the Tamron 17-50, and use any excess to buy a used macro lens for a bargain somewhere. You will LOVE the Tamron 17-50.

[ziggy53]

I'd go for the Tamron 17-50. While it does have some overlap with your current setup, it will be a superior lens optically compared to the 28-105. If I were you I would sell the 28-105, buy the Tamron 17-50, and use any excess to buy a used macro lens for a bargain somewhere. You will LOVE the Tamron 17-50.

:agree The 17mm end is wide enough for a lot of interior work and it's about twice "normal" FOV which works well for many landscapes. The 50mm end is about 2/3rds normal FOV, so a moderate tele, and it works fairly well for portraiture outdoors and family/event stuff indoors and out.

[sherijohnson]

here is my 2 cents

Sony DT11-18 f4.5-5.6

I have a 17-70 lens on the Sony alpha camera I use and 17 is not always wide enough especially for landscape. I haven't shot any tight space group shots with it yet, but I am sure even I would enjoy that 11-18 :D

[davemj98]

I have the 16-105, but would like wider still. I have tried out that 11- and it is on my list to get!
Dave

[Pupator]

So the 17-50 was the winner, and it's a good thing!

It got here just before the birth of our son (Nathan) and it was a lifesaver in that low light hospital for a few days. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this lens.

I also had a chance to try out a Sony 11-18 for a while and was unimpressed. Dunno if it was the copy or my lack of skill overcoming its weaknesses but it wasn't sharp and the colors were pretty dull. I'm prone to believing it was my lack of skill (I think people make way too much of "good" and "bad" copies of lenses). The Best Buy local to me has 2 of them for good prices, if anyone is interested.

Either way the 17-50mm is a huge success. :barb Now to save up for the 90mm macro! :rolleyes

[swintonphoto]

So the 17-50 was the winner, and it's a good thing!

It got here just before the birth of our son (Nathan) and it was a lifesaver in that low light hospital for a few days. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this lens.

I also had a chance to try out a Sony 11-18 for a while and was unimpressed. Dunno if it was the copy or my lack of skill overcoming its weaknesses but it wasn't sharp and the colors were pretty dull. I'm prone to believing it was my lack of skill (I think people make way too much of "good" and "bad" copies of lenses). The Best Buy local to me has 2 of them for good prices, if anyone is interested.

Either way the 17-50mm is a huge success. :barb Now to save up for the 90mm macro! :rolleyes
Congratulations! I am glad the lens has been a great purchase!

[sherijohnson]

When you have time to do so, I would love to see a photo or two with this lens. I am thinking about getting one, it's the f2.8, right?

[Pupator]

When you have time to do so, I would love to see a photo or two with this lens. I am thinking about getting one, it's the f2.8, right?

Sure - here are a few (sorry that most of them are of the same subject - our newborn). These are all taken with a Sony A700.

f/2.8 ISO 800 50mm
http://paulsclicks.smugmug.com/photos/447286907_fNTW7-L.jpg

f/3.5 ISO 800 50mm
http://paulsclicks.smugmug.com/photos/447291255_hDT9V-L.jpg

f/4.0 ISO 800 28mm
http://www.paulsclicks.com/photos/451490453_bPVPV-L.jpg

[Teddifish]

Awww!

How can we try to evaluate the lens when the subject is oozing cuteness all over the pictures? :D

[Pupator]

Awww!

How can we try to evaluate the lens when the subject is oozing cuteness all over the pictures? :D

Heh, thanks! Hopefully his looks will take after his mother...


I can't express how thrilled with the lens because to really appreciate those pictures you'd have to have seen just how dark that hospital room was. All shots were handheld with no flash and the main room light turned off. I couldn't believe I got (more than) usable pictures in such a situation. I thought I'd have to switch to my nifty fifty, but I didn't, the 17-50 was up to the task!

[sherijohnson]

Oh my, what an adorable baby, and the pictures are PERFECT!

I ordered one of these lenses yesterday, but for now getting it for my Canon 50D.

I want to try the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on the Sony. It has gotten great reviews. I was ready to buy it and it was on backorder.

[Pupator]

Oh my, what an adorable baby, and the pictures are PERFECT!

I ordered one of these lenses yesterday, but for now getting it for my Canon 50D.

I want to try the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on the Sony. It has gotten great reviews. I was ready to buy it and it was on backorder.

I'll bet it's killer. Rare that I need 2.8 at those zoom lengths though. Right now I'm using the Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5. I previously had a beercan, and may go back to that, but I wanted to try this one instead because it weighs much less.

[sherijohnson]

I am working on getting what I will need for weddings.... so that is why I am going this route. I can do fine with the other lenses, but during ceremonies, you can't use your flash, so you have to have another plan.

[Pupator]

I am working on getting what I will need for weddings.... so that is why I am going this route. I can do fine with the other lenses, but during ceremonies, you can't use your flash, so you have to have another plan.

Right. I don't do many indoor events - almost all of my telephoto activities are outdoors and during daytime. If I were in the wedding biz the 2.8 would be essential, I'm sure. I wish our wedding photo had it - maybe they wouldn't have been so badly overexposed! :rofl