cassplayer: So where did you spot this chick?

fansoption: Interestingly, I thought it was some weird tree until I read the text. Well done with the rotation!

i got rm1k from him, maybe he hiked up his price already?? sadla seller not consistent in pricing....

We shall see this wednesday la. Maybe coz he knows you ma XP

fell sick and bedridden for a whole day.... and so many post to read haha, skip a few and reply which is important.

newbie: if its your mum buying, the 1680, else, get the 1750. base on some review online, it could be either a little bias or they are comparing to a invisible unknown lens,... how can that even be a proper review? base on azamunekurone take, with all due respect, i find it misleading at some point.

here's my take on 1750 after more then a year using it (upgrade from sal1870). my review is base on actual using it, rather then review base on spec or bias talk. (and a used 16105 for a month (before i plan to buy it))

it is a lot heavier, in fact heavier then 1680 and as heavy as 18250!

the image is not worst in lowlight, optically, its not relevant. and most ppl has misconception, because once handed a F2.8 lens, they will think "wow, F2.8, means i can shoot at really low light condition", hence bring the lens to shoot at lowlight. if u were to bring a 16-105 to the SAME lowlight condition, knowing u will need another 1 stop of shutter speed(or iso boost), i think ur photo wont be any better then the 1750 at lowlight.

F4 give a HELL of sharpness, more then 1680 (sorry CZ fanboy) even more then 1680 at any aperture. not only that, the F4 will able to let u grab a shot maintaining bokeh vs 16105 @F8 to archive the same sharpness. BUT, even at F4, the corner is soft (compare to CZ, CZ wins at it has good sharp corner at all range) not sure if compare to 16105, coz i didnt thought of doing this test when i got the 16105...

noisy AF, no comment, to me, my A300 mirror slap is louder. normally, the mirror slap attract more attention then "noisy" af..... so how noisy can it be? i am not sure if dyxum review actually tested it or they just copy it from other website, but on other website review, they reviewed the canon/nikon unit which is A LOT noisier, so it does not apply to A mount unit.

the 1750 hunt better in the dark then 16105!
reason: during focusing, ur aperture is wide open all time, F2.8 whole range on 1750 vs 16-105 (let put it at F4 since the F3.5 dont last). meaning u have 1 more stop of light goes into the af sensor, which mean u can focus at 1 stop darker. and YES it is. switch back to my 1870 (and 16105) i do feel it has more difficult to AF(test both lens in my room, same lighting). to prove it future, i switch to 50 F1.4, it can focus even BETTER then 1750 at the same lighting.

F2.8 is not that soft, most review site, seriously, i do not know which F2.8 lens they comparing to... they say sigma F2.8 also soft, then how? dont tell me they comparing to another lens at F8?

the bokeh is indeed more then F4 of 16105.

rubber grip loosen over time, what i do, use doubleside tape, tape inside and warp back the rubber grip. dont worry, there is no screw under the rubber grip so they wont have to remove the rubbergrip for opening up the lens. u can even permanent glue it down if u wan. for 16105, it too will loosen up overtime, but u cant glue it down, because there is screw underneath the rubber grip require to unscrew if u ever send it for servicing.

the 16-105 soft at tele end, is not that soft. its softer to the 16-70 range, but not as soft as what u think.

both 1750 and 16105 has bad CA control vs CZ

This post has been edited by ieR: Feb 24 2011, 02:52 AM

ieR: 1680 he said over budget d worrr

he dunno which one to buy...if range,he got 55200 d...if want sharp2 pics can cut throat,got 50mm d...

lol, i terclick add reply when i type half way, still dizzy from fever...

---

Added on February 24, 2011, 4:07 ambuilt in lens stabilizer and built in body stabilizer topic. sigh (to mod, this is a constructive discussion, not a fanboy talk.)

its not who is better, but when applied in real life practice, which really improves your shooting?

i) stabilized OVF is good to see, bad to hold. why? because when u see its stable while your holding arent, the brain tells that you are stable, hence your hand (human stabilizer) wont try to stable down hence during the shutter release, the stabilizer works hell lots more just to stabilized your shot.

unstabilized OVF (aka sony) is better in 'practice' because when u see so much shake, your mind will tell your hand to stop shaking! hence when shooting, ur SSS just work so much less. its like, u have dual stabilizer when using SSS, one is ur brain/hand where u will do your best to stable it before shot, and the rest is SSS. its it more practical? not saying SSS arent as good as IS/VR, they are!

ii) SSS working less is better because it will able to even work at longer shutter. say, 1/8 at 50mm (opps it seem only sony has a stabilized 50mm...

my 50mm 1/8 shot,


1 to 1 pixel crop?


alright, i know it wont be fair to compare a 50mm with others brand that doesnt has it... then i take another lens range that other might have IS/VR for it....

taken in taiwan, when i left my tripod at home, hand held, 1 sec (i know it sounded like BS)
30mm F4 iso400, 1sec handheld, to prove SSS is really GOOD.


1 to 1 pixel crop


even myself is stunned with 1 sec shot, i tot i can snap a 'get away' blur shot, and resizing it to 800pixel and noone can see the diff... surprisingly, it is sharp!

again, i would like to point out, the reason i get such a sharp shot with 1sec, because of my non stabilized OVF, i will look into the ovf, and notice that until i am really stable, only i release the shutter. if on IS/VR, u never know when u are at the most stable point, and the stabilizer may not work till this extend too.

iii) which come to this part, "i can hold my IS/VR lens really stable". oh yea, btw, IS/VR lens are about 10% heavier compare to non IS/VR... so, heavier lens, means you will eventually shake 10% more. also, not all lens has IS/VR. even IS has less lens option compare to VR.

iv) this i need some friends to clarify (albnok?) i was told(or i read it somewhere, forgotten) the new version of nikon VRII lens design is that, the VR is moved Closer to the sensor inside the lens. the reason being, closer to the sensor, it works better. base on the angle of shake, the future away the IS/VR from your sensor. the more it has to work to compensate the shake, the closer, the less it has to work. not sure if the IS II followed the same concept. what SSS did, they jump straight to the point, having it on the sensor (zero distant), which increase or give the best stabilizing option.

the theory works this way,
let say 70mm, shoot a full body shot, about 15 meter away. you are shaking 10mm in OVF (cant see in IS/VR) on lens, (lets say using 70200, and the stabilizer built about 150mm from the sensor) has to move 2-3mm to stabilized the shot, while, the SSS, only need to move less then 1mm to stablized it. if apply to a slow shutter of 1/10 (which most IS/VR marketing claim can shoot up to 4 stops) imagine the 2-3mm movement, will it REALLY cope?

ohyea, before i started being branded as sony fanboy, i uses multi system, even before i start using sony, i used canon system (400D), and during college, my roomie uses nikon system (D70). i used to own a D90 before i sold it off not long ago. still have some nikon lens in my drybox, not selling it thou, they are FX gems. not forgetting my retired fujifilm, casio, kodak, and TLR.

This post has been edited by ieR: Feb 24 2011, 04:18 AM

already take the alpha contest ? join the competition ok

Sony Alpha

nice like ice cream..

ieR +1

i also didnt believe at 1st.but after i saw it myself (2 of my friend got the same prob) and since i saw the 1680z also got the same problem of gear stripping,now i know that 16-105 and 1680z share the same built..so maybe the new kit lens got SAM improvement!

newbieeeeee : Personally I own the 1680Z and I kinda own the 1750 tammy (its my housemates, paired with her 60D). Let me list some pros and cons of those lens in my own perspective.

1680Z
Pros
+Super sharp across the frame at its biggest aperature (f3.5-f4.5)
+Sharpness is maintained even when the aperature is stopped down
+colours are neutral and vibrant.
+Very good range (24-105mm) on cropped sensor.
+Small filter size = cheaper filters (make sure you get a good 1 to complement it, I'll personally kill someone who uses a cap ayam filter with this CZ and says that the IQ sucks!)
+Focusing is quite fast and accurate on this lens (and its less noisy compared to tammy 17-50)

cons
-Build quality: feels like an upgraded version of the 18-70mm kit lens, there is no "zeiss" feel to its build. Zoom ring will loosen considerably after heavy use (very heavy use).
-I'm being picky here but there is light fall off at biggest aperature (f3.5-f4.5) must be careful not to shoot landscapes when using these aperatures. light fall off dissappers 1 stop down.
-Not f2.8
-Bokeh kinda harsh, don't really like it when taking portraitures, prefer the bokeh on my minolta 50mm.

1750 tammy
Pros
+f2.8!
+I hate to admit is, but like what ieR mentioned before, this lens has jawdropping sharpness at f4. (its jawdropping because its sharper than the 1680Z
+zoom lock (good for preventing zoom creep)
+build quality is generally good (as expected from a RM1k lens as compared to the 1680Z which was and still is a big letdown!)
+better bokeh compared to the 1680Z at the same aperatures.

Cons
-Hunts the same or much more in low light when compared with the 1680Z (personally I think it hunts more compared to the CZ)
-The photos produced by this lens has a yellowish tint to it (very aparent in landscapes where the leaves on the trees appear more yellowish compared to the photos shot using the CZ)
-Has less reach compared to the CZ.
-72mm filter diameter [VC version] (huge ass lens compared to the CZ which only uses 62mm filters) = expensive filters, be it CPL or UV filters.

p.s. Take my views with a grain of salt. There are lots of variables on my judgement as I'm only using a350 which uses PDAF compared to my friends canon 60D which uses CDAF in live view, hence the slowness in AF. I always shoot using liveview so that explains the slowness in AF speed of the tammy.

---

Added on February 24, 2011, 9:31 amDon't scare me man! Gear stripping on the 1680??? OMG!

This post has been edited by yuhi: Feb 24 2011, 09:31 AM

azamunekurone: The 16-80mm also I haven't heard - as far as I know it only has focus clutch problems (cannot manual focus) and affects much older batches.

yuhi: Uhhh the yellow tint might be the Canon body and how it responds to green leaves. The Canons are less able to differentiate red from green. Also, Canon's greens are less vibrant (though, in a X-Rite Color Checker Passport, it seems to be more accurate.)

Also CDAF is slow - to be fair to the 60D you'd use it in PDAF.

got 1 forumer here name mechaherc.ask him la..he is the one with 1680z gear strip (repair oredi since got extended warranty)

both of my friend who are using 16-105 with gear strip issue are not member here..1 got it repair and been quote by sony for only rm500 but the repair cost only below rm300.another one still funding for repair (tested oledi,cannot af)!

This post has been edited by azamunekurone: Feb 24 2011, 10:36 AM

@yuhi:
Little extras here,
There are little different for the Tamron 17-50mm on Canon and Sony, especially when I listen their focusing ... Canon on VC/non VC seems to be much noisy than the Tamron on Sony mount (which is only non-VC)

In Sony Mount, there no any VC version on 17-50. Only the non-VC one which is 67mm filter diameter is available xP

i like 17-50mm MFD.. can zoom all the way and result like prime..
no need change lens..

albnok Haha! Ohh, it might be the sensor from the 60D, but I did see some of the user reviews from dyxum which says that they didn't like the yellowish tint too. I didn't have the chance to test any canon lens as the tammy 1750 is the only lens she has. Wait till she gets a canon lens for me to test it =)

p.s. yea should use the PDAF of the 60D to test it. Focusing speed should be almost the same as the 1680Z
wingster yea forgot to mention that the non-VC is 67mm and the VC version is 72mm, almost got it wrong when shopping for filters for her lens lucky the sales person clarified it for me (I was like O.o diff filter threads for the same lens?) Haha!

azamunekurone: Don't scare me too much, later I can't sleep at night!

This post has been edited by yuhi: Feb 24 2011, 11:35 AM

Thank You.

---

Added on February 24, 2011, 11:28 amalbnok is that sushi pic?

This post has been edited by fansoption: Feb 24 2011, 11:28 AM

I have the Tammy 17-50 as well...i would say its a good lens generally....but from my experience of using it, here is what i notice:

1) Its not sharp at F2.8
2) Its hunts for focus under low light sometimes even in normal light condition.
3) Color wise, its not as contrasty as a CZ or a G lens...so need to touch up in PP.
4) Bokeh is so so la...
5) Range is short, when u need it the most....
6) AF is noisy, but i don't care ler...
7) Its not so suitable for potraits ler...cause when i shoot lets say at 50mm, F4...the bokeh not so nice (like halfway thru... )....its ok though if u shoot at 50mm, F8 - F11...but i still feel the picture is abit soft.

I've been using it as my primary lens, since i only got that lens and the kitlens (18-70) which i dont use! Hahahaha....but if i have the finances, i would get the 50mm F1.4 (for potraits) and the 70-200mm F2.8 G for long range tele on a separate body (maybe an A850) so that it can complete the range. Tammy 17-50 on APSC is 25-70mm and 70-200mm on FF......hahahahaha.....i know abit ambitious...
I shoot events and weddings alot...that's why i choose the set up as the above....so anybody wanna sponsor me?

but wouldnt using a tele lens on an APSC gives u further range with its crop size factored in? and if you want to go wide, use the FF...