Sony .......

.... 11-18 mm ... more scope for "cooler" shots ...

You know. I spent the time after posting this doing what I SHOULD have done first... looking through the lens specific group pools.

I think I'm going to have to go with the 11-18mm. The IQ just seems so much better on average than the photos from the 500mm

500

11-18mm. (Or, actually, Sigma 10-20mm, but if those are your choices… =)

Me? Well, not being a collector of lenses at all, I guess if I had to choose I would go with the Sony 500mm Reflex. Difficulties galore I guess with the fixed f8, but I'm out to 250mm with one of my 3 lenses and I'm not about to spend big bucks to get a lens that zooms out to only 300mm or 400mm.

An aside (that's probably not good to stick in here at the Christmas impulse buying season) ..... If you really want to save money on any new Sony (and probably others too) camera, wait patiently at least 8 months after a camera comes out to buy the camera. I waited 6 months to get my A-550. In that time it had come down by $100 off the list price. Soon thereafter the price went down even further.

.

Well... I have an account with Dell. They are carrying most of the Sony line. (Other than the flashes... I can't find the flashes!)

That's why those particular lenses were the ones I was choosing between for my Christmas present.

I had ordered the a55 and they had an estimated delivery date of 12/17/2010. But yesterday they changed that to 1/15/2011... and today they changed it to 1/28/2011.

My wife told me to go ahead and order the lens I wanted and don't mess with canceling the camera order.

Then she let me know that we're going to Baton Rouge in March for an all day country music show :)

www.flickr.com/photos/30418410@N06/4562735430/

www.flickr.com/photos/30418410@N06/4728243008/

Panorama and "planet" using the Sony 11-18, not a recommended technique but interesting and results in some fun images!!

I haven't shot with either but have checked out photostreams of both. The 500 has some TERRIBLE bokeh. Again this is only what I've seen on a few photostreams, so maybe you'll want to check some out before you pull the trigger.

Personally I think the basic Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6, is an excellent lens, and lower price than the Sony 11-18. Same dyxum.com ratings for both lenses, but the Sony is $200 more expensive. The Tokina 11-16 F2.8 constant aperture lens, is about $80 cheaper than the Sony, which is another good option. Fastest UWA zoom.

As for the Sony 500mm mirror lens, F8 is quite slow for 500mm, most zooms are F6.3 in this range (and you can vary the aperture), but all are large and bulky. For mirror lenses, you have to like the out of focus donut effect of a mirror lens, biggest plus is it's compact size and fairly light weight (only control on the lens you have is pop in ND's, no aperture control). Had one in my film days, found it too slow and restricting (with no aperture control), fell to disuse, so I sold it.

As with all lenses, best to check what other users think of them on www.dyxum.com.

Both lenses are really speciality lenses, so I'd go for the one you will get the most use out of. All depends on your personal shooting style.

if you don't have to buy on Dell the a55 is not backordered.
In my town, Henry's has them all on sale. Sonystyle.ca has them piled up to sell. BestBuy as well.

A quick check around the internet shows the same. It's just Dell and a few other 3rd party suppliers.

but the sweep pano is no replacement for a real wide angle. Its a cute tool to have in the bag but no replacement.

As I said... I'm getting through Dell because I have an account already with them (for the tons of computers I buy). I went ahead and ordered the 11-18 because of the image quality I was seeing on the mirror lens. I'll save up and eventually get me one of the ###-500 zoom lenses out there. For now, my Tamron 28-200 f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter looks like it gives me better image quality at 400 than what I was seeing at 500 with that lens.

In the wide angle category I can't tell you which to buy but I can tell you which one not to buy-the tamron 10-24 it sucks.

The 500mm reflex is a good lens to start with in wildlife photography and airshows especially with a55 where you can bump up the iso without a worry on noise. The 500mm focus is reasonably fast but BIF is not possible. It is amazingly sharp and very contrasty. The bokeh is another part, if you not careful you will end up with doughnuts. All in all a good lens.

Although I'm not a fan of mirror lenses, the Sony/Minolta is one of the best, with quite good IQ and the only one that auto focuses. It is actually quite sharp, but the out of focus background (bokeh) is a donut effect due the the reflex mirror design, takes a bit of getting use to, and not everyone likes the effect. For compact size, and light weight it's great. Mirror lenses tend to be a little more delicate than a regular lens, since it doesn't take much to have the mirrors go a bit out of alignment, I found it difficult to get use to the bokeh, and lack of aperture control, personally, and F8 was another limitation (ISO bumping would help).

As Santanu mentioned though, size wise it may be a good match for the A-55, which is a smaller camera. Regular 500mm zooms, are quite large. The Tamron 200-500 is the lightest in weight.

UWA lenses are great in confined spaces (narrow streets, indoors), since they capture so much more. Also it's much easier to get a more panoramic effect without stiching. Even a regular speed UWA with it's short focal length it's very easy to hand hold in lower light.

Michael Your 28-200 + 2x TC is going to be worse than almost any other tele-zoom lens ever made. Seriously.

Yes. but from the photos I saw of the 500 reflex, they weren't much better than that. I just wasn't impressed with the 500 reflex shots I saw.

Oh shoot... I just realized I had a typo.... I'm putting the 2XTC on my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Sorry.

Here's a shot from it at 400mm at night shooting a football game
Exposure 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 400 mm
ISO Speed 1600


I'm not knocking the 500mm Sony, I just don't see it as a step up from what I have. That's why I'm going to wait and get one of the zooms. like the 150-500 or 200-500. I just see the 11-18 fitting better in my kit.

Sorry, Liquid Stereo, for mistyping that.... I should have proofread it... i WISH someone made a 28-200 f/2.8 :)

I read a review just today that compared about 10 different UWA's and it confirmed what I already believe. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is the best APS-C UWA out there. It and the comparable Nikon were the only two that rated 5 of 5 on image quality but the Tokina is 200 bucks cheaper than the Nikon.

yeah. sadly it wasn't an option :)

The way I shoot, and the times I reach for my wider lenses, 99% of the time it's in the day time with good light. I can't think of a single time that I needed anything wider than the 28mm I already have at f/2.8. To tell the truth, i was also REALLY tempted by the 100mm Macro. but I've already got the Sigma 90mm macro, and it's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used. That thing is older than dirt and scary sharp.

Oh.. one other thing... and I'm almost ashamed to admit this.

for a couple of years I spent my time grabbing "bargain" lenses. I still do it a lot, but back then I'd grab any Maxxum I found in a pawn shop or flea market just to get the lens. All but one of them were excellent lenses for the money, but the operative phrase there is "for the money". The 28-85 Macro was awesome. I liked it a lot better than the 18-70 kit lens and used it as a walkaround for a long time. I also had a 35-70, 80-200, a couple of 50 1.7s and a 28 f/2.8. Then I picked up a used Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 followed a short time later by the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Now I've sold ALL my minolta glass except the 50 and 28 primes (and the 28 was sold but I never heard back from the buyer).

Anyway... I now see what everyone was talking about, and I don't even have any "G" lenses. You put that old Minolta 28-85 Macro on my old Alpha 200 and shoot a few shots, then put the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 on my Alpha 550 and shoot the same shots and it's like night and day. So playing around with old glass is fun, and you can get some excellent lenses... I won't part with my 50mm f/1.7... but unless you've played around with some of the higher end glass, you really can't see the differences they will make in your shots.

Michael,
No one mentioned the Minolta 500mm reflex, a good copy of this lens should be around $350.00 / $400.00 with all the filters and a case.
Here are some reviews of it on Dyxum.com

www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Minolta-AF-Reflex-500-F8_rev...
TOM

trh51, yes, there are a lot of other lenses I could have looked at, but the reason these were the ones I was looking at is they are carried by Dell and were in the price range my wife wanted to spend for my Christmas present.

I usually see zero loss of image quality with my Tamron-F AF 1.4x TC on my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 but I've never had any luck with 2x TC's. The F AF 1.4x isn't even their higher end TC and it's fantastic.

I absolutely love UWAs. I have the Sony 11-18mm and the scope for fun and creativity is just endless. Cloudscapes look absolutely amazing with it and you can get some cool, quirky, and comical close-up shots with it - especially of animals! Took this tonight with it hand held


α580
Sony 11-18mm
1/30th sec
f/4.5
ISO 4000

Keep in mind you can't use but the center AF point when using this one. I read that in Kurt Munger's review and a forum user who I asked about it confirmed it. So if you'd want to track a moving target, it's not going to be easy using only the center AF point.

- Joris, which lens are you referring to where you can't you use the centre AF point? If you where referring to an UWA, actually, that is where the AF is the most accurate, due the more extreme curvature of the front element of the lens. For my Sigma 10-20, that's all I use.

Lucid... thanks... you just made me feel better about my decision to go with the 11-18. I don't think I'll be disappointed