best way: hands-on trial

Any lens from 24mm and less is UWA in FF

just look at http://kurtmunger.com , for most lens i think he put the focal range-aperture

like the SAL 16105 (link)

mastering89... ahhhh, there you go... the power of internet... LOL

but i'm studying the old² minolta.. that's why no much info..

3rd Putrajaya International Balloon fiesta http://www.myballoonfiesta.com/index.html

Prepare ur cams n vrooomm!!!

This post has been edited by SoulPower: Feb 23 2011, 12:01 PM

buy N test

last year i went on the last day , hujan lebat lol.
no balloons fly

i heard many want to participate.. but rejected coz too many..
hopefully not jerebu ler.. boring..

---

Added on February 23, 2011, 12:28 pmi think must like that la.. unless got someone kind enough to let me test it..

This post has been edited by 8tvt: Feb 23 2011, 12:28 PM

did i hear TT?

I'm an Alpha Shoot from Singapore. Just wondering anyone know where is the recommended place to buy Sony 70-200mm F2.8 SSM at a good price?

Johor if possible else KL also fine

can PM me?

hopefully can join if got time..

isn't s'pore had a good price for it?

how come you know ahh?

Imbiah Lookout by cjlai76, on Flickr

SAL75300 vs big Beercan, which one are better..

Reviews for Tammy 1750
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Tamron..._review268.html

negative:
Slightly heavy
Images worse in low light (a flash is highly recommended)
Needs to be at least f4 to be sharp throughout
Noisy AF compared to other lenses

Gotta be at least f4? Then the 16105 is better eh?

Based on reviews, The SAL 16105 is better. Anyone that owned or is owning these two lenses please tell me which you feeel is better and why

---

Added on February 23, 2011, 2:57 pmSAL55200 and beercan.

This post has been edited by Newbieeeeee: Feb 23 2011, 02:58 PM

erk? i personally have this lens.. on my A200 body.. i rasa ok wor...


negative:
Slightly heavy - ya.. abit heavy

Images worse in low light (a flash is highly recommended) - errr.... i think is okay for me.. no problem in low light condition w/o flash

Needs to be at least f4 to be sharp throughout - F2.8 for me is okay... .. always use F2.8 for model shooting and overall okay.. -edit- ISO 200 la..

Noisy AF compared to other lenses - if compare to 17-50 pasang to Nikon or Canon AF .. lagi worse..

anyway.. Never try SAL 16105 b4.. i cant compare ..

This post has been edited by cyruz13: Feb 23 2011, 03:03 PM

Have you tried the 16105? Wondering which is better.

sowee.. didt try SAL 16-1005 b4.. cant compare..
but what i like is the F2.8 .. Fix F .. syok..

17-50 and 16-105 always in dilemma.. huhu
buy and test.. lol

i owned Tamron 17-50 f2.8 before and had a chance to "pinjam" my friend 16-105 to compare with for a week..what can i say is

Tamron 17-50 f2.8
- hunts badly in low light (bad iq),need af assist light from flash/a700 above
- soft a bit at f2.8,at f4 its good sharp (but not so sharp).but,u got extra f stop if emergency cases
- bokeh is so,so biasala
- all range good!
- bad rubber grip.easily peel off after 1 year using it
- no gear strip issue

SAL 16-105 f3.5-5.6
- at 16-17mm f3.5, at 18mm f4 at 18mm
- sharp at wide open at wide focal lenght
- bokeh is so,so biasa sangat
- soft end @105,sharp range is between 16-70
- good IQ for fast focusing
- 2 of my friend had a gear strip issue