wide angle for Sony a900

[mattpallante]

Does anyone have any experience/opinions on the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 for my Sony?

How about the Sony SAL 20mm f2.8?

Or the Sigma 20mm f1.8?

For landscape.....Thanks, Matt

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Check here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/image/107003971/original (Minolta 20/2.8AF at f/8, Sony lens is probably the same.

Here is my writeup on the A900: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...e-sony-apha-900

This folder is all my published test images, look in "original": http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Ah, Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6. Some images are here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/sigma_12_24

According to Michael Reichmann it's good, but there are a lot of sample variations. I'm not in ultrawide so I live with it. Took some decent pictures with it recently.

The 16-35/2.8 ZA is said to be very good....

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Sorry for typos, trying to see the "Peter Karbe" video while typing...

Does anyone have any experience/opinions on the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 for my Sony?

How about the Sony SAL 20mm f2.8?

Or the Sigma 20mm f1.8?

For landscape.....Thanks, Matt

[Plekto]

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic11373.html

This is a 28mm, but it's quite decent and affordable.   Wonderful, clean images and very good with low light.  

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic12260.html
This is a superb lens as well - the Sigma 24mm/1.8

[mattpallante]

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic11373.html

This is a 28mm, but it's quite decent and affordable.   Wonderful, clean images and very good with low light.  

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic12260.html
This is a superb lens as well - the Sigma 24mm/1.8

Oops, I'm sorry...I've got a CZ 24-70, and can't afford their wide zoom, so I need to cover 24mm down to .....?

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

My recommendation would be the  Tokina AT-X 17mm lens.

I have this lens in Nikon mount and have tested this lens next to a Nikon AF  14-24mm lens on my Nikon D3X.

The Tokina was as sharp as the Nikon even to the edges, but did have a small amount of CA which was easily fixed in photoshop.

This lens does come in Minolta mount but unfortunately it is discontinued but I am sure you might find one on ebay or KEH.

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/afl-01b.html

Cheers

Simon

[aaykay]

Does anyone have any experience/opinions on the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 for my Sony?

How about the Sony SAL 20mm f2.8?

Or the Sigma 20mm f1.8?

For landscape.....Thanks, Matt

If you can swing it, and can live with 16mm as the widest, then the CZ 16-35 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar is a great lens.  The Sony 20mm f/2.8 is supposed to be a good performer on the A900, even though not as good a performer on APS-C bodies, strange as that seems.

The Sigma 12-24 is an imperfect beast from what I hear, due to its sample variability as stated in the above posts.  However, there is nothing wider for FF in any other rectilinear lens (prime or zoom).

The below link reviews several lenses on APS-C and also on the A900 and I find to be consistent with my findings (for the most part):

Click here for page

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I own both the Minolta 20mm f2.8, and the Zeiss 16-35. The 20mm makes excellent 16"x24" prints with the A900. Mine shows a little barrel distortion, so horizons need to be camoflaged with irregular trees, etc. Here are some shots with the 20mm:
http://www.modernpictorials.com/D376A%20framed.jpg
http://www.modernpictorials.com/framed%20D381A.jpg
I use the 20mm Minolta, and 28mm Sony, and 50 f1.7 Minolta when I want to travel light. Otherwise I use the Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70, and Sony 70-300 G.
Regards
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ

[mattpallante]

OK, I know this must be a really crappy lens, cuz it's really cheap. I'm really poor right now, and wanted something to cover the 20-24mm focal length. Since I don't print lens resolution charts I figured I'd give this Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens a try. It cost me $99.95 from B&H. It was worth the money, anyway. These are from my first day out with it. It focused nice and fast and accurate, and seem like it will give acceptable image quality, at least until I'm rich again..... All images were made @iso 400 and f9. The shot of the single tree was @35mm. The other 3 shots were @19mm.[attachment=16798:_DSC3493_lzn.jpg][attachment=16800:_DSC3485_lzn2.jpg][at
tachment=16797:_DSC3482_lzn.jpg][attachment=16799:_DSC3472_lzn2.jpg][attachment=1
6801:_DSC3482_lzn.jpg]

[mattpallante]

Oops, I'm sorry, thank you to everyone who replied to my original post...Matt.