Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=29459198&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
A100, I can afford to buy just one lense for an upcoming airshow: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I've had my alpha 100 for a few months now and only have the 18-70 lens.
I finally saved enough to buy another lens and I'd like to get it before an upcoming airshow in two weeks.
The 70-300 Sony looks nice and is the cheapest Sony lens at $230.
The other Sony lens I saw is the 18-200, which would seem like a better all around lens.
That one is I think $450 or so.
I also found a used Tamron 28-300 (model A061M) used for $300.
Which of the three would be best for airshows and car races?
|
|
Hi,
I own both Sony 75-300 mm and Sony 18-250 and a Sony A-100.
IMHO, SAL 18-250 is a way better lens than 75-300.
It is an excellent lens for travel and for occasions when you do not want to carry more than one lens with you.
It is sharper lens (compared to 75-300 mm ) and gives better results.
Front of the 18-250 does not rotate when focusing so use of polarizers easier.
For some reason if you decide to go with 75-300, you can find used ones on eBay for less than USD 230.-
my 2c
Cheers / ASE
|
|
The Big Beercan (Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6) is much better than either of the options you noted.
They run about $250-$300 on ebay, but I doubt you have time to get one there before the airshow.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=52
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri.
Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!
|
|
I would dump the kit lens and get the 18-250.
I previously had the 18-70 kit and the 75-300, and while they were ok, I found myself switching lenses all the time.
The 18-250 is the perfect solution and is much sharper than both the kit lens and the 75-300.
If you're dead set on the 75-300, shop patiently.
You can find one for $100.
That's how much I paid for mine.
--
|
|
Theres been a few posts of airshows here with the 500mm mirror.
This seems like the perfect lens for airshows.
It's small. sharp.
500mm and being a mirror gives round effects in the bokeh but being an airshow that shouldn;t show at all.
--
F717 (Legendary)
A700 (what a fantastic machine)
A200 (Almost as fantastic)
|
|
If you have the time I'd like to see comparison pics taken with both lenses.
Also, does anyone remember the site that had a comparison/equivalency list of the K-M and Sony alpha lenses?
I seem to remember that some of the lower end Sony lenses are simply rebadged K-M lenses.
I want to see if the K-M versions are cheaper.
|
|
Ahoy!
In the budget range, also consider the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (red ring), however, if you had a few more doubloons the Sony 70-300 SSM G would be pretty much perfect.
EvilBay has about 11 300mm variants for Sony mount.
http://shop.ebay.com/...
...ensesQQ_flnZ1QQ_ssovZ1QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em282
Worth checking out and cross-referencing on Dyxum.com (click on lens link).
--
Mark (aka Pirate!)
|
|
I hope I can agree with you in a few weeks time.
I just ordered the SAL18-250 to replace the 18-70 and 75-300.
If you can post some examples from the 18-250 compared to the kit lenses, that would be great.
I am really curious if I made the right decision.
To the original poster:
the 75-300 shouldn't be too hard to find, you can also look for the Minolta version which might even be cheaper.
I don't expect to get much for ours when I put it up for sale.
Quote: :
>
I would dump the kit lens and get the 18-250.
>
>
I previously had the 18-70 kit and the 75-300, and while they were
>
Ok, I found myself switching lenses all the time.
>
>
The 18-250 is the perfect solution and is much sharper than both the
>
Kit lens and the 75-300.
If you're dead set on the 75-300, shop
>
Patiently. You can find one for $100.
That's how much I paid for
>
Mine.
> --
>
|
|
I only use it for soccer photos, and it drives me nuts when the focus won't lock, and I miss shots I wouldn't with better gear.
I use continuous auto focus mode, which seems to help, as does wide-area auto focus, for some reason.
Spot AF give me more out-of-focus photos.
Lens also has pretty bad CA.
That being said, it was cheap and I have gotten a lot of use out of it - I just have to take a zillion shots to make sure some come out.
I'll be retiring it in the spring when the last kids graduates from HS.
I am otherwise a wide-angle shooter.
My latest soccer photos are at: http://gallery.me.com/sheilamurphy if you want to have a look.
I also shoot in RAW, convert to JPG for the web, and don't do much post-processing for this sort of thing.
|
|
|
If going the 70-300 way, check the Sigma APO and Tamron versions...much better than the Sony and ALSO cheaper.
|
|
Quote: :
> If going the 70-300 way, check the Sigma APO and Tamron
>
Versions...much better than the Sony and ALSO cheaper.
Agreed.
I decided on the Sigma, and it's a good lens for the price.
I'm looking at upgrading to the Sony G lens, but only because I want something closer in quality to my 16-80.
Here's a shot with the Sigma at 300mm.
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
|
Search for my thread about "Misty Morning"
Those shots were taken with my 18-250.
--
|
|
Another vote for the Sony or Tamron 18-250mm.
You will need the wide end for larger aircraft on the runway (assuming the crowd line is not too far away) and a must for the static aircraft park.
Mine (Tamron) worked great recently at the Farnborough Air show where the aircraft ranged from a powered glider, Catalina, DC-6, Vulcan up to the Airbus A380.
Would have missed a lot of shots with a lens that started at 70mm (105mm equiv.).
Did end up using manual focus at times which was not a problem with F8+ and a bit of care.
Oh for a split screen like my Nikon FM.
|
|
Just did. Great shots!
The atmosphere in them is very good.
Still wondering how the 75-300 would have done in those scenes.
Guess I will find out next week, when we pick up the 18-250 in the USA and start our holiday on the West coast.
How do you think the lenses compare in auto-focusing?
Quote: :
>
Search for my thread about "Misty Morning"
>
>
Those shots were taken with my 18-250.
>
--
>
|
|
What Glen said and
All of the lens suggested are good lenses no doubt, but for all the wrong reasons.
If your primary intention is to shoot air shows and car races, one of your biggest hurdles is getting close enough to the action to get any meaningful images.
The public, you and me are kept too far away from the good stuff for our own safety.
You need a lens that can bring the action closer to you.
I don't think the 250mm or 300mm zooms are going to bring you much satisfaction!
Unless you are only shooting the cars in the pits or planes on the tarmac, you may need to consider the sal500mm or maybe the new sal70-400 for better results.
--
http://stv.smugmug.com/
|
|
I find the 18-250 faster in daylight...but both have a little trouble finding focus in lower light levels...but remember, they aren't exactly pro-level glass.
I also find the 18-250 much sharper.
The 75-300 always produced soft images for me.
I absolutely love my 18-250...its the perfect walk-around, and the only time it will ever leave my camera is when I'm indoors using my Minolta 50mm 1.7.
--
|
|
Agree with what you're saying, but getting into the 400mm range is going to cost some serious coin.
If the OP is talking SAL75300's, I don't think he's in the market for the big boys just yet.
Remember, he can always crop.
--
|
|
|
|