If you can get your hands on the 24-50 F4 Minolta, that is a very nice lens :)

It flares but it is very sharp with good color. I sold mine (for other lenses) but I look back with regret now that I have sold it. It is also FF (if and when you ever get a FF body).

The Sigma 18-125 is a decent sharp lens too, and very versatile (I did a review but have yet to post it here, PM me or email me if you want the review and I will send it to you in Word format).

Carl

Tough choice. You can either go ultra wide APS only with the tamron or sigma...
Or pick up a 17-35mm, which is a bit wider than the kit, but not that much. Of more interest if you plan on using either film, or later on a FF digital.

I think you would pay a bit more than $200 for the 17-35mm, are there any deals on the 11-18 sony? I know it was sold off cheap for a while in the UK.

Being honest, the kits is pretty decent WA and stopped down..27mm equivalent, you can do some nice stuff with that you know ;-) And sometimes you don't even need super wide angle either. This is the kit lens. (apologies to anyone who has seen em before!)

hey great shots wow! I shoot landscape pretty much exclusively in part because often my camera is just along for the ride with me outdoors. I still have the same km lens Carl mentioned (along with the cz 16-80 and tammy 17-50, used to own tammy 11-18). My experience with the km lens is the same as Carls, bit flare prone but pretty decent inexpensive lens. Not sure if you wanted for your a100 though, 'cause obviously it won't be 24mm then.

I think I have an okay sample shot that would also let you see a bit how it's flaring, and was shot with my a100. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it in case it's of interest.

If you want to up the price range or try ebay, I recommend the tamron 17-50 quite highly..at least IMHO. Very light simple and sharp, 2.8 apt also. It's MTF numbers really aren't that far off from the CZ either.

Ah forgot about the tamron, not tried that on a mount..heard its good though, price is not bad.

Not having much trouble with the kit lens with regards flare. About the only weaker spot..is tele end wide open, not as sharp as it could be, but still not bad. Overall the kit does deliver some decent bang per buck, main thing is lack of speed if you want that side of it. I stayed away from the CZ 16-80mm, mostly due to not wanting APS only lenses. The 17-35mm is ideal for me, as slap it on a film 7 and you have real super WA! Plus its a decent lens..and not a bad price.

Here is the kit lens shot anyway..this was jpeg, again..been seen before!

Thanks for the responses! The kit lens seems mostly decent, but not having anything as wide to compare it to skews my judgment. Maybe I should just hold on to it for a while, but stop it down?

Well you get the equivalent of 27mm on the kit lens, which is def wide angle; WA is anything under 50mm, but most consider 28mm and lower to be where it really starts.

Its really up to yourself, your budget is a tad low..maybe hang on a bit and save up? You have a lot of choices really, do you want super wide zoom?? Or will a tad wider do the job (16mm-80 etc)??, do you use film, or may do later on?

Can you take good stuff with the kit, of course you can. You best aperture is around F8-f11 at 18mm, for working on scenic shots.

What is known about the Minolta 28mm prime? It gets decent reviews over at dyxum.com. After the digital crop it becomes a 42mm lens, so maybe it's not such a good choice.

Would the KMinolta 11 - 18 mm f/4.5 - 5.6 be a good lens for landscape photography?

the 11-18 is good if you can utilize it yes..

I got rid of it simply because even though I mostly like landscape I found it was just more often than not too wide...at least for me. It probably depends on the person and what's around you to shoot to some extent too.

I think the technical reports on its sharpness put it somewhat below the tarmron 17-50 except at it's best. Overall it's still pretty good in the sharpness dept, from what I recall.

Also if you like to use filters they'll be pretty expensive for that lens filter size.

somehow I missed this graveyard shot, great shot, I love the composition and mood very unique and well done.

oddly I happen to be sitting here watching a dracula movie now hmm .. :)

The Kit Lens is wide enough for most of your landscape shots. I use the kit lens for landscape.. still makes me money. I am only 16 yrs old so I am happy with what I have. Photos won't look good if you are not inspired, even with good equipment. try using the kit lens for landscapes first. I assure you it's good enough. I have been selling photos made by only the kit lenses (18-70 and 75-300)

Well DPreview just gave the 18-70DT a "not recommended" rating or words similar to that. Which is somewhat strange from my own playing around, it held up well on the A100 I tried. I have not used the newer sony cameras, so cannot comment on that.

As for the 75-300mm, its not a liked lens..but, I did get one, not that I "wanted one" I bought a new film body kit, and I really wanted the body, it came with it..and the also much loathed "28-100mm" Minolta lens. All for an amazingly low low price..so I just grabbed it..I could always dump the lenses later on if needed.

I may have got lucky, because I find the 75-300mm pretty decent overall, sometimes a bit of a CA issue, and other times its good all round, not super fast AF (pretty fast on a film 7 though) Saying that I would not go out and buy the sony 75-300mm for £170, may as well get the tamron 70-300mm for less. As for the 28-100mm, it sometimes has a blooming issue (lack of digital coatings may the reason)..but that isnt bad either!

Here it is in action!

And the 75-300mm...watch your AF though, you have to nail it at these focal lengths

If you are close enough, you can also get a nice enough OOF effect

I have seen some very "iffy" 75-300mm lenses, but then I have on the sigma and tamron ones too..I think at this price point, you get some QC issues at times. You know youself if its any good or just pants..

Of course I have better lenses, but sometimes it is fun to use "junk" lol ;-)

Interesting because I have seen many other reviews that claim the opposite.

I'm pretty sure DPR has a bias against Sony's products. The comments that are made here and there (sarcastic) etc, plus the lower ratings, etc... pretty much nail it.

Thousands of Minolta users and Sony users alike cannot be wrong, nor can the heritage of Minolta products.

Minolta would have been where Canon and Nikon are if only they had the budget at the right time to get moving on the market and develop more products.

Don't see anything wrong with the quality of your shots Barry, and I've seen some pretty dang good shots come from that lens.

Too bad its sharper in the center than the Canon and Nikon, more affordable, lighter, etc... guess a superior product is junk to them :)

Carl

Good point Carl, I have seen a fair few reviews of the 18-70 DT, and most were of the view that it was "a better lens" than most rivals.

Now with the Dp one, they say its the worst bar none (pretty much), the reviewer says it never really gets as sharp as it could even stopped down. And moaned about some corner softness. Odd. The usual "oh its more mp on the sensor, thus more demanding" was used. But as I already tried it on the A100, a few extra mp isnt likely to make it vastly worse.

Anyway I uploaded some full sized samples, ist one WA stopped down, 2nd is wide open f3.5 WA, and last tele end. Even wide open, its not bad at all..stopped right down, its sharp all over..least I think so, 70mm end was always a bit softer..but still pretty reasonable. I admit the dp samples did not impress.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/barryfitzgerald.net/1870DT

Anyone notice the pentax 18-55mm review? Get's a thumbs up, but check out the samples..as the review says, its a no go zone tele end and close up..bad, really bad, vignetting WA even stopped down (And the one I tried once was the same) I would not get it, if I were buying a K mount camera. He didnt seem that keen on the 16-105mm either..still, there you go! Best to not take dp too seriously from now on!

Interesting they have not reviewed the non IS canon 18-55mm either..wonder why??? And we get high mp tests on the sony lenses, are they doing to re-test the pentax on the new 14mp body??? We shall see!

I was thinking all that, but due to me "biting my lip so hard it bled" I refrained from commenting further.

I will go check out your images now.

Btw, the A200, whew, good images man. For some reason, when the price drops in the UK I see you getting this one (maybe they can do a MLU update on the firmware, I hope so).

Just keeps impressing me with the IQ, DR was off the hook, did you see the IR tests on Dynamic range? Just barely missed beating the D300!

Carl

I don't know if 24mm is wide enough for you, but the Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II is a pretty sharp prime and can sometimes be found used for a very good price.