planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

After I get done paying for my next vacation (still have about a lens-worth of airfare to pay for yet) I will start saving for my first premium professional-quality lens. I posted a similar question some months ago, but restricted it to a particular lens. I have talked to some people who have said that in order to get media credentials (and get into much better viewing areas for pics) one needs to put together a portfolio and set up a website and get a business license (maybe planepics, llc or something). It seems the best starter pro lenses are 24-70ish and 70-200 2.8. If I could afford it, maybe add a TC. A 70-400 would also be a possibility, but I'd lose some light-gathering ability. I'm not sure if many of my pics are good enough to impress too many people (although I've had 2 e-winners). Please check out previous pic posts. C/C appreciated. Last night I went to a meeting where I gave a zip drive with about 75 Oshkosh pics to a guy who made a movie (due out next month on DVD) and is working on a book about the 2015 airshow season. He is also getting pics from a team of airshow media pros. I hope I get a few of my images in the mix. most of the same pics are on my Facebook page.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Is there a question?

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

What is the best lens to get for one's first professional-grade glass?

BebuLamar

And you don't know? I think you already know but just post the question to see how many agree with you.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Really? If you have to ask this question, you are not ready to do professional-level work.

CO

You could rent first to figure out which lens you'll need. Which lens did you use for the Oshkosh airshow? If you're photographing airshows you would want a lens even longer than the 70-200mm. I've been impressed with LensRentals.com. There are others that are good also.

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

Another option, would be Nikon 300mm f/4 & nikon 1.4 tc. I jut put this package togeher. I'n not saying it's as good as your considerations, but is considerably lighter....age restriction for me.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Prime lens. :)

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Based on the gear you own and your type of photography, you are right, there are two primary choices with two alternates.

The Sony 70-400mm G (I & II) is one of the SHARPEST lenses in the class. EXCELLENT optics. It will serve you extremely well for your plane in flight images and with your "Smart Teleconverter" function an optical T.C. is completely unnecessary.

The Sony Zeiss 24-70mm is another outstanding lens, especially on the A77. It will be very useful for static, ground images of aircraft on the flight line and even medium to low wide angle crowd shots. It too is crystal clear, and has a beautiful rendering of almost ever thing you photograph. I have not tried the II version, but it is supposed to be even better than the original.

The Sony 70-200mm G was a good lens, but it did not perform up to the standards of other lenses in that category. But the new 70-200mm G II actually DOES address all of the shortcomings of the original, and IS one of the best in class. Of course, it is also the most expensive... so I can't give you a recommendation because of that fact. You would be better off with the original G or the Tamron mark II version for much, much less.

Finally, take a look at the Sony Zeiss 85 mm prime. It is the best lens ever tested on your camera... just totally outstanding image quality under ALL photographic conditions. Again, great for static shots and closeups on the flight line.

GOOD LUCK!

bugguy Loc: midwest

Cholly, like you I am a Sony fan and have read many of your posts and generally agree with you. However you stated that a T.C. would not be neccessary with the "Smart Teleconverter" function. This is true only if you shoot in one of the jpeg modes. This option is not available if you are shooting in raw. I did use ST recently at a football game and was very impressed. As far as the 24-70ii I would like to read some actual user reveiws since I did read some comparison charts of both the 24-70 and 16-35 version i vs ii and in some categories the version i outperformed the updated ii. Cholly have you shot with the 70-200ii? The user reviews that I have read basically stated the biggest difference between it and the orginal was focus speed (ii was quicker) and on paper the only difference was some nano coatings. Please take this as a less experienced Alpa guy asking a more experienced one your opinion. Way too many wars and pi..... contests on this site lately. Oh and I agree with what you stated regarding the Sony Zeiss 85mm prime. It takes a stunning pic. I even use it for indoor basketball pics.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

PlanePics, I'm also a Sony shooter with an a77 and an a77ii and many lenses (I've honestly lost count, but I think about two dozen now.) I agree with Cholly about the 70-400. I have the original, and I can't say enough good about it. It is a bit heavy so be prepared to use a pod, but f4 at 70mm to f5.6 at 400, is pretty fast for a lens in that range.

If you haven't yet, I suggest you go to www.dyxum.com. The site is dedicated to Sony-mount lenses, including Minolta Maxxum-era lenses, from most manufacturers. Users review & rate the lenses, and cumulative scores are provided that give a pretty good indication of a lens' quality, and the site provides user image samples categorized by lens as well as links to professional reviews. You are sure to find what you're looking for there!

BTW I saw many of your pics in another recent thread. Whether you are asking questions or not, you are taking professional-level photographs despite what some dumbass commented.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

Thank to the posters who wrote constructive comments. I think I will try to rent the 70-400 II, though I'm not sure when (it'd be about 1/2 of a paycheck for 5 days, including shipping). Airshow season is pretty much over, but there are some bird habitats and state parks within a couple hours drive of me to try it out on wildlife. When buying a lens, are used ones generally safe? Should I only use someone like B&H? I've never bought used glass, but it could save me a bunch. OOPS, I didn't see the time. I'm late for church!!

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I bought my 70-400 (Mark 1) from a seller on Amazon. Shipped, I paid $1100, and it came with a 30-day warranty plus it was handled by Amazon, meaning I had Amazon's excellent customer protection. I have no complaints about the lens.

All but about five of my lenses I bought used on eBay. Two times I got one with a defect and simply sent it back for a full refund. eBay and PayPal are very good about protecting purchases if it comes down to a dispute.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I just switched from Canon to Sony A77 II. My main lens is the Sigma 100-300 f4 and using 1.1-2X Clear Image Zoom. IT is a GREAT lens !- IF you can find one in Sony mount - mine was $520 and came from Japan.

My other lenses? - Tamron SP 28-105 f2.8 and Tamron SP 20-40 f2.7-3.5.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I've read only good things about that lens, as well as the Tokina counterpart. Sigma does make some very nice lenses. My walk-around lens is an 18-250 Sigma macro which replaced my Sony 18-135 for more reach. I think the IQ is just as good, though I haven't done an official comparison. Sometimes when looking through old photos I come across one I thought must have been taken with my Sony G lens, only to be surprised when the exif shows the sigma.

I'm curious - what Canon did you jump from?