Author Topic: 24-105mm  (Read 1942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline winjeel

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Gender: Male
  • Gelight
    • japanesephotos
    • JapanesePhotos
    • JapanesePhotos.Asia
« on: March 02, 2009, 08:47:20 AM »
I saw a 24-105mm on the front of an A900 in a large camera store today, at the price of Y54,600 (400 pounds). I was sort of surprised to see anything but a "kit" Zeiss on the front. I don't know how they promote and package the A900 and suitable lenses elsewhere, but that's what they're doing here. Is the 24-105mm really up to FF quality? Well, I suppose the price should give me an answer to that.
JapanesePhotos.Asia; Some basic photographic how to's.
Sony the200, Minolta 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 70-300mm Gregarious, 100mm 2.8 macro.

Offline Stef.

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
    • Stef's photographs
Re: 24-105mm
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2009, 05:17:51 PM »
Is the 24-105mm really up to FF quality?

Winjeel- the surprising thing with the A900 is that some lenses (also older ones) seem to work better with the A900 than with the A700. I think it was David Kilpatrick who wrote to my utter astonishement that he has sold his Sony 70-200G lens as the beercan beats it on he A900(!). I can say from my own experience and I could not believe my eyes (still can't in that case) that i.e. the Minolta 50mm f1.7 seems to work better on the A900 than the newer Sony 50mm f1.4 (On the A700 it is the other way around)
So I guess you just need to give it a try!
Stef.'s photographs


"Dream as if you'll live forever- live as if you'll die today"

Offline mphotoservices

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24-105mm
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2009, 07:14:52 PM »
That is very interesting. That sort of now makes sense that the 50 1.7 and the beercan were FF built. Starts to make you think if Sony's lenses really are geared towards the A700 and below? I wish one of you lived close enough to test my 80-200 2.8 G on a A900.

Maybe I had a bad copy but I prefered the Minolta to the Sony on my A700.
A700 w/VG, A100 w/VG
Minolta 50 1.7, 28 2.8, 80-200 2.8 G,
Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 2.8, Sigma 10-20 4-5.6, Vivitar Series1 17-35 3.5-5.6
Sony 1-F58AM, 1-F56AM  2-Fong Light Spheres
Bogen, Manfrotto 3245, 3216 mono's, 3001, 3021 tri's, 3245 head, Kaiden Kiwi+ Nodel Pano head
Alien Bees 2-1600, 2-800, 4-400
Macbook Pro unibody loaded
And 1/2 a garage of othe