Sony Alpha Lens Lineup

One thing I hear over and over again by photographers and internet reviewers when people ask them about the Sony Alpha system is the 'poor lens selection' - their words, not mine (see last post).

To the uninitiated newbie to photography, this sounds exactly like the put-down that it's intended to be. They may as well say "Don't buy a Sony Alpha camera, all the lenses suck!" And indeed, some of them almost go that far.

But is this really true? Or is the uninitiated aspiring photographer being sold a lie?

I believe that it is a lie. And in fact, I'd go so far as to say that not only is it not true, I also believe that it could be turned a full 180 degrees. I'd go so far as to say that Sony has the best lens lineup of any manufacturer out there today! Can anyone say 'Minolta'?

So much glass... but it's just the tip of the iceburg

It just so happens that I have lens brochures from Sony, Canon and Nikon - as well as from Minolta, so a 'real' lens system comparison can be made. The Sony 'A' mount is the same as the Minolta mount, so all Minolta AF legacy glass from the 1970s onwards will fit perfectly on the Sony bodies. Yet people seem to ignore this. Why? Did Minolta not make any decent lenses? Are you kidding me! Minolta made crazy, insanely good, fantastically sharp glass. And guess what. They are ALL Image Stabilised, thanks to the Sony 'Steady Shot' system being inside of the camera, not the lens.

One of my favorite lenses to put on the a200 is a Minolta 35-70mm f4, the 'kit' lens that came with the Minolta 7000 film camera. Man is that thing sharp! I also have a Minolta 100-200mm f4.5, and it's a beautifully made, smooth, fast and sharp piece of glass too! Then there's the famous Minolta beer can (70-210mm f4) of the same era. Solid, well made and, you guessed it, sharp. And best of all, these lenses can be had for a song.

So lets take a look at the lenses available for the Sony Alpha system. And yes, I am going to include Minolta legacy lenses. And no, I don't think it's cheating. None of these lenses are scarce or hard to come by (except for maybe the really big guns like the 600mm), and all work perfectly on all Sony bodies.

For fixed prime lenses we have a 16mm fisheye, 20mm, 24mm, 24mm Zeiss, 28mm (f2 & f2.8), 35mm (f1.4G & f1.8), 50mm (f1.4 & f1.7 & f1.8), 85mm f1.4 Zeiss, 85mm (f1.4G & f2.8), 100mm f2, 100mm f2.8 Soft Focus, 135mm f1.8 Zeiss, 135mm f2.8STF, 200mm f2.8G, 300mm f2.8G, 400mm f4.5G, 500mm f4G, 500mm f8 Reflex and 600mm f4G! As well as the macro 30mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8, 50mm f3.5, 100mm f2.8 and 200mm f4 macro. Extensive enough for you?

Everyone loves zooms nowadays though - right? So presumably the zoom lens range for Sony is left wanting? OK then, let's check it out.

We've got an 11-18mm f4.5/5.6, 16-35mm Zeiss f2.8, 16-50mm f2.8, 16-80mm Zeiss f3.5/4.5, 16-105mm f3.5/5.6, 17-35mm f2.8/4, 17-35mm f3.5G, 18-55mm f3.5/5.6, 18-135mm f3.5/5.6, 18-200mm f3.5/6.3, 18-250mm f3.5/6.3, 20-35mm f2.5/4.5, 24-50mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8 Zeiss, 24-85mm f3.5/4.5, 24-105mm f3.5/4.5, 28-70mm f2.8G, 28-75mm f2.8, 28-80mm f3.5/5.6, 28-85mm f3.5/4.5, 28-100mm f3.5/5.6, 28-135mm f4/4.5, 35-70mm f4, 35-80mm f4/5.6, 35-105mm f3.5/4.5, 55-200mm f4/5.6, 55-300mm f4.5/5.6, 70-200mm f2,8G, 70-210mm f4, 70-210mm f4.5/4.6, 70-300mm f4.5/5.6, 75-300mm f4.5/5.6, 70-400mm f4.5/5.6G, 80-200mm f2.8, 100-200mm f4.5, 100-300mm f4.5/5.6, and100-400mm f4.5/6.7. Are you sure that's not a decent enough lens line up for the 'average' photographer to choose from?

And notice the inclusion of the name 'Zeiss' in there. Pro's who use Sony (yes, actual Pro's who do actually shoot with actual Sony cameras) claim that these Zeiss lenses are the best they've ever used. And if it's Zeiss, then I believe them. And that's on the SONY system baby.

Is anything really missing from the extensive list above? Maybe (although I can't think of anything right now). But nothing that you couldn't find by going to a Sigma lens instead.

So next time some block-head camera know-it-all tells you not to buy a Sony because they don't have the lens selection that the 'other' (re: Canon and Nikon) brands have, just smile and nod. Oh and yeah, point them in this direction....

Internet/Youtube Morons

Whenever I'm looking into new camera systems, makes and models, I do what any red-blooded computer savvy shopper does, I go on the internet.

But anyone who has 'researched' cameras this way also knows that there is a lot of 'dross' out there - especially on Youtube. This ranges from the 'unboxing' (who the heck cares) videos, through to the poorly shot, poorly lit, poorly recorded, poorly worded (umm, snort, sniff, er, arr, umm, snort, well, umm....) in-depth camera 'reviews' from teenagers (mostly) who got their first 'bitchin' camera last week and just had to tell the whole world about how amazingly 'rad' this thing is. Like, 'woteva'.

Then there are the 'opinion' reviewers - the guys who have never even handled/used the gear, but know immediately from reading the spec sheet just how crap/brilliant/boring this new camera will be, and why you should/shouldn't get it. Yes, opinions are like noses - everybody's got one. But some noses are bigger than others. And some people should just keep their big noses out of it!

I'm not going to name names, but there is one guy in particular who is very prolific in this 'opinion' type Youtube video 'review' of cameras. I know more than enough to take him with a grain of salt, but one I watched recently on his '6 reasons not to buy the Sony a77' really got my blood boiling.

Sony a77. Trust me... Buy one :-)

Now I'm not being a Sony 'fan-boy' just because I'm moving to Sony and will shoot their gear shortly... I'm really not.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax - they all make great cameras. Use whatever you want - and I don't mean exclusively. I have a Canon 50D with 10-22mm that I will keep and use, even when I make the switch over to Sony. Who cares?

What really annoyed me about what this guy on Youtube said - offering up to less experienced viewers as 'fact' - was the complete and utter rubbish that almost all (if not all) of his claims actually happen to be. Let me break them down for you...

Reason number 1 for not buying a Sony a77 is that the 24MP sensor won't be as good in low light than the 16MP sensor in the Nikon D7000.  For starters - can anyone tell me how one of these things is not like the other? The 'Sony' made sensor in the D7000 is 16MP, while the one in the A77 is 24MP. We're not comparing apples with apples already. And, according to the camera review website dpreview, the low light performance of the a77 is pretty darn good. They say, and I quote "In Raw mode, we can see what the A77's 24MP sensor is really capable of. Detail capture is very high indeed, even at ISO 800, although at this setting some noise 'speckles' are visible in areas of plain tone. Overall though, the A77 turns in an excellent performance in this test, delivering appreciably more detail than we've ever seen from an APS-C format DSLR before."


Is the sensor in the a77 the best low light sensor in the world? No. Of course it's not. But is that a reason not to buy it? NO - Of course it's NOT. It still amazes me how hung up on 'low' noise, 'high' ISO so many photographers are. Believe me - sensor performance will not be an issue with the Sony a77.


Reason number 2 for not buying a Sony a77 (and almost by inference any Sony camera) - poor lens selection. Now this one really gets my blood pressure rising. So much so that I'm actually going to do a more detailed analysis in a follow-up post to this one. I've heard this so many times from Canon and Nikon users, but it's just nonsense. Nuff said for the time being. But I will follow this up soon. Trust me - lens selection will NOT be an issue if you buy a Sony camera.


Reason 3 for not buying a Sony a77 - no Nikon CLS (Creative Lighting System) flash control. I guess that rules out buying a Canon camera too then? But actually - once again, the moron on Youtube doesn't have a clue what he's on about. Yes, the Nikon CLS wireless flash control is really nice. I've used it myself, and agree that it is (was) much better than the Canon system. BUT - it was actually Minolta who created wireless flash years ago with their film cameras. And yes, this wireless flash system has carried over to the Sony digital system - like the a77! For some reason (don't ask me why), Minolta never really ever made a big deal about their wireless flash system that they had for years before anyone else. In fact, the advertising and marketing team at Minolta really did drop the ball on many of Minolta's achievements. Sony is a little better in this regard - but it should still be they, and not Nikon, who we think of when we think of a 'creative' lighting system. Nikon - and finally now Canon, have only ever played 'catch-up'.


Reason 4 - poor re-sale value. Really!? Take a quick look at my blog and you'll see that I'm a photographer who regularly buys and sells systems - a lot. I don't think that I'll have poor re-sale value if I buy an A77 as opposed to a Nikon or Canon. And nor do I think that this should even factor into any purchasing decision you make on camera gear. Besides which, as we all know, camera bodies come and go... it's the glass that makes the difference (and holds its value).


Reason 5 for not buying a Sony a77 (and again all Sony's by inference) - no Pros shoot with Sony. Right about now I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Because 'A' - this is blatantly not true, and 'B' who cares even if it was!? Ever heard of Gary Fong? Sony shooter. Check out celebrity portrait photographer Brian Smith - a Sony shooter. Oh, and yeah - just another photographer you 'may' have heard of - Trey Ratcliff. Sony NEX shooter. And I could name plenty more 'professional' photographers I know here in New Zealand who are Sony shooters. Now is that a reason to buy a Sony a77? No, of course it isn't. But is it also a reason not to buy a Sony!? Oh please!!!!


And finally - reason number 6 for not buying a Sony a77... the new phase detection auto focus system will be great for video - but might not be good for photography. Pardon? Again, I must stress that this is a review from a guy who hasn't even handled one of these cameras. Yet he's prepared to tell you that the new autofocus system might not be 'good enough' for stills photography. What? Is 12fps not fast enough for you fella? To be fair, I haven't used the camera either. But I have watched a video showing someone actually using the camera to follow fast moving sports action - and their analysis... it's plenty fast enough.


There's a lot of good information to be found on the internet for someone looking at buying new camera gear. But there's also some complete dross as well. Sony are making (and have already made) some amazing cameras - and lenses - and don't deserve to be written-off the way many Canon/Nikon centric shooters do. I've used them all, and I'm looking forward to my move to Sony. I actually seriously see it as a step 'up'. So be careful what you read/watch on the internet (and yes, that includes this as well). Opinions are like noses, and some people have seriously big noses.

Sony A200 re-visted

Went over to Christchurch for PK last weekend (see last post) and had a great time away. Took lots of photos at the event, and will post some of my favorites soon.

On a slightly different note, I had a look around a few camera stores when I was over there - just window shopping, drooling over the latest models etc. What was the camera that I was the most excited/taken by? The Sony a77. Got to play with a Sony a99 too - which was also very nice, but way beyond my price range (mind you, so is the a77).

Of course on the trip home this got me thinking about my gear, and my direction in terms of upgrades or cameras I might afford in the future. Was I excited about possibly one day owning a Canon7D, a Nikon 7100, or a Sony a77 (hey, that's a lot of sevens)? I had held - and briefly used - a Canon 7D, and I must say I was somewhat underwhelmed. The Nikon 7100 looks like a nice camera - might be a possibility, although i saw a few Nikon's in the stores in Christchurch and didn't even bother to pick one up. What I made a bee-line for, and what got my pulse racing just a little bit, was the big Sony cameras.

A couple of years ago I owned a Sony a200, which I blogged about at the time. I really enjoyed using the camera, and raved about the images I got with it and the Minolta 35-70mm f4 that I purchased for it.

Ultimately, I chose to stay with my Canon system, since I had the 5D full frame at that stage and was shooting weddings etc. But a part of me was definitely sad to see the a200 go and I have often wondered whether I shouldn't have decided to change to Sony instead.

Well, last weekend in Christchurch was all the inspiration I needed to make the change, and I've decided to do just that... 'go to Sony'. I have minimal investment in gear at the moment anyway - owning a Canon20D, kit lens and 50mm f1.8, so a switch at this time wouldn't be too daunting. In fact, I might even make on the deal, since Sony a200 bodies are fairly numerous and going reasonably cheaply second hand - and classic Minolta AF lenses have always been amazing value on the used market.

My suspicions were confirmed this weekend when I bid for, and ended up winning, a Minolta Maxxum 7000 film camera with two Minolta AF lenses for $85.00NZ! The first lens is the one I was after, the Minolta 35-70mm f4 macro - the same lens that I used with my last a200. It's such a compact, reasonably fast (constant f4) and insanely sharp piece of glass that, even though it's a bit on the 'long' side as an everyday walkabout lens (52-105mm equivalent), I still wanted to own and use the lens - and it's just so darn cheap! Throw away the Maxxum 7000 film body, just keep the lenses, and I'm still only paying about $45 for each lens! That's amazing.

The second lens that comes with the film camera is another oddball classic Minolta AF lens - the 100-200mm f4.5. This 'mini beercan' also has rave reviews for sharpness, and a constant f4.5 aperture. The range equates to a 150-300mm lens on an a200 - not a bad telephoto zoom range, in such a small and compact lens design. They just don't make lenses like this anymore, and sometimes you've gotta ask yourself - why not?

There are a few a200's that I am watching online at the moment - all come with at least the standard Sony 18-70mm kit lens - quite a good lens by all accounts. So if I can snag one of these (after selling my Canon gear), my journey into the Sony camera system will be complete.

Then the dream of owning one of those sexy a77's Sony cameras can begin to become a reality...

PK Weekend

Bil Subritzky - Promise Keepers, 2011

It's Promise Keepers weekend, and I'm off to Christchurch today to photograph the event for the PK team.

I was one of the 'official' (unpaid, volunteer) photographers in 2011, and enjoyed the experience. Last year my son Joshua came to PK with me for the first time, so I made myself unavailable to shoot the weekend. And the same was happening this year too, except Josh has come down with a nasty virus, so sadly he won't be coming this year.

I'm disappointed he's not coming, and so is he. But it does mean it now 'frees' me up to be the 'official' photographer for the event again this year.

I'm taking two cameras bodies - the 20D and 50D, and will use a 70-200mm f2.8 on a monopod with the 50D, and a 10-20mm wide on the 20D that I will sling over my shoulder. Both will be set at ISO 1600 to give me the fastest shutter speed possible - and I imagine I'll shoot wide-open for most of the weekend.

Above is my favorite photo from the 2011 event. I'll post my favorites from this year when I get back.

Intentional Camera Movement

I thought I should post a few images after a dirge of technical posts.

I think I've found my photography 'mojo' recently after playing with the popular 'intentional camera movement' technique. Lots of photographers are using it to spark more creativity in their work, and it's certainly done the trick for me.

Kapiti Island, Raumati Beach, Wellington

It actually started early last year, when I was on holiday in Wellington. We stayed at Raumati, and would spend the evening walking on the beach. I took a lot of 'sharp' images of the island, and once I had them in the bag, just started to 'play' with panning the camera during long exposures.

I was happy with the results, and they were some of my favourite shots from the holiday.

Coal Creek Forest Interior

Didn't think much more of the long exposure shots until I was out taking photos with my daughter in the West Coast bush and I wanted to show her how to have fun and be creative with her camera. So we experimented again with long exposure shots, this time panning vertically to echo the trees. Again, came back with some shots I really loved.

Cobden Tiphead

So then I realised there might actually be something to all of this long exposure stuff, and I started going out to intentionally make things happen. I'm fortunate to live close to coastal beaches, with lots of opportunities to experiment with the coastline, rocks, waves etc. The late evening light and a reasonably small aperture (f16) gives me plenty of long blurring shutter speeds.

Breaking Waves

I'm enjoying shooting everything from abstract wave action, to more obvious landscapes. I find the natural movement of the waves helps to increase the blurring effect, but it's not absolutely necessary to shoot around water - I just like it :-)

Cobden Beach

There's so much scope to take this Intentional Camera Movement technique in so many directions, but be prepared to take LOTS of photos. I find I shoot about 100 of one subject, and maybe get two that I like!? There's no set formula for how long to leave the shutter open, which way to move the camera or even 'how' to move the camera. Shimmy, shake, rock and roll (or even pan if you have to) - it's all good.

I plan to do some more forest interiors next. Got a few ideas for some very abstract fern images. Can't wait.

Another 'oldie but a goodie' - Nikon D70

Recently I sold all of my photography gear after finishing my Wedding business, in the belief that the new wave of mirrorless cameras was where it was at. These small cameras are everywhere, and if the new camera elite are to be believed, then the days of the 'traditional' SLR are numbered.

This may well be true - from a technology standpoint. Newer (we are led to believe) is always better, and all the camera manufacturers now seem to be obsessed with creating mirrorless systems - even within the traditional SLR form factor.

But try as I might, I just haven't gelled with these new mirrorless systems. For me they are too small, too fiddly and too 'compact camera-ish' in their handling. I hate having to hold the camera out at arms length and use the lcd screen to compose and take an image. So the more they make these lcd screens act like touch screens on smart phones, the more I balk.

Instead, what I've found myself doing, is going back - way back - to some of the first digital SLR's, and I ended up purchasing a Canon 20D. And what a great camera. Solid, fast, simple menu navigation, lots of customisation - all you could need in a camera. It holds, feels, works and performs like a 'real' camera should - and produces fantastic digital files to boot. I've always maintained that pixels are never where it's at. For me, at least, 8MP is definitely enough. Yes, I'm old (46 this year), and yes, I'm obviously a traditionalist - having learnt the craft of photography way back in the old days of film (which yes, I do still shoot occasionally). Maybe you can't teach on old dog new tricks, and a leopard doesn't change it's spots etc, etc. But I also passionately believe that we are sold a lie every year, by camera manufacturers who are desperate to sell new products to an unsuspecting public who seem just as desperate to buy them. Deep down, subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously) we know we don't need 24MP. But we may as well 'upgrade' to them - right? I mean, it would be silly not to have them, just in case. Just for that one-off billboard sale.

Nikon D70

Damn. I'm sounding like a grumpy old man again. And I don't mean to - honest. And where am I going with all of this anyway? I thought this post was about the D70? Good question. And it is. So this is what happened...

My daughter, Emily, is in her high school production, and it was the final performance last Friday night. We had booked to go as a family to see her final performance, and as we were getting ready to go I thought "heck, I'd better take a camera."

Trouble is, I only have a standard 18-55mm lens and 50mm f1.8 for the 20D at the moment, which in a large school hall probably wouldn't give me the range I needed to get close enough, even if I managed to sit close to the front row.

So I told myself it would have to be a 'photography free' event, and just go and enjoy the performance. But there was a part of me that wasn't happy with this. I'm not the 'always have to capture everything on camera' type of Dad, and am quite happy leaving the camera at home. But this was Emily's first ever production, and I thought that in twenty years from now she'd be glad that her old man took some photos for her to remember the experience with. But would I get away with it on the 20D?

And then I remembered that my wife actually has a camera too - a Nikon D70 I bought for her a couple of years ago - hidden in the wardrobe somewhere. And didn't that have a fairly decent telephoto with it? I pulled it out of the camera bag, and sure enough, along with the standard 18-55mm lens was a Nikkor 75-240mm telephoto. Multiply 240mm by x1.5 and you get 360mm, which was going to be more than enough to get close, as long as I could get a reasonably good seat.

Emily performing in 'Dreams on Broadway' (she's in the middle)

We decided to go early and we managed to get aisle seats just three rows back from the front. I set the D70's ISO to as high as it will go (ISO 1600), and hoped that this would give me a fast enough shutter speed with the relatively 'slow' maximum aperture of 4.5/5.6 on the Nikkor 75-240mm.

Ruby Kemp as Broadway wannabe 'Tracy Charles'

I needn't have worried, Sitting just three rows back (probably about 5 meters from the stage), the 75-240mm gave more than enough reach. In fact, most of the time I found myself pulling back to the middle ranges because 240mm was too close. And with the stage lights, ISO1600 was giving me a very hand-holdable 180th to 250th sec shutter speed (and sometimes down to a 90th depending on the lights). The D70 is such a well balanced camera, and the 75-240mm such a light lens, that I had no trouble hand holding at those speeds. Not all the final images were tack sharp - but most of them were.

Heather Evans doing the 'Time Warp'

So I had the reach, and I had the speed. But the D70 is an 'old' camera... around 10 years old. And I was shooting it at its absolute maximum ISO of 1600. The images will look like mud, right?

Do they look like mud to you? I needn't have worried about the noise, and in fact, when I got them back and downloaded the images into Lightroom I was pretty amazed at the results. Yes, there is noise there at ISO1600 - of course there is. But it cleans up in Lightroom remarkably easily, and even with some sharpening applied, the final result is superb. And I do mean superb. I wouldn't hesitate shooting the D70 at ISO1600 - and I guarantee the same would be true of the Canon 20D (which actually goes up higher to 3200).

Yes, I know the 'latest' and the greatest can shoot at ISO 6 million and give clean results. Whoopie. I didn't need ISO 6 million, did I? 1600 was good enough, and the results were great. It's yet another case of the 'do we really need it' syndrome in technology.

The cast of Greymouth High School's 'Dreams on Broadway'

Am I trying to justify my decision 'not' to spend lots of money on camera gear? Maybe. Would I start using a Canon 5D MkIII tomorrow if you 'gave' me one - you bet (as long as a nice lens came with it)! Would I start using an olympus EP-3 if you gave me one tomorrow? No, I wouldn't. I'd stick to my Canon 20D - and my wife's D70. In fact, now I have a bit of a quandary. With my friends 50D on permanent loan, my own 20D, and my wife's D70 I've probably got more cameras than I need.

But please, if you're out there and you're listening... seriously think about how much camera you actually need for your photography. If you're a sports shooter and a pro, by all means get the latest and greatest D4 or 1D Mk4, although you may not need these either? Don't just buy it because it's the next big thing. Your 'old' camera doesn't stop working just because the newest version is released every year. Don't feel 'inferior' because you have an 'old' camera and uncle Bob has the latest and greatest. It's unnecessary and just plain wrong.

Clean your own Sensor

I've always stayed away from cleaning a digital sensor. It seemed to have a high potential for disaster, so I have left it to the experts.

But all that changed recently after a friend of mine 'loaned' me her 50D, after she was the lucky recipient of a brand spanking new 5D MkIII. It has had a bit of a hard life (the 50D), and was in desperate need of a sensor clean.

Arctic butterfly in sexy lime green :-)

Another friend of mine owns an Arctic Butterfly sensor cleaning brush. So I put 2 and 2 together and thought "What the heck, why not try and clean the sensor myself?"

In reality, it's a pretty simple process. SLR's have a 'mirror lock up' function - sometimes even called 'sensor clean' in the menu, that will flip the mirror up and out of the way, leaving the sensor exposed. Only it isn't really exposing the sensor, since there are other filters and micro lenses etc on top of the filter - and this is where the dust settles.

The 50D does have a sensor cleaning system that vibrates to shake the dust off every time you turn the camera on and off, but this isn't 100% effective (obviously), and with enough abuse, the sensor will have to be cleaned manually.

There are quite a few 'do it yourself' solutions out there, but for me, the Arctic Butterfly (while not cheap), seems the best option because it doesn't rely on any chemical swabs going anywhere near the sensor.

All you do is initiate the sensor cleaning mode on your camera (follow the manuals instructions), which will expose the dirty sensor, and then turn the Arctic Butterfly 'on' a few times to spin the bristles and discharge any dirt or static before wiping it across the sensor. This is important. Don't spin the brush inside the camera!

The sensor on the 50D before the sensor clean.

A quick snapshot of a blank wall with the camera set on a small aperture (f16 for lots of depth of field) revealed all the nastiness. Lots of ugly dust bunnies.

And after the cleaning....

Wow! Is it really that easy? Yep. If you look really close, it's not absolutely perfect - but it's pretty darn good. Clean enough for me at least.

So there you have it. Don't be afraid to clean your own sensor if it needs it. And if an Arctic Butterfly is a little too costly for you, then why not get together with a few other photographers and buy one together. You should only have to use it once a year or so (if you're careful with lens changes), so you could share it around? Just a thought...