bsutter

<p>Most lenses have different minimum focus distances and different macro magnification values. There are a ton of different ways for macro photography (extension tubes, magnification filters, dedicated macro lenses, bellows, etc). You may want to look at the macro section here for more details. </p>

<p>35-70mm focuses pretty slow. The big metal rotating front element is hard on most cameras (except for monsters like F4, F5, etc. If the F4 can lock, it has a lot of AF motor power).</p>

<p>I love the 18-55mm most of the time. 35mm 1.8 DX may be good too, if you can find one.</p>

<p>You can manually tweak the ISO on any body (that allows for manual ISO setting) for 1/3 stop changes. Not ideal, but it will work.</p>

<p>I used to have the Konica-Minolta branded 28-75mm 2.8 which was based on the Tamron design. Later I have a 28-75 2.8 Tamron for Nikon mount. The KM was wonderful, sharp and fast. I loved that lens, I wish I'd kept my Maxxum 7 just for that.. The Tamron for Nikon mount was a disaster. Maybe I got a bad copy, but 2.8 was unusable and overall it was a lot more disappointing.<br>

I suspect that the Sony version will have much better quality control in production. Not sure it's worth $800 though.</p>

<p>Mine focuses pretty quick with 18-200mm VR AF-S, 24mm AF-D, 35mm AF-D and 50mm AF-D. </p>

<p>D90 is pretty good even at ISO 3200. Sure, it's no D3, but my ISO3200 images are very usable. At 1600 it's better than my D40 too. And it has the AutoFP flash sync, which with an SB-600, 800, etc will give you flash sync at high shutter speeds.</p>

<p>AF is pretty responsive, and has a lot of good settings, including the 3d focus tracking that you'd use for sports. Nice my menu button lets you program it to display a quick menu, you can put AF settings and AutoISO in there, so you can force shutter speeds like 1/500 and 1/1000 in A or P modes for sports.</p>

<p>I'd say the D90 is better than the D200, and a generation newer and lighter.</p>

<p>I have a 24mm AF-D 2.8 and it's great. I like that it's a little wider than a 28, and not so wide that you always have to use it like a superwide (20mm). Plus it uses the same size filters as other lenses (52mm). <br>

Great sharp lens, even wide open. I mainly use it for a F4 or N80, and love it.</p>

<p>Nikon doesn't have quite as much in the AF prime territory as Canon, and these are a little outdated now as far as not having integrated focus motors. Nikon has a new 50mm 1.4 AF-S lens that is pretty heavy duty.<br>

I have the older AF-D 24mm 2.8, AF-D 35mm 2 and AF-D 50mm 1.4. They're still pretty solid and I've been pleased with them optically and durability wise.</p>

<p>My F4s is so heavy, I prefer to use small primes such as 24mm f2.8 AF-D, 35mm f2 AF-D or 50mm f1.4 AF-D. I think the 50mm f1.4 AF-D (or 1.8 AF-D, I have both - they are both great) would be a pretty good choice. Nikon doesn't have a great selection of mid-range zooms, and with a F4 you're going to want to avoid "G" lenses that have no aperture ring. I have a 35-70mm f2.8 AF-D too (good optically, but I wouldn't recommend it because 1.) it's heavy, 2.) I find to make the most of AF on the F4, faster primes are better and 3.) it just feels clumsy to use, hard to explain.</p>

<p>I know my D40 would shoot one single black frame every 5000 images or so. Everything is fine, but once I get around that count I'll get a black one. Camera works fine otherwise, no matter of mode. I am guessing it is some kind of glitch in the Nikon firmware.</p>

<p>You could also rent a lens or two for the wedding. I bet some of the members here have suggestions as to where you could get them. Lensrentals.com has Sony.</p>

<p>If it's under warranty, send it to get fixed. It's their job to troubleshoot it, it dosn't matter. If it was right, it wouldn't do that.</p>

<p>Switching systems can be pretty expensive. Brand arguments, you can pick up used Minolta or Konica Minolta stuff which fits the Sony mount pretty easily. Konica Minolta had a great 28-75mm f2.8 AF lens (based on Tamron 28-75mm design), would be good for wedding and all purpose. I used to have one, and the optical quality, in my opinion, was better than the Tamron for what I would guess was better manufacturing quality control.<br>

I would also recommend mapping out what you plan your system to be, if you just pick stuff up you'll find out you have a lot of equipment you don't need and never use. The 50mm 1.4 of course is very useful. The later 1.4 from Minolta were the same as the current SAL 1.4 for all practical purposes. They also made a 50mm 1.7 which was also very good.<br>

You may want to check some place like keh.com for good used glass from Minolta.<br>

Having some fast glass will help out a lot at a wedding, but in the end it's more about how you take your photos than what equipment you have. Since you already have an SLR, you should have the control you need.</p>

To contribute to my own question, I now have this lens. It is excellent. I may not have the same build quality has a 28-70 2.8 G, but it is acutally nice that the lens is lighter and smaller. Most of the pictures were shot with this lens on a (film) Maxxum 7), color, distortion and overall image quality are excellent. When I want to travel light I carry just this lens and a Minolta 100-200 f/4.5. I went to Italy for a week and got all outstanding photos with this lens.

What apature were you using with 1/500th? If the light was average, the camera may have metered f1.4-f2...which would provide a very shallow depth of field for focus.

I appricate all the feedback! I'd searched...but not had much. DP review definatly has some good information. Unfortuantly, there arn't many people using it on a film body. I was hoping to use it on my Maxxum 7 film body as well to replace my Minolta 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. That is a pretty good lens if you control it well, but wide open and @24mm it is not fantastic. The lure of f2.8 has me exploring other options. I don't acutally have a 7D right now, but hoping to hold out for the next release in 2006. I do have a Canon 300D (digital rebel), and boy do I wish that worked like hte M7. Then, that's another story not for this thread...

 

The Tamron has really rave reviews...I will then hope that hte Minolta version is the same or better.

Has anyone ever used the new minolta 28-75mm F2.8 that came out around

the time of hte Maxxum 7D?

 

I havn't seen any reviews for this piece. As far as I can tell from

Minolta's lens chart, it will function on any maxxum/dynax AF mount

body. Is this true?

 

For $400ish, I wouldn't except a lens with a f2.8 to be great....but

at the same time, $400ish for a f2.8 is a pretty good deal. Might be

a nice walk around except it looks kinda plasticy (and the focus scale

looks wierd).

 

Does anyone have any feedback or samples from this lens?