File :-(, x, )
Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Why is this twice as much as the canon/sigma ones?

(i was going to say Nikon but i can only see them for 1k~)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
1, Europe gets fucked in the ass for camera prices
2, White paint is expensive
3, Sony doesn't have the massive returns to scale Nikon and Canon have in their manufacturing plants
4, Stores may mark it up more than they do Canon and Nikon gear, There are very low profit margins on Nikon and Canon gear, Sigma Tamron and Tokina are all more profitable in that regard.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266563
1. I'm looking at prices from Hong Kong
2. The canon's have more white paint
3. Yes
4. I'm buying it from Hong Kong

So its pretty much because its newer and there are less of them?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
You forget, Canon's paint is gray
Gray paint is cheap!

Seriously though, Sony may also think that setting a higher price point will lead people to believe their product is superior.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
Well so long as you cant think of any actuall reason like them using super awesome LD glass for all the elements that produces a billion times sharper images (that would be nice).

Now should i get a 70-200/2.8 and a pair of 1.5x TCs or a 100-400/4? I currently use a 100-300.

Pic related

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:03:05 11:54:28Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width450Image Height450
>> Anonymous
>>266571
70-200 and a 1.4x TC (or 1.5 if Sony has them whatever works)
Then you get a 100-280mm f4 lens

Anything past 300mm get yourself a dedicated lens if you have the cash / feel like you need it.

I use a 300mm f4 aswell as my 80-200, Not sure why I do really, I like the image quality better than my 80-200 with 1.4x TC.
Teleconvertors suck in general, on my D50 I never noticed, but on the D300 I can really tell a difference.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Probably because it is Sony brand and because it is new.

If you're more interested in the 70-135 end of the scale then go for that. If you want 300+ then go for the other. You should know from your habits whether or not you have it on one end or the other most of the time. Some people nearly always have their zooms at the longest end and wish for more, so it's an easy choice.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266573
Yes TCs suck, the one I have at the moment is so horrific I wont mention that I've got it.

The only downside to them (aside from the IQ drop) is that Sony/Minolta/Sigma all require their OWN TCs for their APO/G lenses and they dont work on any other.

The other thing is: is 400 worth going down to f4?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>266578
Do you mean 400 for the TC?
or you will save 400 by buying a 70-200 f4?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266585
I generally want more reach (I want to go take photos of motorsports) so 400mm + f4 is probably going to be better than 380/4 with 70-200/2.8+1.5x even though I loose a few stops.

Actually make it more general, is reach more useful than speed for outdoor sports?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>266589
Unless you are on the track the 100-400 will suit you a lot better. You don't need f2.8 very often, as a lot of action shots will be pan's anyway. If you shot Motocross or MotoGP (superbikes etc) And could get on the track thats the only time I would say get the 70-200 over the 100-400 (specifically for motorsports)

However don't understimate how good the 70-200 f2.8's are, I use my 80-200 a lot at weddings, Even indoors with a flash or 2 its perfectly useable.
(assuming the sony is comparable to the Nikon version)

Also if you ever buy an A900 you will most likely pick up a 70-200 f2.8 to complement it in the future.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>266571Well so long as you cant think of any actuall reason like them using super awesome LD glass for all the elements that produces a billion times sharper images (that would be nice).
>> Anonymous
It used to be even more expensive before Sony dropped the price.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266874
What :P
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CARL ZEISS

FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
>>266887

This one (70-200) is another old Minolta design.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266889
Totally unsurprised.

Also Vince, the 100-400/4 is supposed to have full coverage. If I got an A900 id look at a
>Sigma - 50-150mm F2.8 II APO EX DC
To cover wide-long rather than a long-verylong to overlap less.
>> Anonymous
>>266889
>>266899

IIRC it is from the late 80s or early 90s Minolta. Sony have really been plundering their back catalogue.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>266899
I just meant its a usefull focal range to have, and these lenses perform very well even on 35mm sensors. The super zooms don't often have the edge quality.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266901
Do you blame them? Minolta didnt exactly have shit designs and why else would you buy a company?

>>266903
50-150 is only 3x zoom, pretty much the same as the 70-200, its not APO G quality but I dont imagine its noticably different when you have to pay for your own gear.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>266914
err, I was talking about the 100-400 F4
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266914
I just noticed the 50-150 is crop coverage only AND it is APO.

saaaaggeee
>> Anonymous
>>266899If I got an A900 id look at a
>Sigma - 50-150mm F2.8 II APO EX DC

>> DC

enjoy your crop lens on FF
>> Anonymous
>>266914its not APO G quality

lol @ people buying into these lens "technology" acronyms and happily paying 200% the price of equivalent lenses without that magical "APO G" label but with similar and often more complex and superior lens designs
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I appear to have invented a 100-400/4 sigma, not quite sure how that happened.

They dont exist, only 100-300/4s.

So the thread is pointless, ill save up for a 70(80)-200/2.8 and some nice TCs instead.
>> Anonymous
nice TCs is an oxymoron

cropping your image and using a proper upsample algorithm will result in better quality than TCs
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266929
That seems unlikely to be true. I have low-end lenses and a shitty teleconverter and crop+upsample gave me roughly equivalent quality. I'd suspect that using a good TC and good lens would lead to better quality.

Do you have any evidence to back your assertion up?
>> Anonymous
>>266935

i work in print and photography is a side thing

i can always tell from the pixels because i've seen many pixels in my life

adding a shitty piece of glass in the equation is always worse than proper software built to scale things

piece of glass that goes DURRRR MUST MAGNIFY STUFF < intelligent software programmed to fool the human eye and adapt to every situation on images you feed it
>> Anonymous
lol, you are an idiot.
tc's are almost always going to be better quality t
an resampling. even wide open.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266956
>No, I have no evidence to back up my assertion
Fair enough.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266956
>>266974
Samefag troll arguing both sides of the argument to try to double his chances of attracting flames.
>> ­
>>266589
I always like to have a f/2.8 whenever I'm doing sports of any kind. It's really useful to blow out the background. Turn down the iso and shutter speed and get good at panning, a blown out, blurred background is a neat effect.

Now, outdoors you don't NEED f/2.8 or maybe even f/4, but when you're shooting at night under track lights or in cloudy conditions you'll find yourself upping the ISO to get a decent shutter speed.

Most of the sports I shoot are indoors in terrible lighting, so my aperture selector is always stuck on f/2.8. My Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 has been a godsend for shooting sports in shitty light.
>> ­
>>266983
I'll add that I never use teleconverters. They slow down the AF and tracking way too much, and I can't afford to lose those few stops of aperture.

When I can't zoom enough I crop. The difference in quality between using a teleconverter and cropping in photoshop is negligible for me. My point being:

1) I can't sell a picture if I don't get it. I've used teleconverters before and they slowed the camera down so much that I missed a lot of shots. Since I couldn't go down to f/2.8 my shots were way too blurry.

2) I shoot for news and for magazines, my images aren't often printed that big. Even so, I've had zero problems printing heavily cropped images at 20x30.

If you can tell the difference between a cropped image and a teleconverter in the final product, you're looking at the image WAY too close. Don't worry about technical details, go take pictures.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>266990
>>266983
Yeah I'll go for the 70-200/2.8 and think about TC's after that.

The current TC i have is uncoupled (ie transparent to the camera's software) which lets the camera try to AF on an already slow lens (4.5-6.7). Watching it CREEP round as if trying to pull itself up a mountain is quite amsuing but i _have_ to MF with it although frankly with the decrease in quality (huge) you wouldnt notice if you're in focus or not 1/2 the time.

Also
/thread
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>266974resampling

if you use Photoshop, yeah, it's going to look worse

>>266975Fair enough.

lol, as someone renowned for believing everything he reads on DPR, i'm surprised you wouldn't know this by now

a proper s spline algorithm with the proper settings catered to the image will give much better results than a simple piece of glass

software is smart, your TC is dumb

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:01 14:06:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height480
>> Anonymous
>>266976Samefag troll arguing both sides of the argument to try to double his chances of attracting flames.

hahahaha, oh god i didn't see this before my reply.

come on ac, you're going to pull the samefag card like sage/butterfly/beethy now? and just because i'm against what you think is right, i'm trolling?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267004
See? That's actual evidence. Why didn't you post that first?

Goddamn, people. I'm willing to accept when I'm wrong, just fucking prove I'm wrong, don't just go "Ur dumb lol".
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>267005
hey! i never use samefagging, people just accuse me of doing it because they dont know any better.

TCs are not just single bits of glass either.
>> Anonymous
>>267004

I think the TC example is better there. I've seen plenty of other samples showing TCs are much better so I think you are full of shit and just trolling.
>> Anonymous
it's better in some instances, even on the examples

but i've worked on numerous images for print and i would much prefer fiddling with a perfectly taken 1:1 copy than having one ruined by a TC and correct the aberrations caused when using one
>> Anonymous
it's better in some instances, even on some parts on the examples

but i've worked on numerous images for print and i would much prefer fiddling with a perfectly taken 1:1 copy than having one ruined by a TC and correct the aberrations caused when using one, which are usually not correctable
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Alright time to contribute, I dug up 2 shots I had taken at the MX track

These should be as close to a perfect comparison as there can be considering I couldn't duplicate the scene.

D200, 80-200 af-s + TC14e, at 200mm for both shots. One has the 1.4x TC on it. Aperture is BOTH set to f4 (which is better for comparisons I suppose). Shutter speed is 1/1250 on the TC, 1/800th on the non TC shot (Rider speed is faster for the TC shot so that shouldn't make a difference, as you can see with the wheel spin)

Subject distance is very similar (But probably not dead on) Lighting conditions are very similar.

Anyway, take a look, i'm uploading UNRESIZED shots, they have been cropped though (Can't find uncropped originals). (Picture dimensions will show you). Pictures both were both taken jpg, run through a batch (+15 sat, USM 1.4 35%, Contrast +5)
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)420 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:24 15:34:50RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityExposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length280.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1780Image Height2758
>> Anonymous
>>267199

so where's number two?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>267207
i'm fucking trying...
grrr I hate uploading to this board, it takes like 20 minutes of retrying sometimes.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>267209


4chan has excellent servers. Pic related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:05:22 19:02:17Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width360Image Height600
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
While I wait for my upload to fail again, Butterfly, look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8
Its a bit big though really good quality, but it would fit in well with the 50-150 if you got that in the future.
ITs also not too far off in price from the 70-200 sony.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:20 15:52:25Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2298Image Height3502RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>267209
lol

for some reason i have more success posting images and replies with the firefox addon
might be luck, dunno
>> Anonymous
>>267004

On the one on the left the grain effect is terrible and it looks over sharpened or something.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>267211
The 120-300/2.8 doesnt appear on the Dyxum list so i wouldnt count on it being avalible on the dynax mount.

Frankly i cant really see any difference between the two you've posted so I'll go for 70-200 and TCs.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>267220
Ya, I can't see any difference myself either, quality wise they are incredibly close.

Good choice with the 70-200 though! You will love the lens i'm sure.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>267223
Well having made that decision i have on left to make:

A700 vs 70-200

That and i _really_ need something between my 11-18 and 50mm, i wanted a 20-40/2.8 for some time but they're not made anymore and the replacement is 22-70/2.8 which tbh isnt going to be wide enough *__*
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>267225
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
It will save you money, and is a very nice lens

70-200 first, THEN A700 or A900 later
Lenses don't drop in price like camera bodies do aswell.
>> Anonymous
>>267225


sony fag here


i'd get the 70-200. The A700 is going to be replaced soon (probably) by either a 1.3x or FF varient. Good glass is forever, bodies change all the time.
>> Anonymous
"Glass is forever"

I keep hearing that and yet every gear loving faggot from dpreview to POTN to fredmiranda seem to never stop changing their lenses. What a crock of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>267230


i'm pretty sure there's a reason that the 50mm has been around forever. just cause some rich gearfags change their lenses constantly doesn't negate the truth of that statement.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>267232
50mm lenses have been around for forever, yes you're right; but not for the reason you think..
>> Anonymous
>>267234


i realize they came with SLRs since forever: but even in the short time dslrs have been out, the 50mm is still around and kicking cause it's good glass.
>> Anonymous
>>267241

It is also comparatively cheap glass thanks to it being the standard for years.
>> Anonymous
>>267241
it is not forever either as people buy and upgrade them or swap for different copies and models all the time too...
>> Anonymous
>>267241
the statement still stands.

50/1.4
85/1.4-1.8
135/1.8-2.8
200/2.8

all these are classic lenses that still provide pretty amazing quality and their updated versions (ones with coating for digital, etc,) are just as good.

good glass is forever.
>> Anonymous
>>267255

No, that is bullshit. It's just a glib statement that morons see on a forum and then parrot without realising it is meaningless. May as well go back to saying "Polly want a cracker!".
>> gramophone hush OffitteKeetle
put <a href=http://forums.oscommerce.de/index.php?showuser=44854>cialis</a> hush
>> Anonymous
>>267256
>>267256


people are still using their 80-200/2.8 HS on their a900s that they used on their KM 5ds.
>> Anonymous
No, glass DOESN'T last forever, but it's a better investment than a camera body that is replaced every two years and totally outdated every four.
>> Anonymous
>>267299
>replaced every two years and totally outdated every four.

You know, that doesn't make it take any worse pictures than those that were perfectly fine four years ago.
>> Anonymous
Look on any forum and you'll find people upgrading and selling lenses all the time. Half of them are the same people with "glass is forever" signatures. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. LOL
>> Anonymous
>>267316
that's some kind of logical fallacy but i can't be bothered to look it up right now.
>> Anonymous
>>267353
it's the logical fallacy of bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>267316
But hey, at least 3 years down the road they can sell them for like 3/4 of what they bought them at...try that with a 20D.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>267279
But that was one stunning lens!

I'll go save up a bit more for the lens then *sigh*
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
tl;dr but I'm glad I'm not a Sonyfag.
>> Anonymous
>>267355

Exactly. "Glass is forever" is a bullshit statement repeated by empty-headed morons.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>267462
dont canonfag my threads up, I have the decency not to do it to yours :P

>>267489
It makes even less sense if you look at pre-digital, when the bodies all did the same thing and you could just "upgrade" your sensor by using nicer film. Once you had a film body you liked there was very little reason to change it.

But then, what is going to replace a 70(80)-200/2.8, a 70-300/2.8 or -400/2.8 with the same quality? Unlikly just like a 70-200/1.8.
>> Anonymous
>>267496

Yeah. There are plenty old Leicas and other cameras around as examples of (some even famous) people not throwing away bodies after many years.

I can remember lots of people upgraded their 80-200 to a 70-200 and then from a f/4 to a f/2.8 and then with the IS in the Canon range. Other brands have similar examples. I expect if/when the manufacturers update the lens designs again there will be another mass migration to the new lenses. A good thing as it allows others to buy the old ones second hand at reasonable prices.

You buy what suits you and what fits in the budget. When new and super-awesome gear comes out from Sony or *whomever* (and it will eventually) I know I'd want to upgrade if I had the budget for it. Their research and design departments are busy working on them.

Sigma's new 50mm was a pleasant surprise (and a brand new design) too. I'd consider that as an upgrade for my 50 one day.

If a lens is the best there is for your purpose then you hang on to it, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way forever, as time has shown.
>> Anonymous
>>267499
nevermind the fact that these modern lenses will wear out eventually and there will be no spares to fix them.