[clevermax]

Originally Posted by wanderer4x4

Hi,
This is one of my queries again for the Sony range. I am planning on buying a prime lens for portrait photography. Now I am in two minds between buying a used Minolta 50mm 1.7 AF and the brand new Sony 50mm DT 1.8 lens.

What are the pros and cons of both the lenses? My cousin in UK has checked out the used Minolta there and it is costing around 70 to 90 GBP and the Sony brand new one costs around Rs 7500 here. So pricewise both are pretty much the same. Only thing is that the Minolta will be 20 years or more older and used and the Sony would be brand new. But, Minolta is faster by one stop than the Sony. And some of the reviews on the net says the Minolta to be better in output, but Sony has better optics.

Considering this, pls suggest what shall I do? I have a slight inclination to go for the Sony as it will be brand new and with Sony India warranty. But, is the Minolta IQ far superior than Sony despite being an older model? Or this slightly larger aperture in Minolta 1.7 a makes big difference in IQ? My need is general portrait with a very good bokeh. So if someone can suggest any other lens also it all right.

Hi wanderer,

I have Minolta 50mm f/1.7. Not all of them will be 20 years old as it was in production till about 2006. So you may get a newer one also. Only downside I have with this lens is , it looks older than my camera. It has sharp optics & AF is fast.

This should give you an idea about the sharpness this lens has got

Original frame:


100% crop from the 16MP image:


I would say, pick Minolta if its cheaper than the new Sony one. I have not read reviews about Sony's 50mm but I presume it will be equally good.

Check this picture for distortions and ca at the extremes
500px.com/photo/7685375

[wanderer4x4]

Originally Posted by clevermax

....I would say, pick Minolta if its cheaper than the new Sony one. I have not read reviews about Sony's 50mm but I presume it will be equally good.

Well, the Minolta is not significantly cheaper as its in the range of GBP70-90 in the UK, meaning between INR 6.5 to 9K whereas Sony 1.8 is around INR 7500 with warranty in India. So, I am confused...is the IQ in Minolta 1.7 is makedly superior to Sony or I am better off with a brand new Sony.

BTW: Clevermax, do you have anyone in knowledge here who might be selling these Minolta glasses?

[V-16]

Hi guys, sorry but im a complete novice when it comes to cameras. I have a point and shoot Sony and am very happy with it when i go trigger happy but i find it wanting in certain situations, especially when i want more zoom, wide angle shots and complete clarity in terms of close, real close picture taking. Please advice me what i should go in for. I was advised to go in for a Cannon, namely the 550D or the 650D (or was it the 60D?) they are both in similar price range and are very good. The 550D was offered to me a while back for 32k (about the size of my budget-or maximum i can spend on an SLR) with 18-55 (whats that? Pls explain) lens kit. I sincerely have no idea what i should buy. I know i want to invest in a good camera which will keep me happy for a long time as im not going to buy an entry level slr and then change it for a better one. I might as well but a good one like the ones mentioned above and stay with it for a long long time.

Could you guys please guide me with the specifics of the above slrs, or if there is another make with equal of better features which is cheaper? Then is it worth getting that brand? I need to get one from India only as i need warranty.

What should i look for in a camera? (i need pictires plus HD video on the camera)
Which brand would be reasonably weather resistant?
What additional lens should i be looking at?
How heavy would the models you would recommend vis a vis the ones available/recommended?
What are the features which are greater in the cameras you would recommend?
Is there a newer model with additional features releasing about now that i should wait for or will this one do?

One more important question, do you recommend i should go for a pre-owned one (people do tent to upgrade) or a new one?

Thanks ...awaiting your replies.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by wanderer4x4

Well, the Minolta is not significantly cheaper as its in the range of GBP70-90 in the UK, meaning between INR 6.5 to 9K whereas Sony 1.8 is around INR 7500 with warranty in India. So, I am confused...is the IQ in Minolta 1.7 is makedly superior to Sony or I am better off with a brand new Sony.

BTW: Clevermax, do you have anyone in knowledge here who might be selling these Minolta glasses?

You don't have to doubt the image quality of Sony 50mm f/1.8. Just go and get it, if it fits your budget.

from a review I just read:
"The baby nifty fifty from Sony was such a big hit upon it's release that it was selling like hot cakes and then the other two companies decided to revamp their f/1.8 nifty fifties!"

Saw some sample images at flickr and they look great.

BTW, about local guys selling lenses - I went to a camera repair shop in the city today on the lookout for Minolta glasses. The repair guy told me that he had two Minolta lenses, but someone bought them already. I have subscribed for all lens events from him so that I will get a callback next time he gets a lens

[PM - B]

I am in the market for an entry DSLR and have zeroed in on

Nikon D3200 Body Only
Nikon 18 - 300 f/3.5 - 5.6 - This is announced, but not yet shipping, hence no price in India, USD1000 outside.
Nikon NC UV 77 Filter
Sandisk 64 GB UHS - I Class 10.

[rajshenoy]

I bought same model from same seller on ebay for 33k just last week sad :(

But i got a 3k worth mobile so no regrets

Worth every penny btw. Seller is super slow but product was genuine.

Always good to cross check anyway :-)

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by V-16

Could you guys please guide me with the specifics of the above slrs, or if there is another make with equal of better features which is cheaper? Then is it worth getting that brand? I need to get one from India only as i need warranty.

You can get warranty as long as you stick to Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus/Panasonic. If you want to play safe regarding resale value and easier availability, stick to Canon/Nikon. If you are adventurous and don't care about resale, you can consider Olympus/Sony/Pany too, for they can be VFM as well as give richer features at entry level.

Originally Posted by V-16

What should i look for in a camera? (i need pictires plus HD video on the camera)

Entirely depends on what you want to shoot.

Originally Posted by V-16

Which brand would be reasonably weather resistant?

There is nothing like reasonable. Cameras and lenses are either weather resistant or not. It will be mentioned in the specifications.

Originally Posted by V-16

What additional lens should i be looking at?

Again depends on what you shoot.

Originally Posted by V-16

How heavy would the models you would recommend vis a vis the ones available/recommended?

heavy?

Originally Posted by V-16

What are the features which are greater in the cameras you would recommend?

Hmm, different things are greater for different people.

Originally Posted by V-16

Is there a newer model with additional features releasing about now that i should wait for or will this one do?

Generally, any feature that is available in a 3-4 year old dSLR is good enough even now.

Originally Posted by V-16

One more important question, do you recommend i should go for a pre-owned one (people do tent to upgrade) or a new one?

Old dSLRs can still kick butt. My 2006 dSLR still works well despite being stored in a humid place like Manipal.

If you want to discuss in detail, call me after 5PM tomorrow. We can figure out what you need. You know where to find my number.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Samurai

You can get warranty as long as you stick to Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus/Panasonic. If you want to play safe regarding resale value and easier availability, stick to Canon/Nikon.

Now that i have the attention of thee extraordinary gents,
i want to pick up the Tamron 17-50 (which i have had my eyes on, for eons).

wherever i look the VC is about 32-33 while the non VC is 22-23k. Is VC worth the 50% premium (in this case)?

My usage is primarily for my naughty 1 year old boy who is lightning quick and the canon's 50mm prime is thoroughly inadequate, often hunting for focus in low light situations. Any other thoughts?

Originally Posted by tsk1979;

...

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen;

...

[C300]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Now that i have the attention of thee extraordinary gents,
i want to pick up the Tamron 17-50 (which i have had my eyes on, for eons).

wherever i look the VC is about 32-33 while the non VC is 22-23k. Is VC worth the 50% premium (in this case)?

My usage is primarily for my naughty 1 year old boy who is lightning quick and the canon's 50mm prime is thoroughly inadequate, often hunting for focus in low light situations. Any other thoughts?

I own the Non-VC and IMO its wonderful lens and offers great VFM. Going by the online reviews it seems people prefer non-VC over VC. For your usage, I wonder how Tamron will help given the lowest aperture of 2.8. If you have the 50/1.8, then why not try 50/1.4 which has faster AF which should assist you to capture the youngster.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Now that i have the attention of thee extraordinary gents,
i want to pick up the Tamron 17-50 (which i have had my eyes on, for eons).

Wrong gent, I know nothing about Canon/Nikon family lenses.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by C300

For your usage, I wonder how Tamron will help given the lowest aperture of 2.8. If you have the 50/1.8, then why not try 50/1.4 which has faster AF which should assist you to capture the youngster.

I am using it at f4.5 or thereabouts since any lesser and you end up focusing the wrong things. I dont like too little dof in regular shots. then i am sure it will only be good enough (better focussing in low light etc). Plus, I hate the limited view of the 50mm - it is not enough for indoor candid shots.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Wrong gent, I know nothing about Canon/Nikon family lenses.

sir,

you would have general idea about these lenses , and in general about moving from 50/1.8 to 17-50/2.8?

[sachinj12]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Now that i have the attention of thee extraordinary gents,

I am neither of the three, but I found something which is similar to your query.

Tamron 17-50 F2.8 vs Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 vs Tamron 28-75 F2.8

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

you would have general idea about these lenses , and in general about moving from 50/1.8 to 17-50/2.8?

Ah, if you put it that way. You need a standard zoom, but you are trying to manage with prime lens.

I know there is a school of thought that encourages the use of prime lens as primary walkabout lens even for non-advanced users, that too normal lens (50mm). But 50mm is normal only if you have a full frame body, and very few have FF body. The 50mm on a APS-C or 4/3 sensor gives you 75mm, 80mm or 100mm effective FL depending on the family. Also, if you want to shoot family shots, indoor shots, you are severely handicapped.

I prefer standard zooms, that too with minimum EFL starting from 24mm to around 100mm. That is the most useful walkabout lens unless you have some special needs. My primary lens is 12-60mm F/2.8-4 which gives me 24-120mm EFL. That takes care of 95% of my shooting needs.

Now if you consider 17-50mm F/2.8 lens, it gives you 27.2-80mm on your Canon body. For me it lacks a bit on both end, especially the wide end. Once you taste 24mm EFL in a standard zoom, you can't live without it. I'd say try out Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 before you make any decision. I don't see any faster lens with this FL for APS-C bodies.

[ntomer]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Now that i have the attention of thee extraordinary gents,
i want to pick up the Tamron 17-50 (which i have had my eyes on, for eons).

wherever i look the VC is about 32-33 while the non VC is 22-23k. Is VC worth the 50% premium (in this case)?

My usage is primarily for my naughty 1 year old boy who is lightning quick and the canon's 50mm prime is thoroughly inadequate, often hunting for focus in low light situations. Any other thoughts?

Well, I am not one of the extraordinary gents, but I have clicked a fair bit with Tamron 17-50 so would share my experience with you

This lens is pretty sharp; and fast in good light conditions. Though hunts for focus in low light, so might not be suitable for you.

The common consensus is that VC version isn't as sharp as non-VC one; so I won't suggest VC one. BTW, I got my non-VC Tammy for 21K, about a month ago...

[nileshch]

Originally Posted by fuel_addict

Bought a Canon 60D couple of weeks ago to replace my 1000D. So far so good. The jump from the entry level 1000D is quite evident in the results.

Also, bought a Sandisk Extreme Class 10, 32GB SD card from eBay. The claimed write speed for the card is 45 MB/sec. Should be excellent for HD videos.

@fuel_addict, coincidentally, I too got a Canon 60D recently to replace my 7 year old grandaddy 20D. It has been a huge jump in features and reduced noise levels. Loving every click from the new camera!!

A big positive immediately when I compare to the old camera is ease of use when taking HDR photos. On the 60D you simply set the exposure bracketing and set the timer to 2 secs. The camera does the job of clicking the bracketed photos on the press of the shutter release!