File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Does anyone think the Carl Zeiss 16-80 f3.5/4.5 zoom lens for the Sony Alpha will be worth the pricetag (lol $700) when it comes out? I think by that time I'll be buying an Alpha and I'm considering whether I should stick with the kit lens or shell out the cash for this thing.
>> Anonymous
>>34239
I'm a huge Sony fanboy as far as camera gear and most consumer electronics (mp3 players, etc - they have nice sleek looks and functionality) but, I don't think the Sony Alpha is actually worth it. It has a terrible auto focus problem from what I've seen from pictures my friend takes with his (as well as pictures online). It sound so sweet but you should really look at (cheaper) alternatives.
>> des
$700? the nikkor equivalent is about $300, the canon (plus IS, even) is about $500

I'm a little confused at what they're thinking. They already have a vari-aperture 18-70mm in the line up.
If the CZ lenses are supposed to be their high-end offerings, why isn't this twice the price BUT f/2.8 through its range?
>> Anonymous
Carl Zeiss name = +200% price basically

Also I agree, don't get the sony Alpha, ESPECIALLY not if you are taking low light pictures, it has horrible noise for a DSLR at high ISO's.

Canon or Nikon equiv runs about 350$, and the nikon I know has a good reputation. (I don't own it though, I opted for the cheaper 18-55 instead of the 18-70) Then bought other lenses later on (28-70 f2.8).
>> Anonymous
Buying an Alpha because I have Minolta lenses since I have an old film Maxxum and I want to get into digital photography. Need a new general-range lens because my current one is the kit lens that came with my Maxxum. So don't say get a Canon or Nikon, please.

(Should I try to find a Maxxum 7D or 5D instead of an Alpha?)
>> des
>>34250
We didn't say get a canon or nikon, just that their offerings were lower.
Like I said, Sony already has an 18-70mm in their lineup, it's much cheaper, you could look in to that. Froogle says it's about $190
>> Anonymous
Thats a terribly expensive lense for only being as fast as some kit lenses. It should be the sharpest zoom ever made to warrant the price.
>> Anonymous
>>34251
Sorry, that's just what it looked like people were saying to me. Anyway, I know about Sony's current 18-70 lens. That's the kit lens for the Alpha. I was just wondering if whatever benefits CZ has are worth the extra price.
>> Anonymous
Dunno about the alpha (? lol), but i liked the idea of anti-vibration stuff built into the body..
>> Anonymous
There was a preliminary test of this lens on some Chinese site. They seemed to like it, mostly marvelling at the quality of the coatings, how difficult it is to create flare or purple fringing even if they tried. Also, the price tag isn't that bad; basically sacrificing the speed of a 2.8 lens for more range. Plenty of 18-50 and 17-50 2.8 lenses. Tokina/Pentax has got a 16-50 2.8 coming out now. Nothing like 16-80. I would get this lens if I didn't sell my Sony Minolta stuff a while back.
>> Anonymous
lol, alpha...

enjoy your ISO 800 and 1600, or what you can see of it that isnt noise at least...