[PhilNYC]

I know that the Sony Zeiss lenses are supposed to be very good.  But does anyone have any thoughts about the quality of Sony's non-Zeiss lenses?  I'm looking to buy a DSLR and I'm considering the Sony A350 ... am wondering if the standard lenses that come with it are any good, or if I should get the body-only plus the Zeiss lens.  The price difference is pretty huge (for $1099, you can get the A350 plus two non-Zeiss zoom lenses, or the body-only plus Zeiss (16-80/f3.5-4.5) for about $1500)...and this would be my first DSLR, upgrading from a Canon S2 IS superzoom point/shoot. 

Thoughts?

[goldlizsts]

I know that the Sony Zeiss lenses are supposed to be very good.  But does anyone have any thoughts about the quality of Sony's non-Zeiss lenses?  I'm looking to buy a DSLR and I'm considering the Sony A350 ... am wondering if the standard lenses that come with it are any good, or if I should get the body-only plus the Zeiss lens.  The price difference is pretty huge (for $1099, you can get the A350 plus two non-Zeiss zoom lenses, or the body-only plus Zeiss (16-80/f3.5-4.5) for about $1500)...and this would be my first DSLR, upgrading from a Canon S2 IS superzoom point/shoot. 

Thoughts?

The non-Zeiss lenses are supposed to be so-so.  Just ask Buddy 'cos he has a Sony.  The Sony lenses with Zeiss on are definitely the way to go. 

I am eyeing the a350 also.  www.dcresource.com is supposed to be coming out with the a350 full-test report soon (delayed because of a bad lens).  I bet so will www.dpreview.com.  May be it's worth it to wait a little while, see how the report says first.  Meantime, there's the top-of-the-line a700.  For most of us, the a350 is probably a good way to go, middle of the road in terms of $$$.

[IronLion]

These guys are a site I used to check all the time for reviews, very good ones.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350A.HTM

Why not stick with the Canons if you're worried about lens quality?  As a professional who works in the field regularly, its pretty clear that Canon and Nikon are safe bets when it comes to DSLR body and lens quality. 

[PhilNYC]

Over the years, I've been a big Canon fan for their point-and-shoots, but Buddy/SETMan got me thinking about the Sonys for the DSLR.  They seem to have a lot of things going for them in terms of usability over the Canons (according to a few reviews I've read), particularly the live view and autofocus quality.  As far as Nikon goes, it's a possibility although I hear a lot more praise for their top-of-the-line cameras and not so much for their entry-level to intermediate DSLRs.

Anyways, I'm still probably a few weeks away from making the purchase, so I'm still investigating options...

[goldlizsts]

Over the years, I've been a big Canon fan for their point-and-shoots, but Buddy/SETMan got me thinking about the Sonys for the DSLR.  They seem to have a lot of things going for them in terms of usability over the Canons (according to a few reviews I've read), particularly the live view and autofocus quality.  As far as Nikon goes, it's a possibility although I hear a lot more praise for their top-of-the-line cameras and not so much for their entry-level to intermediate DSLRs.

Anyways, I'm still probably a few weeks away from making the purchase, so I'm still investigating options...

Canons and Nikons have dominated the market.  Everybody "sees" that the Nikons are the choice of professiionals because the old Nikons were warhorses, ruggedly built, suitable for those who work in photo-taking day in and day out.  When it comes to optics, I still like Zeiss.  Sony has to get in the door, so they've been beefing up their cameras.  I would say the Sonys are good value for the money.  Before the digital age, Zeiss optics nobody second-guessed.  The colors of the (print) pictures are unapproachable with those taken by Japanese lenses (IMO, so nobody can come down hard on me!).

[DustyC]

As a long time Contax Zeiss user, I would hold out for Zeiss glass. Well built, contrasty, my lenses have always given me the best I could do.

[brj]

My impression was that most point-n-shoot cameras making use of the Zeiss name don't actually have Zeiss glass.  I'd read that they were involved of the lens design rather than its manufacture.  I never had a reason to really run that claim to ground, so take it as nothing more than a possible point of reference.

[ipy]

.....Canons and Nikons have dominated the market....

Particularly when you are after 3rd party lenses/accessories for eg: Sigma & Tokina which usually make mounts for Canons & Nikons only.  Tamron OTH seems to make mounts for Sonys.

[SET Man]

...but Buddy/SETMan got me thinking about the Sonys for the DSLR. 

... Just ask Buddy 'cos he has a Sony. 

Hey!

   Yes, I am a Sony user... used to be Minolta.

    I will honest. I really don't want to get into this kind of discussion especially that I'm a minority here with my Sony. You could already see the tone and how this will turn out with a few responds already. 

   Phil, if you feel that having Canon or Nikon around your neck will give you better photos and make you take better photos than go for it.

Take care,
Buddy

   

[PhilNYC]

   Phil, if you feel that having Canon or Nikon around your neck will give you better photos and make you take better photos than go for it.
   

But here's the thing...I don't have a feel at all for which of these will give better photos...that's why I'm asking.

I understand that lens quality is hugely important, so I posted this mainly to get a feel of how the non-Zeiss Sony lenses stacked up against the Zeiss lenses (my understanding is that the non-Zeiss lenses are pretty much re-badged Minolta Maxxum lenses, which seemed to have a good reputation), because I've got a wife-enforced budget that will make me balance body-vs.-lens spending...I wanted to get a sense of the compromise I would be making going with a non-Zeiss lens which would allow for me going for the A350 (instead of the A200)...

[JohnR]

I think lenses have to be judged individually, and not by the name on them. There are too many variables/aspects to lens performance, to which these days you add all the subcontracting, licensing, and off-shore manufacturing arrangements.

Having said that I looked at a few reports of the Zeiss/Sony 16-80 and it is apparently a significantly better performer optically than the kit 18-70. But it's expensive, I think you should try and find a store that will let you try it out on the camera (take your own memory card).

You haven't said whether you intend to buy additional lenses in future - I think this may also be a significant factor in your decision.

[PhilNYC]

I don't anticipate buying a lot of lenses...I'm hoping that whatever I initially get will be "it" for a few years (this applies to both lens and body).  My expectation is to get something in the 20-80mm range (hopefully f2..  If I did get a second lens, I'd want to get one with a long zoom (200mm minimum).

Additional info:  Before the digital photography revolution, I did own a Canon film SLR (no, I don't still have it or any of the lenses I had) and was comfortable with photography..  I wouldn't say that I'm anything more than an enthusiast who values good image quality *and* ease of use (the latter being a major reason why the Sony's look so attractive).  I'll still have my point-and-shoot for "every day" use, but I will be opportunistic in my use of the DSLR for more creative and formal shots...

[SET Man]

   Phil, if you feel that having Canon or Nikon around your neck will give you better photos and make you take better photos than go for it.
   

But here's the thing...I don't have a feel at all for which of these will give better photos...that's why I'm asking.

I understand that lens quality is hugely important, so I posted this mainly to get a feel of how the non-Zeiss Sony lenses stacked up against the Zeiss lenses (my understanding is that the non-Zeiss lenses are pretty much re-badged Minolta Maxxum lenses, which seemed to have a good reputation), because I've got a wife-enforced budget that will make me balance body-vs.-lens spending...I wanted to get a sense of the compromise I would be making going with a non-Zeiss lens which would allow for me going for the A350 (instead of the A200)...

Hey!

   Oh! Right... sorry for wandering off after seeing some responds

   Regrading the Sony lenses. I do have the Sony/Zeiss 16-80mm zoom that you mentioned. I used this zoom to take some of my recent photos. It is a very very nice zoom with excellent usable zoom range... 24mm-120mm in 35mm. Before that I was using a full frame 17-35mm f2.8-4 Minolta zoom. It is hard to compare the two because the later is a full frame and the Zeiss is not. But at the end I do prefer the Zeiss because of the wider zoom range and yes it is better in picture quality also.

   There is something about Zeiss coating and other German's lenses in general. I like the feel and looks better. Also, Sony just released a Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 full frame zoom and this is one more lenses I'm lusting after 

   Other Non-Zeiss Sony lenses are pretty much re-badged Minolta lenses like you said. Sony took over those too. And Minolta did make they own glass and they still do I think under Sony. There are some gems in the line also. And there are some famous used zoom out there.... like the "Beercan" 70mm-210mm f4 Minolta zoom. BTW... I have never seen it but I've heard that Leica use this for their SLR line. Talk about Leica... if you have older Leica R series SLR than it is likely that underneath the skin is a Minolta Yes, Leica collabreted for a while with their SLR line until Leica start to make their own SLR bodies.

   When is come to prime lenses Minolta did make some great glass for those. And thankfully Sony kept some of those on their current lens line up.

   The other thing about some Sony/Minolta lenses. Most do have a circular aperture and this give  a great nice smooth out of focus look of what photographer call "bokeh"

  As for 3rd party lens makers. Yes, there are more available for Canon and Nikon but those are mostly expensive special lens. Currently Sigma and Tamron make lens to fit Sony mount. Tokina of which is very good and I still do have 2 zooms from them used to make lens for Minolta but not right now, but I wouldn't be surprise if they start making it again in the future.

   Anyway, I could go on and on about this. Phil if you are going for Sony... the Zeiss 16-80mm is the one to get. This is now my everyday all-around zoom

Here are list of my lens arsenal...

Prime

Minolta 20mm f2.8
Minolta 24mm f2.8
Minolta 28mm f2
Minolta 35mm f2
Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 135mm f2.8

Zoom
Sony/Zeiss 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 (Digital only)
Minolta 17-35 f2.8-4
Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
Tokina 70-200mm f2.8

Still lusting after...
Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f2.8
Minolta 100mm f2 ( A rare one)
Sony 35mm f1.4
Sony 100mm Macro
Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G

   Anyway, Phil maybe next time I will bring my A700 with the Zeiss 16-80mm along so you could play with it.

Take care,
Buddy

[Zero]

You know, I've always been taught that Sony's digi cams are pretty sub-par in contrast to Canon and Nikon offerings.  I know I get ripped on for my F-989 (or whatever its called)...   granted, that things low light performance is for sh!t.

Interesting..  eventually, one day, I'm gunna dip into the world of SLR's..

[Andrikos]

When I was shopping for my first dSLR about 2 years ago, my biggest focus (pardon the pun) was to the future.
How do I buy a camera and lenses that will not become obsolete?
If I want to buy or sell a lens, which brand has the biggest installed base?
Which camera manufacturer has the largest array of lenses?

Well, the answer pretty much had two names left...
Canon and Nikon.

Canon is a bigger player and its foothold in the pro photo world is undeniable.



If it's good for pros, it's good for me.

I looked at the variety of lenses that I was interested in:

Portrait
Macro
Medium Telephoto
Ultra Wide Angle

and decided that Canon had by far the largest selection and variety of lenses.
Accessories? As many as you want/need.

When my XTi is obsolete-ish (5+ years) the lenses will still be around for the far future.
Out of focus? Focusing ring not working? Canon will fix it for you and calibrate it like new.

After 2 years and more than 10,000 pictures (95% of which in full manual mode) I'm still learning and enjoying the hobby.

Good luck with your search!

[PhilNYC]

Buddy...thanks for the input.  And as it turns out, my father-in-law has a bunch of Minolta Maxxum lenses that my brother-in-law bought for him years ago (BIL is really into photography, FIL never uses them)...so I might be getting a bunch of legacy Maxxum lenses.

I did read somewhere in a Sony A350 review that the current lineup of Zeiss lenses is somehow "optimized" for digital relative to the old Maxxum lenses.  Is this possible?  Or is that like audiophiles using "optimal amounts of blue-tak on their monitor stands"?

Zero...I am not a fan of the Sony digicams, but mostly because of the problems I have had using Memory Sticks.  And I am not a fan of Nikon digicams, because I think their user-interface is not very intuitive (this is an opinion formed many years ago, so they may have improved since then).  I have always liked Canon digicams and have owned 4 (including the S110, S200, S410 and S2 IS).

With regards to DSLR's, tho, Sony acquired Minolta/Konica last year, so much of their lineup comes from technology developed by M/K.  So the Sony DSLRs start off with a better reputation than Sony's digicams..

Andrikos...I appreciate the pro angle.  But I also think that some things that pros will appreciate will also annoy me.  For example, I read somewhere that the Live View function on the Canon XSi, while ultimately more useful for a pro photographer, is actually quite clunky to use.  As I am not a pro, the Sony's Live View implementation, while not being as flexible as the Canon's, is supposed to be much easier to use.  So in this particular example, the Sony wins.  On the other hand, its clear from every review and comparison of the A350 vs. XSi that I've read says that the XSi has a lower-noise sensor...so from this angle, Canon wins.   So this is my dilemna....

[JohnR]

I did read somewhere in a Sony A350 review that the current lineup of Zeiss lenses is somehow "optimized" for digital relative to the old Maxxum lenses.  Is this possible?  Or is that like audiophiles using "optimal amounts of blue-tak on their monitor stands"?

Apparently the coating on the rear element is more important for digital than for film, as the sensor is more reflective than film. However I don't recall seeing any actual examples attributable to this specifically.

There is also an issue where digital sensors are apparently more sensitive to chromatic aberration. However the published test results I've looked at (i.e. for Nikon lenses) don't show that modern lenses are necessarily any better in this regard than those designed in the film era, when tested with a digital sensor.

Again, I don't think you can generalize...!

[JohnR]

I don't anticipate buying a lot of lenses...I'm hoping that whatever I initially get will be "it" for a few years (this applies to both lens and body).  My expectation is to get something in the 20-80mm range (hopefully f2.8 ).  If I did get a second lens, I'd want to get one with a long zoom (200mm minimum).

The 16-80 is not f/2.8...?

Anyway, in this scenario my personal inclination would be to spend more on the lens(es) and less on the body. (Actually, I think that anyway )

JohnR

[PhilNYC]

The 16-80 is not f/2.8...?

Yeah, I know...   Thanks for the additional info...

But now with the availability of my father-in-law's Maxxum lenses, I think I'm leaning towards the Sony...

[SET Man]

Buddy...thanks for the input.  And as it turns out, my father-in-law has a bunch of Minolta Maxxum lenses that my brother-in-law bought for him years ago (BIL is really into photography, FIL never uses them)...so I might be getting a bunch of legacy Maxxum lenses.

   Phil, so you are a head of the game already! BTW... Phil, those lenses especially primes that you see on the list I bought a few years back when Minolta users dump their lens on eBay... I got pretty sweet deals.

I did read somewhere in a Sony A350 review that the current lineup of Zeiss lenses is somehow "optimized" for digital relative to the old Maxxum lenses.  Is this possible?  Or is that like audiophiles using "optimal amounts of blue-tak on their monitor stands"?

   This is true. But here is the catch.... mostly this is based on lower end zoom. Newer zoom for labeled as "Digital only" like those kit zoom are better than those lower end zoom back than. But better quality zooms and primes back than could still provide an excellent result. If a lens was a great lens back than, it is still a great lens today.

Zero...I am not a fan of the Sony digicams, but mostly because of the problems I have had using Memory Sticks.  And I am not a fan of Nikon digicams, because I think their user-interface is not very intuitive (this is an opinion formed many years ago, so they may have improved since then).  I have always liked Canon digicams and have owned 4 (including the S110, S200, S410 and S2 IS).

   
   Yes, I agreed that Memory Stick is a pain. And Sony P&S still use this. When Sony took over Minolta every Minolta user worry that Sony would release DSLR with Memory Stick only slot. Luckily they didn't because that would be like shooting yourself in the foot

With regards to DSLR's, tho, Sony acquired Minolta/Konica last year, so much of their lineup comes from technology developed by M/K.  So the Sony DSLRs start off with a better reputation than Sony's digicams..

  Yes, this is true. Minolta and Sony have been working together for a while before that. And Sony was smart enough to take over Minolta since Sony lack a photography know-how but have a great technology resources. Honestly I was worry at first when I've first heard the news about Sony taking over Minolta I didn't know how serious Sony was at first. But so far I think they are pretty serious.... well Sony is planing to release a 24MP full-frame later this year to early next year.

Andrikos...I appreciate the pro angle.  But I also think that some things that pros will appreciate will also annoy me.  For example, I read somewhere that the Live View function on the Canon XSi, while ultimately more useful for a pro photographer, is actually quite clunky to use.  As I am not a pro, the Sony's Live View implementation, while not being as flexible as the Canon's, is supposed to be much easier to use.  So in this particular example, the Sony wins.  On the other hand, its clear from every review and comparison of the A350 vs. XSi that I've read says that the XSi has a lower-noise sensor...so from this angle, Canon wins.   So this is my dilemna....

   There are some advantage of Canon and Nikon. 1. More lenses... but most people won't need those expensive special lens anyway. 2. Rental... this sometime I wish could do this with Sony/Minolta. Although there is one rental place the have Minolta/Sony stuff but it is on internet only. 3. Tougher body... this only apply to their top model like Nikon D3 and Canon D1. Of course mid and lower end bodies are all about the same.

  Oh! Here is review of the A350 on Pop Photo...
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5234/camera-test-sony-alpha-350.html

   Not directly compared to the Canon XSI. As for noise well shooting RAW will help but it will take more time to finalize them. Well, with all digital stuff... you buy it today, obsolete tomorrow. Yeah, today this camera is good but just around the corner the competitions will have something to etched it out a bit later.

   Anyway, that was a long one. Sorry, I rarely talk about camera especially camera system I'm using, Sony/Minolta. I think I am the only one here with this system.

   Good luck Phil. Whatever you ended up with maybe we could take a little walk in the city taking picture together for fun

Take care,
Buddy