Moving to Alpha system?

[Galdor]

somehow, i have this feeling of an omen hovering about. anyone feel it too? the feeling that the ego-war happening inside certain brands of cameras might infect the minolta/sony world.


i feel scared. i love it when people critisise about minolta/sony and sing praises about "other" brands, cos i know we will be protected in this peacefully small user group.


so to the TS, what is your current canon setup? if already quite strong, i recommend staying with your canon, the 200mm f1.8 IS is waiting for you.:bsmilie:

Hey, I share the same thought too.

i love it when people critisise about minolta/sony and sing praises about "other" brands too. :bsmilie:

 

[gremlin]

Heh, thanks for all the replies and comments.

Umm.. guess the next question is... what kind of prices am I looking at if I were to get Alpha/Minolta lenses?

What kind of damage am I looking at if I were to get the folllowing (or near equivalent):

1. Fast wide zoom (16-35)
2. Fast standard zoom (24-70)
3. Fast short telephoto (70-200)

If not convenient can PM me ;p

Thanks!

 

[raincool2005]

somehow, i have this feeling of an omen hovering about. anyone feel it too? the feeling that the ego-war happening inside certain brands of cameras might infect the minolta/sony world.


i feel scared. i love it when people critisise about minolta/sony and sing praises about "other" brands, cos i know we will be protected in this peacefully small user group.


so to the TS, what is your current canon setup? if already quite strong, i recommend staying with your canon, the 200mm f1.8 IS is waiting for you.:bsmilie:

some thoughts : it is not about getting the best brand, it is ROI (Return of Investment). How much are u willing to part your money to get this results ? :sweat:

 

[Galdor]

Heh, thanks for all the replies and comments.

Umm.. guess the next question is... what kind of prices am I looking at if I were to get Alpha/Minolta lenses?

What kind of damage am I looking at if I were to get the folllowing (or near equivalent):

1. Fast wide zoom (16-35)
2. Fast standard zoom (24-70)
3. Fast short telephoto (70-200)

If not convenient can PM me ;p

Thanks!

Are you looking at original KM/Sony ones or 3rd party ones as well?

Anyway here's a rough guide:

1) 17-35mm f2.8-4 - $400-450
2) 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 - $300
3) 28-75mm f2.8 - $400-450
4) 70-200mm f2.8 G - >$1.2K

Folks, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

[raincool2005]

Are you looking at original KM/Sony ones or 3rd party ones as well?

Anyway here's a rough guide:

1) 17-35mm f2.8-4 - $400-450
2) 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 - $300
3) 28-75mm f2.8 - $400-450
4) 70-200mm f2.8 G - >$1.2K

Folks, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

yap, around tat range, mostly from Sigma and Tamron.

heard Sony 70-200 f2.8G SSM is cheaper in USA now. :sweat:

 

[pai]

we always welcome new users

but must ask lah, is there anything about your canon system that you're unhappy with?

if not, why switch?

and if so, what is it? the alpha system may not necessarily be better in that aspect.

 

[rOnGrEn]

Are you looking at original KM/Sony ones or 3rd party ones as well?

Anyway here's a rough guide:

1) 17-35mm f2.8-4 - $400-450
2) 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 - $300
3) 28-75mm f2.8 - $400-450
4) 70-200mm f2.8 G - >$1.2K

Folks, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

heh bro.. >1.2k is very very vague..... :bsmilie::bsmilie: I think its is more like > (2x1.2k) :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[Rashkae]

Also, the TS can use the kit lens... It's not bad at all, provides good range and it cheap.

 

[satay16]

Also, the TS can use the kit lens... It's not bad at all, provides good range and it cheap.

yeah, the CZ 16-80 is a very good "kit lens":bsmilie:

 

[stjustin]

yeah, the CZ 16-80 is a very good "kit lens":bsmilie:

it is a damn freaking good lens.

 

[gremlin]

we always welcome new users

but must ask lah, is there anything about your canon system that you're unhappy with?

if not, why switch?

and if so, what is it? the alpha system may not necessarily be better in that aspect.

There is nothing specifically wrong, just that I feel sometimes it is good to know more about the alternatives available out there and evaluating it from time to time.

Canon is still a good system but that does not mean others are not as good.

 

[gremlin]

it is a damn freaking good lens.

Are there any comparisons out there that compares the IQ of canon lenses and Alpha lenses?

Also, am I right to say the G lenses are the best of the lot? What about the Carl zeiss ones? Are those made for minolta mount, or for alpha? I'm a little confused...

 

[satay16]

Are there any comparisons out there that compares the IQ of canon lenses and Alpha lenses?

Also, am I right to say the G lenses are the best of the lot? What about the Carl zeiss ones? Are those made for minolta mount, or for alpha? I'm a little confused...

ok. G lenses are like canon L, but better, cos minolta doesn't any old how name their lenses "G". (fyi, number of G lenses << number of L lenses)

and carl zeiss........... that's a new group. basically does what zeiss had been doing best for the past decades - resolution.:thumbsup:

and yes, all for minolta/alpha mount(they are the same thing).

 

[GENO]

Are there any comparisons out there that compares the IQ of canon lenses and Alpha lenses?

Also, am I right to say the G lenses are the best of the lot? What about the Carl zeiss ones? Are those made for minolta mount, or for alpha? I'm a little confused...

if u are used to the very fast focusing speed of canon, i think u better stick to it..changing to another brand cost a bomb..troublesome too....unless u want to go through the whole process . nobody will stop u.

ho yes, if u want to be poisoned, yr welcome too

 

[pai]

Also, am I right to say the G lenses are the best of the lot? What about the Carl zeiss ones? Are those made for minolta mount, or for alpha? I'm a little confused...

the minolta mount is also known as the alpha mount (alpha was the name of the minolta slr series in japan). sony has taken over the camera business and the alpha name. all one big family.

G lenses and carl zeiss lenses are the two premium minolta lens lines.

the G lenses are of minolta design. CZ lenses are designed by carl zeiss.

they're all very good in terms of build quality and sharpness. and they're also expensive, like L glass.

the supposed differences between G and CZ lenses lies more in the way the lens "draws" the image. G lenses are designed to render pictures in a very pleasing way, with smooth bokeh. the CZs are made for razor sharpness and high resolution.

 

[Trash]

Are there any comparisons out there that compares the IQ of canon lenses and Alpha lenses?

Also, am I right to say the G lenses are the best of the lot? What about the Carl zeiss ones? Are those made for minolta mount, or for alpha? I'm a little confused...

Hey... One suggestion go for a shoot with Minolta users. You can then judge for yourself how go or bad Minolta is compared to Canon.

Prices of Sony is high but there are still a lot of bargain older generation of Minolta to be found (hard to come by though) e.g. 70-210/4 (say $400), 80-200/2.8 APO (say $1.5k). Prices ain't exactly horrible if you tell yourself they are IS lens.

I'm sure most people here will gladly help if a convenient arrangement can be worked out. PM me if you want to try out the 28-75/2.8, 80-200/2.8 APO & 70-210/4.

 

[tirza]

There is nothing specifically wrong, just that I feel sometimes it is good to know more about the alternatives available out there and evaluating it from time to time.

Canon is still a good system but that does not mean others are not as good.

just wanna share my humble point of view..
i am a minolta 7d user, although its an old cam, has lesser features than a700 but i wouldnt want change it to a700.. i dun think features offered by a700 like fast auto focus (for what? its just one over smth second different :sweat lesser noise (just to remove the small2 little dots i have to pay a few hundred bucks? no way) really worth the 2 thousand buck ill need to spent for an a700..

after all its your choice to jump to sony, but i suggest you to think first if jumping to sony really worth it.. :angel:

 

[heckcare.der]

i would say most lenses are considered pretty cheap compared to canon's. lets take 28-75mm 2.8 for instance. for a constant 2.8, it would be a L lens in canon. damaging you abt 2k+.
whereas Konica Minolta only cost around 400-500.

 

[pai]

i would say most lenses are considered pretty cheap compared to canon's. lets take 28-75mm 2.8 for instance. for a constant 2.8, it would be a L lens in canon. damaging you abt 2k+.
whereas Konica Minolta only cost around 400-500.

hee, not sure if this is a fair comparison. the km 28-75 2.8 is a rebadged tamron. you can get one in canon mount for similar price.

the real L lens equivalent would be the 28-70 2.8 G, or the yet to be released 24-70 2.8

both of these lenses have L-lens type prices. the first one is out of production, the second one not even released...

 

[boombox]

That's right... great glasses are actually quite affordable... I myself - am a big advocate for the 70-210 f4... It's great image quality for a good price. and the build's solid too.