Maxxum/Dynax 7D wide-angle lens?

Alan Browne wrote:

But for 2/7 the money I could get the
"Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version.

"Brand name continued on next camera." ;^)

I bet Minolta is beginning to look back fondly on the time when their
only problem was getting sued by Exxon for overlapping the 'X's in
'Maxxum'...

Bob ^,,^

Toa wrote:

It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.
Alan


What's your view on Sigma?

Say the 24mm f1.8
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...81&navigator=4

Given that it's a prime, there is a good chance that it is at least
"okay", possibly very good. The photo example at the Sigma site is not
a great example (poor contrast or possibly a poor scan).


Or the 18-125mm F3.5
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...87&navigator=6

There are few Sigma's I would buy. The only one that comes to mind
right now is the 180mm f/3.5 macro.

My SO bought a 28-200 f/var that is 'okay'. Since she prints to 4x6 in
order to use scene material for her oil painting, it is fine for the
job. She (who is not terribly interested in photography itself) prefers
the look of the 50 f/1.7 when she can use it.

I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped
for the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not
very good.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for
the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very
good.
Alan

I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand"
equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between
say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron

Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands?

Toa

Toa wrote:
[]
I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about
"name-brand" equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable
difference between say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron

Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
brands?

Even if the optical design were the same, cost savings can be achieved by
doing less quality control, so it's possible that some sources will
produce more bad lenses than others. But the optical design will be
different, more elements or fewer, using different glass, optimising for
best performance wide-open or stopped down, optimising for the wide-angle
or telephoto end of the zoom range.

The answer to your question: Yes.

David

Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
brands?

The answer to your question: Yes.
David

Thought so g

Toa

Toa wrote:
Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
brands?

The answer to your question: Yes.
David

Thought so g

Toa

Even so, considering MTF for example, some people may prefer a lens with a
long tail of MTF, providing detail at higher spatial frequencies, but at a
lower contrast level, whereas others may prefer a lens with a sharper
roll-off, but a higher MTF at mid spatial frequencies, so whilst you can
measure a difference, the measurements sometimes need to be interpreted in
accordance with your own tastes or needs.

Cheers,
David

Toa wrote:

I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for
the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very
good.
Alan


I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand"
equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between
say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron

Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands?

Sigma make a few very-optically-good lenses. Construction is not as
good the as better OEM lenses. The mechanics feel cheap (esp. zoom) in
many Sigma lenses.

Tamron make several very good lenses. Tamron has (v. Sigma) a fairly
narrow line of lenses which include some jewels like the 90mm f/2.8 macro.

Tokina make several very good lenses, however, nits such as migrating
lubricants were a problem with some lenses in the past.

In the end, Nikon, Canon, Minolta et al make some real dogs too. But in
their better lenses, one cannot go seriously wrong. Just pay the piper.
With a patience and a bit of searching, you can get near new lenses
and save a lot of money.

Is it a personal thing? Sure. I would rather pay the premium and have
something that does what it is purported to do than pay half the price
and not have what I was expecting. To read the various magazines, many
third party lenses are "great value". Remember what value means and how
marketeers use the term.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.