I think you'll have a tough time focusing manually with the small viewfinder in the D40x unless you focus using the live view.

is there anyway to remedy this?

from what i gather, not everyone like the focus screens. some ppl swear by just using their eyes and practicing more

Yes, buy a Leica rangefinder. :p

....or buy a full frame body with a high magnification viewfinder and focusing screen. The viewfinders in crop bodies are terrible.

Thinking about picking up a Tamron 17-50.
I was wondering though, Who is a recommended seller on eBay for lens and what not?

prodigital2000

i bought 2 copies of the non-VC from him

RCubed,
Have you upgraded the firmware on your NEX? It improves the user interface a LOT, and you will need it to enable autofocus on your adapter.

Having said that, the autofocus with the nex adapter and alpha lenses is really bad. Claimed 2-7 seconds to autofocus, and in my opinion that's pretty much unusable. If you aren't worried about autofocus and are ONLY going to use manual focus, I suggest you stay away from the DT 50mm 1.8 and look for an older Minolta 50mm f/1.7. These may range from $50-100, depending on the condition, and they are also full frame lenses, if you ever decide to go full frame. But there is no built in motor, and thus, you cannot use autofocus with it on the NEX (but you will be able to with alpha bodies).

I also need advice on lens options. I have recently acquired an old Pentax film SLR. This body uses the Pentax K mount, and I was wondering if anyone here has experience with the K mount and decent lenses. I'm looking for a faster portrait lens, 35mm or 85mm will do.

Help appreciated!

Hmm.
Yeah I upgraded the firmware already. I just want to find a use of the LA-EA1 adapter. Lol.
I already have the a Minolta 50mm 1.4 for the nex. Maybe ill save the money and pick up a Canon FD 55mm f1.2 with the money instead.
Thanks.
Posted via RS Mobile

You'd have to buy used but I'd he looking out for a pentax a* 85 f1.4
Posted via RS Mobile

just wondering why you bought 2?

also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount

I'm in the same boat. After reading all the reviews, I'm leaning towards the one without the VC.

Need a suggestion for a good zoom lens, I'm using the 55-250mm and I do a lot of indoor shooting. Today was probably the 4th time this year I shot pictures at River Rock
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...7_452913_n.jpg
This is a picture I took of my friend tonight @ river rock, The noise performance of the 7D isn't horrible especially @ 3200 ISO (this was uploaded onto facebook, it looks a lot better on my laptop!)
It was hard to keep up with a low shutter speed cause my friend was the only one who did a rock & roll routine -_- So I had to throw it on a 320 speed if I remember correctly as opposed to 120 ish for the other contestants.

Anyways I definitely want a sharper zoom lens with possibly more reach. The only ones I'm more familiar with are the canon L zoom lenses but those are about 4x the price of my current one :/ Any suggestions? Or should I just get an L?

You will preferably need a 70-200 f2.8. It doesn't have to be Canon - Sigma & Tamron also make them for a bit less money. If you're allowed to get closer, you may want to go with a fast prime like a 100mm f2 or 135mm f2.

one for myself, and one for a friend that wanted one. you can't beat this lens at this price point ... until you get into another price category and grab the 17-55 and just forget about walk-arounds for crops heh

the tamron lacks corner sharpness in general. and the VC version supposedly is not as sharp as the non-VC. your other option would be the sigma with OS but at that price you mind as well get the canon/nikon one. a lot of people like the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS too.

The Canon 17-55 isn't very good.

The problem is I think I will be going full frame in the future and 200 probably won't be enough reach. I guess when you want that kind of range you are sacrificing image quality.

SLR gear just posted the review of the sigma 70-200 2.8, has the least chromatic abberation and seems like less vignetting and distortion too compared to the tamron
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1328/cat/31

The tamron still has a very high image quality rating though but the price is quite high (still over $800 CAD in HK) The canon F4.0 IS is only about $200 more in HK and the older
thttp://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

Are there any differently ranged lenses you would recommend? (ie. Nikon's 200-400 or Canon's 100-400)?

The Nikon 200-400 costs $6000+, but it's bloody amazing. The Canon 100-400 is way too slow for concert use. Do you really need FF for your work though? A crop body with good lowght capability like the 7D is probably best for you.
Posted via RS Mobile

the thing with lenses, is that you can always sell off the lens. You do lose a bit of money if you got the lens new - but if you get it second-hand, you can always sell it off for around the same price assuming that you've kept it in good condition.

i agree with senna that you need a 2.8 or faster. if budget is an issue the non-is version of the sigma 70-200 has some decent reviews, and with hsm it'll be more helpful than the tamron in low light.

gars is also right in that you get more return out of lenses compared to bodies, so if it's what you need now, it's not too difficult to move along as you can still get good dollar for your lens.

if you do this often, get what you need now and worry about the FF issue when/if it comes.

what's better for a canon crop? i don't really like the wide end to be 24mm if i was to carry one lens out.

The 15-85 is fantastic, although not a f2.8 lens.

Good points I think I will get rid of my 17-40 and get the sigma with the OS, for that amount of zoom I think OS is a good idea

hhhmm... i read the review that your coworker wrote when you posted it, i didn't expect it to be sharper than the 17-55, if that's the aspect you were talking about ... maybe i should ask what don't you like about the 17-55?

but the constant aperture and IS has let me take shots that would have been impossible when i didn't have a flash or tripod.

^ i hear the new Sigma 17-50 os hsm performs just as well as the 17-55 in most situations.. but hearing that the 17-55 isn't that good kinda extends to the sigma.

oh well food for thought (and another lens to research :))

We had three customers who bought the lens, and all of them brought the lenses back because each one was not very sharp. Now admittedly, these guys are hard core professional commercial shooters who charge $10,000/day or just picky wedding shooters - they can't afford or want to have a lens that's not up to their standards. The Canon 17-55 is not as sharp as the Nikon one for sure, but I guess it's ok for most people.