What wide angle zoom or prime are you using? Need something wider than 28mm.

I use a Sony a900 that I picked up from eBay last summer. My current lenses are the Minolta 50 f/1.7 and Minolta AF 500 f/8.0. My Tamron lenses are the 28-75 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 90 f/2.8 and the 180 f/3.5. I recently picked up a Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 and It's an okay lens, not up to the image quality that I get from my other lenses. I'd like to know what wide angle prime or zoom you're using. I cannot afford anything in Sony's current lineup and I'm thinking about getting a Tamron or Konica/Minolta 17-35 f/2.8-4.0. I'd love to find out what you're using and how much it cost. I'd say my budget would be in the $250 - $500 range. I want something wider that the 28mm end of my 28-75 for fall colors and need something sooner rather than later.

I've got the Konica Minolta 17-35 F/2.8-4, bought for £125 at a camera fair. I used it a lot on my A900 during a course some years ago and was not disappointed with the results. It's best to keep to smaller apertures - at maximum aperture, vignetting is very noticeable.

For some reason no one seems to have made a 19-35 or 18-35 that convinces... my wide lenses that do better on full frame and cost me under $500 are: Sigma 15-30 3.5-4.5 EX DG and Tamron 20-40 2.7-3.5 SP AF (first version = model nr 166D) on the zoom side, and Sigma 24 2.8 "super wide II" on the prime side. The zooms both were about $300 from keh, the 24 2.8 shows up more often, even in pawn shops and such, and is usually less than $100 in A-mount.

 

The 24 prime is no bigger than a 50 1.7 so easily comes along on any trip. Between the two zooms the Sigma is big and has a really bulging front element with fixed petal hood (a bit more trouble to use filters with), while the Tamron is slightly more compact and has a lovely rock-solid build, with a threaded front end = easier for mounting filters. All of these provide very nice colors and contrast, much better than the utterly "bleh" Quantaray 18-35 I had a long time ago.

Edited October 29, 2018 by paul_de_ley

Gents, thanks for your comments. I have a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 on the way from that auction site. I'll post some images comparing this lens with the Tokina 19-35 f3.5-4.5 (exif data says it's really a 20-35). Hoping to see a lot of improvement in image quality. If this isn't satisfactory then I'll try out Minolta 24 f2.8 when I find one.

I've got a feeling that the Minolta 17-35 is the same lens as the Tamron.

Having been a Canon guy for decades and still have the 5D MK IV, I am using a Metabones adapter for EOS mount, so my recommendations for actual E mount is limited to owning none. Sorry. I am finding my genuine Canon lenses work well and I can't bring myself to spend money on good E mount lenses if I already have a version of the lens in an EOS mount. I wish i had a budget to buy lenses, but don't at this time. If not for the Metabones V, I would not have been able to start exploring the Sony Alpha line.

 

If there is some rich philanthropist that would care to sponsor this old but talented photographer in my quest to photograph the world with great gear and lenses, I would sure welcome that. lol. But until then, I have to count my blessings for the equipment I have. It is still pretty good stuff. :)

 

If you have an adapter, the Canon 17-40mm f/2.8 L is very sharp on the A7RIII and a used one would be in your budget range. I posted a couple shots in the last Sony/Minolta weekly photos. I bought mine used years ago, I am still amazed at how sharp it is on higher res cameras like the A7RIII. That lens has a lot bang for the buck and works flawlessly with the metabones V on the A7RIII.

I use Sigma 24/2.8, Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 and Voigtlander 19-35/3.5-4.5.

I use the Minolta 20-35/3.5-4.5 on both the A700 and A850. I also use a Minolta 24-50/4 on occasion. These are reasonably priced on Ebay, should get them for under $200. Edited December 22, 2018 by john_cooper|9