The Online Photographer

Problem solved and its 'too easy' as they say. Just in case you have failed to notice impending birthday dates, (don't know why you failed in this dismal failure) my birthday is just around the corner, way before yours, Mike.

So while the stove is hot in your moth riddled wallet (and secret stash), give it to me and I'll give you a reciprocating act of extreme generosity, a copy file of the first frame I expose with that extremely desireable combination.

In fact I'll even save you a few bucks and (gracefully) accept a A850 body.

Why would one want a Sony lens with IS? The Sony cameras have in-body stabilisation.

Nice looking lens! It's worth having just as an ornament. And in the future you can probably sell it for more than what you paid - you know, when you want to get rid of the Alpha 850 kit for the 75 megapixel nano-four-thirds Nokia D9000.

I feel your pain. Everything you've done goes against the miser's creed. And yet, if you have come to the realization that you will ultimately be more miserable without the lens than with it, you have made the right decision, at least for you. The only "catch" is that you don't have a reliable camera to mount it on, and thereby no way to take pictures to increase your joy quotient. Your one hope is that by late fall the price of the Sony A900 or A850 will, uh... fall--at which point you can bask in the mixed emotions of getting a "bargain" while buying something that is clearly depreciating. Ah, the sweet joy of misery.

A print sale may be in order. Or Nikon may pay you not to publish those leafy tree fotos.

You saved up enough until you could buy the car, and now you want to do the same for the camera? What? Do you realize how out of touch you are with modern consumerism? Why, that's almost anachronistic. You're supposed to go into debt for the next 30 years to satisfy every whim, get with the program.

Mike, I'm in a similar boat. When I sold my M8 I kept one lens - a 50 Summicron - for the day when I can afford an M9. With that lens already in a drawer I can count on the promise to myself that some day I'll again have a rangefinder.

I am asking this out of ignorance - does anybody actually know how this film-era lens actually performs, looks and feels on one of the FF Sony bodies? The obvious questions are lateral color and falloff, but there are other factors to think about...

Before our intrepid blogger starts loosing 100 dollar bills in the pages of Jane Eyre, I am curious if this is actually a particularly potent combo... Because right now this is sounding of "If I only had a MegaFlex 1000, then my photos would be good."

We have all been down that road, and it rarely goes where you are expecting...

Sounds like pure GAS Mike. I thought you didn't go for that?

Ah, the sign of a true Photographer: You have a lens! But no camera.

I bet you'll be fondling that lens, turning the focus ring left and right, opening up and closing the diaphragm while looking down the barrel... There's no shame in that, Mike; you're among friends :-)

It amazes me that manufacturers do this to us. I had a similar problem in reverse. I ended up buying a Nikon D700 to fit my 35, 85 and 180 because I didn't want to buy lenses for the smaller cameras. And there was no real equivalent to a 35mm f2 for the small sensor cameras as far as I could tell.

Sheesh.

"So, how much was it then?"

Let's see (reading figures burned into miser section of brain, as if with hot brand): $780 with shipping.

This really genuinely pains me to say.

Mike

You do realize, of course, that by dropping big money on that little Minolta, you have made it a mortal certainty that Sony will come out with a superior replacement before you get the scratch for the A850, right?

"I think you should make a special appeal for funds to your readers. It would give us some satisfaction to be able to help you buy a camera you really wanted."

Richard,
I truly can't complain about the generosity of many of my readers. My current digital camera was a gift from a reader, although in a somewhat roundabout way. I would merely be being greedy by asking for more, believe me. No complaints, none.

Mike

I know you've got it now, but wouldn't a Pentax DA 21mm have been close enough to a 35mm (equivalent) lens for a DSLR with IS?

Yeah, the Minolta/Sony system is quite frustrating. I was idly looking into switching to them from Canon because the Alpha 850/900 look like great bodies with class leading color rendition but.....

Their prime lens selection is infuriating. All the lenses I would want exist, but are out of production and are stupid expensive.

It's easy to get a reasonably priced 24mm f/2.8 prime, but as you've found out the 35mm f/2 is painfully expensive (almost as much as the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L). I've read that Sony can't re-make it because the design required leaded glass, which is banned in the EU. Even worse: they go and release a 35mm f/1.8 APS-C lens! Twisting the knife....it's evident there won't be a 35mm f/2 lens in the Sony lineup for a long long time.

They have an OK selection at 50mm, but the telephoto primes I'd want are, again, out of production. A Minolta 100mm f/2 is nearly the same price as the Canon 135mm f/2 L (and far more than the Canon 100mm f/2).

What's worse is that (with the exception of the 35mm lens) the Canon equivalents appear to be slightly better in image quality. I'm not interested in paying more money to get worse lenses.

It's hard to leave Canon/Nikon if you use anything more exotic than the standard zooms. They really have fabulous lens collections.

$780.00 ????????

Holy Astringent Plum-like fruit, Batman!

.

.

Yes, it's a real Robin quote.... http://holysmokesbatman.com/tracks/holy-astringent-plum-like-fruit.html

I think Carl Zeiss glass for Sony is pretty much class leading for every model. The CZ 85/1.4 and CZ 135/1.8 are truly amazing and I wouldn't trade them for any Nikon or Canon equivalent. I agree that the Sony 35/1.4 is way overpriced but to be honest I don't find that this lens performs well in Nikon or Canon equivalents. Canon has the advantage with a 50/1.2 quality lens but I find the inexpensive Sony 50/1.4 to be a great lens. Perhaps the new CZ 24/2 will be the lens we've all been waiting for.

Mike,
You have a GF1 do you not? Buy an adapter for it,I know it's not the same but you never know.
Leigh.

I feel your pain Mike. I've never really minded terribly shelling-out for photo gear with the exception of lenses. I love lenses and I appreciate what good ones can accomplish, but for some reason it wounds me to spend serious cash on one. Just one of those things I guess. The only consolation, I suppose, is that the pain eases with the passage of time. Then again, my Nikon 17-55/2.8 zoom is still killing me.

Ever since you reviewed A850 on these pages, I have been thinking about getting it. However, the lack of small, light, and relatively affordable lenses in the current Sony lineup has been bothering me. I have fancied that someday in an estate sale, I will chance upon a mint condition Minolta 35mm SLR kit with the 35mm f2.0 and the 85mm f1.4 stored carefully in their original cases in mint condition. Alas, that hasn't happened yet and so I haven't bought an A850.

I've however, also noticed that the bigger my camera, the less number of photos I am going to take with it on average per year. So to satisfy my itch to experiment with the full frame and medium format aesthetics (primarily the ability to have a shallow depth of field and quality of the bokeh), I have added two kits to my collection. First is a Contax G1 with the 21mm, 35mm, 45mm, and the 90mm lenses all bought used but in mint condition. Second is a Mamiya C220 TLR with a similar selection of lenses - a medium wide, standard, and a medium telephoto. All of these together cost less than the A850 body and since I only expect to run about 12 roles of film through them every year, they should be quite economical.

Someday, I will get a small and lightweight digital full frame camera (as long as it is not made by Leica) with a matching set of prime lenses but until then this should do nicely.

There's a modern savings device called a "credit card." You pay for the camera with a "credit card," and you get the camera immediately. Then,instead of sticking money in books, you put it in an envelope and send it to the "credit card company." Eventually, it's paid off. The result is the same, except that you get to use the camera immediately. I'd look into it, if I were you.

"There's a modern savings device called a 'credit card.'"

John,
I tried one of those once, 25 years ago, and it didn't go so well. It was right after I got my first "job with benefits," teaching in a high school for $17,000 a year. I was offered a credit card through the teachers' credit union. I figured if I was entitled to it, why not? It had a credit limit of $1,500.

I quickly bought $1,500 worth of CDs (the music carrier, not the financial instrument), which were fairly new at the time. They then canceled my new credit card. Then I sent them money for what seemed like a very long time--quite a bit more than $1,500, if I recall correctly. I learned then that credit and I don't get along very well. It's not like I've never borrowed money--I have--but I've never had a credit card since.

Mike

Apropos of Ken Tanaka's story, a few months back, I succumbed to the itch to try out a Hasselblad SWC, the ultimate Point'NShoot. I "won" one on the Bay. It was packed like a rare instrument (which it is). It came with notes from the seller telling me just how much it had meant to him during a long period of professional use. I've since sent along pictures from its first rolls in my hands, and felt obliged to meet a higher standard with it ever since.

scott

Think of it this way. $780 is really cheap.

A Nikon with the 35 2.0 with a 24 megapixel camera is $7,400 for the camera body and $250 for the lens.

A Sony A850 is only $1999.

A Canon 5d ii is $2499 + $300 for the 35 2.0

Same price as the Canon and you get 3 megapixels for free.

Something I forgot to tell with that NEX report. Somebody here had wanted to know whether A900 was discontinued. So I asked.

The woman from Sony (she's somebody in higher echelons of Sony Europe, I don't remember the exact position) said no, it was not discontinued. But that we might see an adjustment in price to reflect the camera's relation to A850 more accurately.

Hopefully, Mike, that means your wait might not be as long as you think.

The problem with the credit card is the interest. Credit cards are really only a convenient way to spend money you already have without carrying the cash around.

I've got to say I'm a bit jealous. The lack of modern, affordable primes on the Sony system is frustrating, especially that it's nearly all I shoot with. But I stick with Sony because I dearly love the cameras. The ergonomics and image quality of my a850 is fantastic. Also, having all of my prime lenses stabilized on a full-frame sensor is extremely useful.

I searched long and hard for a 35/2 at a reasonable price a year ago and couldn't find one. I ended up with a 28/2 instead for about $500. It's a lovely lens, though I always felt that the FOV was a little weird. Almost too wide, but at the same time, not wide enough.

Recently, I managed to grab a 35/1.4 for $720, which was a great deal, and I'm really enjoying it. However, I'm still kind of jealous. The 35/2 has it's own excellent brand of image quality that I would still love to try out one of these days.

I hope you like it…once you nab that a850 or a900.

Now if only we could get Sony to upgrade their flash system…