ape lagi bro .. dont lupa kawan2 kat sini .. haha .. ..

btw, ur A700 just 200++ shutter count? .. huh .. still virgin la ..
oh bro, sorry .. almost forgot d .. hehe .. Ok Ok. I will snap a picture using my kit lens 1870 with and without converter .. .. so by tonite, I will post them up .. k? .. ..

flickr la .. x edit title .. heheh .. ..
wowww .. it's time to shopping ryzan! .. haha .. bro albnok, when is the next TT? I want to learn flash.

ok bro.. try indoor shoot can?.. cos i always use in my interior design shooting the 18mm seems cannot cover the floor n ceiling area..

can use my setting for ur test x bro?

adush...UWAUWAUWAUWA....luckily not in my wishlist now...poison deflected...

but i am vulnerable to cz1680...huhu, cannot with stand it no more...

What BIG thing ryzan?
UWAWA 

thats UWA is my target bro.. but belum cukup UWAng lagi

u want kawen this year ar bro ops terspoiler plak 

Rollback? I hadn't posted it... until... now!

Anyway, here is the text taken from my blog!

A quick and dirty F2.8 full-frame telephoto zoom lens comparison for Alpha mount!


Click here for large version.

The big guns, left to right, arranged in order of MFD:
Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO, 1.8m MFD - Asyraf's copy
Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM, 1.2m MFD - Nic's copy
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Macro, 1.0m MFD - Sham's copy
Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Macro, 0.95m MFD - shop copy
Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8, 0.72m MFD - my copy

I didn't bring my lens hood.

* MFD = Minimum Focus Distance

All tests done with a Sony Alpha 900 firmware Version 1.00. The A900 seems to make the Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM focus faster, subjectively, but at the same time it is hampered by the smaller AF sensor layout. Regardless, the AF assist sensors and the F2.8 dual-cross type center sensor should bring out the best in the worst conditions, namely an indoor flourescent-lit shopping mall!

We were time-limited; the shop was closing soon, and unfortunately we'd rarely ever get to see such a full combination of 70-200mm F2.8 lens ranges.

Settings - Standard Small JPG, DRO Off, ISO1600, F2.8 (or F1.8 on the Zeiss), AWB, Multi-segment metering, center spot AF, AF-C.

We did a comparison with a moving target, in this case a friend walking towards us. I attempted to keep the center spot AF point on the eye of the moving subject.


Tamron 70-200mm sample walk.

Lens Name; number of shots; good/bad shot ratio *

Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Macro; 14 shots; 8:6
Timestamps: 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:40 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:42 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:44 8:54:46 8:54:46 8:54:46 8:54:46

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Macro; 12 shots; 5:7
Timestamps: 8:55:26 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:28 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:30 8:55:32 8:55:32

Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM; 13 shots; 6:7
Timestamps: 8:56:52 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:54 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:56 8:56:58 8:56:58

Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO; 17 shots; 8:9
Timestamps: 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:14 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:16 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:18 9:00:20 9:00:20 9:00:20

Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8; 14 shots**; 9:5
Timestamps: 9:00:52 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:54 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:56 9:00:58 9:00:58 9:00:58

Number of shots were derived from comparing magnification; magnifications outside the norm were discarded.

Interesting that the timestamp of the file may not be truly representative of the time it was taken; I reckon the A900 writes to the card every 2 seconds, or that it can't count in odd seconds. So there goes my plan to use the timestamps to show how fast it can focus!

* good shots meaning it was obvious that the lens managed to cope up and focus (some shots had motion blur so I accounted for that as you can still see the relative region of focus); bad shots meaning it was obvious that the lens didn't manage to keep focus and you'd want to delete that shot.



** 14 shots on the Zeiss are not comparable because of the different start/stop points; I cannot measure this versus the other lenses because they don't have the same magnification so I can't measure the start/end points easily.
My Subjective Opinion


(Click for larger view.)
Tamron at 200mm F2.8 1/125s ISO400. This is not a picture of me!

I will assure you that the Sigma at 200mm F2.8 and this close range (on the A900) will not give you this amount of sharpness. The Tamron without a doubt is good at 200mm F2.8 in the 1-2 meters range (estimated) where the Sigma falters.

My previous findings on the Sigma here.

The Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 and Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO, both being screw-drive lenses, let the A900 fire away more frames at the beginning of the walk. It focused more confidently. There was an obvious audible difference between the 5 FPS of screw-drives and the slower, more hesitant pauses between HSM/SSM lenses. Everybody noticed this.

Given the low sample rate I have here, I hope somebody out there can take this further especially on the 200mm end - the shop confines didn't allow for 200mm tracking. That said the test was very gruelling on the lenses as it is in poor flourescent lighting so I cannot imagine how it would fare at 200mm. I would imagine that all these lenses would do much better in a daylight drag race at 200mm!

Approaching the minimum focusing distance all lenses struggled mainly because of the A900's small AF sensor layout.

The Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO's MFD of 1.8 meters makes itself very apparent in the confines of a shop. Modern lenses do 1.2 meters at least which is great! The Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G SSM is another excellent example, going 1.2 meters close too, a record for any lens that gets to 300mm! Of course, the Minolta 70-210mm F4 beercan has been focusing 1.1 meters close since 1985...

Of course, in the name of science, all tests should be done 3 times. But we didn't want to agitate the very nice shopkeeper who let us test this lens. And this was gonna be quick and dirty, not precision. I think a much more precise method would be with the camera on a tripod trying to track a (weighted) racecar with a bright contrasty plastic cone (for a flag) on a track, heading towards the camera in a straight line before turning off.

70-135-200mm comparison

I focused on the S of the Sony A700. Unfortunately this was not a tripod-mounted test!


(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Tamron, bottom is Sigma. It seems the Tamron has corrected for lateral chromatic aberration, or color 'bokeh'. It looks odd to me though since I'm so used to LCA and regard it as a natural property of lenses.


(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm/80mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Sony, bottom is Minolta.


(Click for larger view.)
Zeiss at 135mm F1.8.


(Click for larger view.)
Left to right: 70mm, 135mm, 200mm all at F2.8
Top is Tamron, middle is Sigma, bottom is Sony.


(Click for larger view.)
Zeiss at 135mm F1.8.

The Sigma and Tamron have much more obvious spherical aberration. I thought the Tamron was alright at 135mm and a heck lot better than the Sigma at 200mm and close focus (1-2 meters.) The Sigma has very obvious softening!

Stuff I Did Not Compare

Color - I was in flourescent lighting.

Bokeh - the shop people kept moving about so the background changed quite a bit as you can see.

ryzan76, best for me still the Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8, weighing under 1 KG. All these F2.8 telephoto zoom lenses go in the 1.4-1.5 KG range.

chiggy: The Tamron let more shots through especially at the start of the sequence (I originally counted 18 but discarded the first 4 because I started shooting earlier (based on thisiskj's head magnification in pictures)).

I would say that the Tamron is pretty accurate on the A900, much more than online reports say.

AF noise, not noticeable and not particularly different from any other screw drive lens on the Alpha. In short, it was neither loud nor different enough to note. It did not sound horribly loud or geary like the Cosina 100mm F3.5 Macro "Plastic Fantastic".

Again I must stress that the AF is driven by the body and not by a Transformer-like-sounding Tamron micro-motor/buzzer as it is on Canon/Nikon variants. That's probably why AF sounds alright.

The Sigma may appear to focus faster but this might be an illusion due to its silence. In the end it failed to cope with AF-C tracking, hesitating a lot. In comparison the Tamron was very positive and confident to fire.

The Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO has physical 'feedback' when you focus - you can feel it shifting the heavy focus elements. This by all means was the loudest lens.

I would also say that lenses with less spherical aberration HELP with getting positive focus confirmation - that might be why the Sigma was not confident to fire even at the start of the sequence. You will discover that your lenses find it hard to focus when you put a +4 closeup filter on - same principle.

Now this would be a different case if the Tamron let in a lot of shots and was highly inaccurate. But here it was a good performer, and pretty sharp at all lengths!

nic_chm himself says that the Sony is no speed demon unless the 3 meter focus limiter is activated. Of course, only the Sony has a 3 meter focus limiter...

All the people who came to Studio Zaloon (eviz, thisiskj, nic_chm, kysham) had A700s and I didn't want to ask even more of a favor to try it on an A350.

ryzan76, shoot from a lower angle so it looks like a real car.



This is from my old point-and-shoot. Photoshopped background in.

Thanks albert & chiggy!
to make manual available for F42, hold HSS for 3 seconds then press power button to 1/2 to enable manual function. (if i remember correctly:))

ryzan76, since the car is black, try to shoot from the front (say bonnet) and leave the side underexpose...can what i mean? i realized it will be nice to leave some parts underexposed when shooting cars.....only expose the middle of the pic..such as for pic#2, expose only the rear-left lamp to the front lamp....the rest photoshop it to a bit darker..i think it may look nice..just my 2 cents:)

ryzan try snap that car wit ur UWA.. been wondering how the output will come..

the 1st thing come in my mind.. the perspective view will be more nice i thing..

waaah all so nice study kau kau... i diploma oso tak lepas... mau continue pun tarak wang...

Get one bro
Later ask ryzan to post some strobist.
You can do strobist mah.
Got F42 adi.
Pakat bro. Make him get it, all of em....cobra...cz(S)...uwawa....manyak lagi larrr

check sony style website..found some macro lens..expensive Owo!! well..i think if i join this poison..sure will grab it even though is expensive

well..havent see b4 ryzan photo

but c some other pro work.. o,o gila macro.. like shoot those insect pictar

benzee: let me know if you are getting single kit A300 k?I top up to get the 55-200 lens

---

Added on April 1, 2009, 9:10 amryzan76 : take some rest and let ur bug rest too:)

ryzan76, tak sihat .. tak amik MC ka ?

ryzan[/b]
.. sudah sehat ka?

edit:
Kul | Mo0
sad to hear that bro.. just only this week u join us then this happen.. curse that robber.. u dun fight with them? no plate?

ok.. i'm beginning to feel the urge to go f2.8 already... i know... i was warned about this b4...

millenia... heard of it yet? haha zan... aku budak murahan wei... pakai kitlens sampai motor berkarat dulu

I tried to register my cobra but cannot ! it says invalid number. whats the model number ?? and does the serial includes the -9 ?

hi all ..

morning!! .. ..

how much tammy haa? 1.3k?

Can i get that type of super up close shots of bugs and stuffs? If can I'll get a raynox lo.

how far away were you from the subject for this shot ryzan?

morning ryzan, good to hear thatcha ok edi... so yea like i was mentionin in my previous post, let's talk about photo composition for a while la... say when we get a model to pose fer us, how do we instruct them so we get the perfect shot... what kinda shots as in angles and all for the perfect shots?

so 6 months old lens till have 1 year warranty la right?? but is it worth if it's only RM200 cheaper than a new one??