Your lens kit?

[FilmFrenzy]

I've sold my all-in-one Sigma 28-200mm and put the money towards creating a lightweight and flexible lens kit that gives me the best quality I can afford for 95% of shooting opportunities.

There's a lot of posts on here about individual lenses and how great or not they may or may not be. I was just wondering if anyone would like to share their favourite combos and the reasons behind them?

I've gone Minolta! The lineup (in preferential order) is:
35-70 f4 (£20 local camera shop)
50 f1.7 RS (£30 bought in 2005)
70-210 f4.5-5.6 (£45 courtesy of ebay)
35-105 f3.5-4.5 (approx £15 - part of job lot, most of which was sold on).


The 35-70 and 70-210 are obvious partners for the seamless focal range.
The 50mm is added for my 3 lens kit - probably my best lens (but for some reason I like the colours on the 35-70 more, slightly less saturation and very natural). Essential for where flash is impossible and close up action shots.
The 35-105 is my new walkaround for when I can't practically have more than one lens.


I have a wide angle on the shopping list so will add a 28mm f2.8 if I can find one in good condition at the right price.
If I do buy this I'll have by coincidence a 4 lens kit all with the same filter thread which obviously doesn't improve image quality but is very practical.

BTW I am shooting 35mm film and will probably not switch until I can get a full frame digital for a sensible price.

Over to you .....

[SqueamishOssifrage]

Standard zoom - Konica Minolta 28-75mm f2.8
Tele zoom - Sigma 75-200mm f2.8-3.5
Wide angle - Sigma 24mm f2.8
Holiday walkabout lens - Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6

I also have a Sigma 1.4x TC for the telezoom, and an 8 pin 1.7x TC for the Standard zoom.

This set-up gives me 24mm to 140mm at f2.8, thereafter f3.5, and the standard and tele zooms are both 69mm filter thread. Incidentally, the KM standard zoom is essentially the same as the current Tamron offering, and I understand that Sony are using pretty much the same glass in the new 28-75mm, but it is a SAM lens.

The whole set-up, including Minolta 7 and VC7, filters, film and DS100 fits in a Tamrac Velocity 8x, and weighs less (just) than 5kg.

[Roger_Provins]

Still a bit of a sleeper is the Minolta 35-200mm f/4.5-5.6 xi AF and it can sell quite cheaply - but it is a superb lens - cost over £600 back in the early 90's. No doubt the power zoom puts some folk off but, having got used to it now, I actually quite like it. It's one of the few lens I've tried which is not shown up by the a900's definition. I have a feeling that its qualities are slowly being recognised and the price is creeping up. If you can find one now in good condition and at the right price I'd definitely say go for it before it's too late.

[FilmFrenzy]

I hesitated on a Sigma 24mm and it had vanished by the time I had made up my mind to give it a shot, sign of a good lens if ever there was one.
What's your experience of it?

Interesting about the 28-75 versions.

[RonM]

I hesitated on a Sigma 24mm and it had vanished by the time I had made up my mind to give it a shot, sign of a good lens if ever there was one.
What's your experience of it?

I traded my Sigma 24mm in against the Minolta 24 f/2.8 and the difference is staggering, in every area the Minolta outperforms the Sigma, which is why you very rarely see the Minolta version up for sale, and when you do they go for approx 3 times what I paid for mine and no it's not for sale!

In terms of lens kit I have everything covered from 17mm through to 300mm with a mix of f/2.8, f/4 and f/2.8 - 4

[SqueamishOssifrage]

I hesitated on a Sigma 24mm and it had vanished by the time I had made up my mind to give it a shot, sign of a good lens if ever there was one.
What's your experience of it?

I traded my Sigma 24mm in against the Minolta 24 f/2.8 and the difference is staggering, in every area the Minolta outperforms the Sigma, which is why you very rarely see the Minolta version up for sale, and when you do they go for approx 3 times what I paid for mine and no it's not for sale!

I guess you were lucky - photodo rate the Sigma at 4.0 and the Minolta at 3.5. I picked mine up for 80 Euros, brand new, old stock, with full warranty, in April this year. I don't have any directly equivalent lens to compare it with, but I rate it not too far behind my Zeiss 28mm/f2.0, and well ahead of my Voigtlander 21mm/f4.0 - FWIW.

[Dorset_Mike]

When I was shooting film I relied mostly on a Tokina 28-70/2.8 and Tokina 75-300, very occasionally used the Minolta 50/1.7.

Now shooting Digital mostly I carry Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Tamron 70-300, still have the 50/1.7 but having caught lensaholicism I also have Tamron 90/2.8 Macro, Tokina 80-400 and Sigma 600/8 mirror and 1.4X and 2X teleconvertors plus three manual focus Tamrons.

[SqueamishOssifrage]

When I was shooting film I relied mostly on a Tokina 28-70/2.8 ...

I have heard very good things about the Tokina 28-70, based mainly around the fact that they restricted it to a 2.5 zoom factor. Apparently, pushing to 24-70 or 28-75 can cause some image quality loss (except, of course, for the Zeiss, which my wife says I can't afford ). I know my 28-75 is very good at 35-75, but the 28 is not so good, unless stopped down to f11/16.

[Dorset_Mike]

I had the Minolta 7000 and Tokina 28-70 for over 20 years, never regretted buying it, my granddaughter now has them; on the KM 5D with its 1.5X crop factor the Tamron 17-50 is about as near an equivalent as can be found, and considerably lighter!!

[SqueamishOssifrage]

I have still got my 7000, but pretty beat-up. I also have the original 28-85 kit lens (almost unused, but badly fogged) and the 28-136/f4-4.5 (good glass, but damaged filter ring), plus the original auto-zoom flash gun. Everything still works, but I would hate to rely on it!

[BrettValentine]

Hi all,

I'm new here. Here's what's in my now overstuffed bag. . .
KM DT 18-70, KM 75-300, a Minolta 35-105, and Minolta 100-200 f4.5 (from my 7000i days), a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 (from ebay), and a Tamron 17 - 50mm f2.8 to replace the kit 18-70.

[Gordon_McGeachie]

Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8
Sigma 10-20 EX DC f4-5.6
Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 DG
Sigma 400 f5.6 mom apo/macro
Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro

[TimF]

When I used Nikon SLRs before the Leica bug took hold from 2000, I usually had a 17-35mm f/2.8 (sometimes substituted by a 17mm f/3.5 Tamron and 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor), a 50mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.8 Macro, and 200mm f/4 in the bag. Sometimes these would be supplemented with a 35mm f/2.8 PC lens. Apart from the zoom and the macro all were manual focus.

I did have an 80-200mm f/2.8, but rarely carried it due to the weight of the thing. The above outfit did everything I wanted, and I never missed any intervening focal lengths.

Nowadays my M kit has a 21mm f/3.4, 28mm f/2, several 35mm from f/1.2 to f/2, several 50mm from f/1.2 to f/2.8 two 75mm f/1.4 & f/2, 85mm f/1.5, 90mm f/4, and 200mm f/4. When the M9 comes along I'll very likely trim this down quite a bit and may swap some out for a different focal length.

The (DM)R kit consists of 19mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2, 60mm f/2.8 Macro, 80mm f/1.4, 90mm f/2, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 180mm f/2.8, 280mm f/4 and 400mm f/6.8