The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

The main thing for me with these faster cheaper lenses compared with decent ones like a G lens, is by the time you've stopped them down to remove any of the IQ issues and get decent sharpness, you may as well just use the G lens wide open. Plus you get the extra benefits of faster, more accurate AF, maybe a focus hold button, better weather sealing, accurate apertures, etc
 
I think the optical quality is good enough for me. I don't know if the locking and the calling up of the magnified view are actual faults or things which might be fixed with a firmware update but whatever the reason for these things the lens is unusable for me. Actually if these things didn't happen I'd still have the suspicion that there's something wrong with the aperture settings and once something like this gets stuck in my head I can't live with it. If I am right and the apertures are not correct and I have to say that I trust Sony and Voigtlander more than the makers of any of the Chinese lenses I've had and I also trust the evidence of my own eyes, so if I am right then this is more damning to me than the AF and MF assist issue as the aperture is only maths... Why get it wrong? I haven't tried to measure the aperture as the differences between f2 and the small steps to f2.5 aren't that big really and it'd be easy to make a mistake in measuring so I'd rather use the methodology I did and look at the DoF and the more obvious difference in bokeh ball size when taken at the same setting and distance. I believe my own eyes and I think something is off here at f2 and possibly also the intermediate settings to f2.5.

I think I've learned my lesson now, no more Chinese lenses.

Looking at my Sony and Voigtlander lenses I've only ever found one suspicious aperture and it was only at one aperture setting and even then it wasn't too far out. I can't remember what lens it was or what the aperture was as it wasn't too bad to bother about. I do wonder how the Sony f2.5 would perform if the same optical formula was kept and it was opened up to f2. I wonder how bad it'd be?

That's three things I've bought recently and all are going back. Sometimes I don't like being a geek and Mrs WW constantly tells me that I'm the only one who'll complain and no one else cares but then again being a geek paid for my retirement at 49, so, swings and roundabouts.
 
Last edited:
F2 to 2.5 on 40mm at 1m is about 2cm of dof - 9 vs 7cm. Which is a bit, but I’d think mostly only noticeable in a controlled test?

That said if the lens didn’t give you what you want makes sense for it to go back. And the other problems sound far worse. A shame as I’ve been considering something small with an aperture ring and it was on the list.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
If you put "40's woman in train station in sepia" it's done a great job!


If you put "Walrus on iceberg it's failed dismally".
Click to expand...
Not far off, 40's lady at a theatre ;)
 
the_accidental said:
F2 to 2.5 on 40mm at 1m is about 2cm of dof - 9 vs 7cm. Which is a bit, but I’d think mostly only noticeable in a controlled test?

That said if the lens didn’t give you what you want makes sense for it to go back. And the other problems sound far worse. A shame as I’ve been considering something small with an aperture ring and it was on the list.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd consider any cheap lenses anymore, and I've not personally tried any! I pretty sure I would just get the decent kit now that I know will work and do what I want it to do.

I was going to say there's a 40G in LCE Bath waiting for you...... ;) but the more I think about it, it might have been a 24G.
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't think I'd consider any cheap lenses anymore, and I've not personally tried any! I pretty sure I would just get the decent kit now that I know will work and do what I want it to do.

I was going to say there's a 40G in LCE Bath waiting for you...... ;) but the more I think about it, it might have been a 24G.
Click to expand...
I keep saying I'm done with cheap lenses but I do keep contemplating getting the Samyang 45mm f1.8 again for the times I want a light prime lens, much nicer to carry around than the 50mm f1.2 ;)
 
the_accidental said:
F2 to 2.5 on 40mm at 1m is about 2cm of dof - 9 vs 7cm. Which is a bit, but I’d think mostly only noticeable in a controlled test?

That said if the lens didn’t give you what you want makes sense for it to go back. And the other problems sound far worse. A shame as I’ve been considering something small with an aperture ring and it was on the list.
Click to expand...

I thought something was off when I looked at the very first shot I took. Maybe I've spent too long looking at lenses in the 28 to 50mm range but to me the first f2 shot just did not look to be what I'd expect at 40mm and f2 and lead me to look a little closer. There should be a visible difference between f2 and f2.5 even if it's only noticeable in the size of bokeh balls.

The reason I bought the TTA was that I wanted a bit more separation than the Sony gives and 40mm at f2 should have a larger aperture than 35mm at f1.8 and I'm happy enough with that so I thought that the TTA at f2 should be enough but IMO something just isn't adding up with the TTA at f2 and possibly the next couple of clicks towards f2.8. As Mrs WW says, only I'd notice but once these things are seen they can be difficult to unsee. If you're me.
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't think I'd consider any cheap lenses anymore, and I've not personally tried any! I pretty sure I would just get the decent kit now that I know will work and do what I want it to do.

I was going to say there's a 40G in LCE Bath waiting for you...... ;) but the more I think about it, it might have been a 24G.
Click to expand...

If I wasn't obsessed with size and weight I'd probably get the 35mm GM and / or the 50mm f1.4. I do keep thinking about the Sigma 50mm f1.4 I had in my Canon DSLR days and of course the 50mm f1.4 and f1.2 MF lenses I've had/have.
 
Sootchucker said:
Well A7C II arrived today from Cotswold. Only 5 working days. Now to set it up like my A7RV and A6700.
Click to expand...
If you find you don’t like it, how difficult or otherwise will it be to sell an import camera? Am very tempted to buy a A7C2 instead of another X100VI and the grey price seems extra appealing, but I know my track record and despite trying my hardest to use it, like it and keep it, the ‘sell it’ demons will take over.
 
bl0at3r said:
If you find you don’t like it, how difficult or otherwise will it be to sell an import camera? Am very tempted to buy a A7C2 instead of another X100VI and the grey price seems extra appealing, but I know my track record and despite trying my hardest to use it, like it and keep it, the ‘sell it’ demons will take over.
Click to expand...
From my experience grey sell for around 10% less than the UK equivalent, however some shops don't notice/care and so will give the same price as UK.

bl0at3r said:
Today, I learnt this…

IMG_0485.jpeg

IMG_0485.jpeg

  • Media owner bl0at3r
  • Date added

IMG_0484.jpeg

IMG_0484.jpeg

  • Media owner bl0at3r
  • Date added

IMG_0486.jpeg

IMG_0486.jpeg

  • Media owner bl0at3r
  • Date added

Next, I need to learn what the smallest primes are with equivalent FL for the A7C2.
Click to expand...
The 23mm f/2 of the X100 equates to roughly 35mm f/2.8 in FF. The Samyang and Sony 35mm f2.8's are probably the smallest.

Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 07.20.14.jpg
 
I have a Samyang 35 f2.8 - the rendering is nice, sharpness OK especially if stopped down a little. Focus tends to be a little slow on my older A7III but still usable. The Sony version may be better.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I have a Samyang 35 f2.8 - the rendering is nice, sharpness OK especially if stopped down a little. Focus tends to be a little slow on my older A7III but still usable. The Sony version may be better.
Click to expand...
I’ve had both, the Sony is definitely better, sharper and better focus. I’m not sure it’s worth the cost though, and for me the Samyang is ‘good enough’. You’re never going to get great OOF areas with a lens like this so for me 99% of shooting would be at f8-11 anyway.

This is one of the reasons I’m enjoying using the RX1R II, you’ve got a small package which can, in the right situation, produce decent OOF areas with nice bokeh to boot.
 
The Sony 35mm f2.8 is a good lens, the 40mm f2.5 G is IMO better. The 24mm f2.8 G is IMO good after corrections and there's the 50mm f2.5 G which I haven't tried. The 28mm f2 is bigger but still quite small and noticeably smaller than the 35 and 55mm f1.8's, IMO it's in need of an update though but I suppose it's ok if you don't look at the far corners. Zoom wise the 28-60mm f4-5.6 is mini G sized and ok as a kit lens but I dont like the collapsible mechanism.
 
woof woof said:
The Sony 35mm f2.8 is a good lens, the 40mm f2.5 G is IMO better. The 24mm f2.8 G is IMO good after corrections and there's the 50mm f2.5 G which I haven't tried. The 28mm f2 is bigger but still quite small and noticeably smaller than the 35 and 55mm f1.8's, IMO it's in need of an update though but I suppose it's ok if you don't look at the far corners. Zoom wise the 28-60mm f4-5.6 is mini G sized and ok as a kit lens but I dont like the collapsible mechanism.
Click to expand...
The 40mm is bigger and heavier though, especially compared to the Samyang, although of course it's still a diminutive and light weight lens. The Sony with Samyang 35mm is still 100g heavier than the Fuji, although in all liklihood you'd add a grip to the Fuji which would make the weight very similar to the Sony. I wouldn't call any of these truly pocketable anyway so the extra bulk of the Sony setup is unlikely to make any impact.

Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 10.09.18.jpg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I’ve had both, the Sony is definitely better, sharper and better focus. I’m not sure it’s worth the cost though, and for me the Samyang is ‘good enough’. You’re never going to get great OOF areas with a lens like this so for me 99% of shooting would be at f8-11 anyway.

This is one of the reasons I’m enjoying using the RX1R II, you’ve got a small package which can, in the right situation, produce decent OOF areas with nice bokeh to boot.
Click to expand...
I've just gone back through my albums, it wasn't the 35mm Samyang I had, it was the 24mm f2.8 :facepalm: I've definitely had the Sony 35mm ZA though ;)
 
nog said:
Can give you a quick summary of Woof woof’s review now if you want :) :exit:
Click to expand...

It'll be a story of obsessive testing and nit picking followed by my brain quickly boiling over because of what could have been if only... leading to an hour long rant and Mrs WW saying "Calm down WW. No one else cares." It ends with me downloading a return label.
 
bl0at3r said:
Next, I need to learn what the smallest primes are with equivalent FL for the A7C2.
Click to expand...

I know this one cos I did the same move, though
from the original x100 to Cii. The answer is the Samyang 35/2.8, and I got one.

It’s better than every way than the x100 EXCEPT no aperture ring. It is a bit bigger and heavier but crucially for me fits in all the same jacket pockets or bags.

The difference in AF is so much it’s not even the same thing.

The Samyang might be “slow” but the AF is still night and day vs my x100 and for practical purposes the hit rate vs my small boy who won’t stay still is great.

Happy to answer questions as I’ve done similar.
 
the_accidental said:
I know this one cos I did the same move, though
from the original x100 to Cii. The answer is the Samyang 35/2.8, and I got one.

It’s better than every way than the x100 EXCEPT no aperture ring. It is a bit bigger and heavier but crucially for me fits in all the same jacket pockets or bags.

The difference in AF is so much it’s not even the same thing.

The Samyang might be “slow” but the AF is still night and day vs my x100 and for practical purposes the hit rate vs my small boy who won’t stay still is great.

Happy to answer questions as I’ve done similar.
Click to expand...
To be fair the difference in AF between the OG X100 and the Mark 6 is night and day, however from my brief experience the X100VI doesn't quite match the A7CII AF.
 
snerkler said:
To be fair the difference in AF between the OG X100 and the Mark 6 is night and day, however from my brief experience the X100VI doesn't quite match the A7CII AF.
Click to expand...
The issue with x100 series has always been the lens. They are slow focusing and optically compromised. No matter how much you improve the sensor tech, it's the weak link
 
nandbytes said:
The issue with x100 series has always been the lens. They are slow focusing and optically compromised. No matter how much you improve the sensor tech, it's the weak link
Click to expand...

The lens was significantly improved (new design) in the V and VI models. The X100F also had additional sharpening done in camera to improve output, but you are right, the original lens is definitely soft wide open, very noticable on close focus subjects
 
nandbytes said:
The issue with x100 series has always been the lens. They are slow focusing and optically compromised. No matter how much you improve the sensor tech, it's the weak link
Click to expand...
I don’t actually think the new lens is bad at all. When I compared the X100VI with my Sony I had to scrutinise at 1:1 to see the differences. Some of that of course will be the smaller sensor, which then means that the lens has caused very little degradation, if at all. The biggest ‘issue’ I had with the X100VI when comparing it to the RX1R II was the relative lack of depth which can be attributed to the APS-C vs FF sensor. If I hadn’t have had the RX1 I think I’d have been more than happy with the X100VI (y)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The lens was significantly improved (new design) in the V and VI models. The X100F also had additional sharpening done in camera to improve output, but you are right, the original lens is definitely soft wide open, very noticable on close focus subjects
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
I don’t actually think the new lens is bad at all. When I compared the X100VI with my Sony I had to scrutinise at 1:1 to see the differences. Some of that of course will be the smaller sensor, which then means that the lens has caused very little degradation, if at all. The biggest ‘issue’ I had with the X100VI when comparing it to the RX1R II was the relative lack of depth which can be attributed to the APS-C vs FF sensor. If I hadn’t have had the RX1 I think I’d have been more than happy with the X100VI (y)
Click to expand...

I had the X100v for a little while
It's certainly improved but still not up par for X100vi high res sensor wide open. Seems pretty sharp once stopped down but why buy a body with f2 lens to use at f2.8 in this day and age ;)

Plus they only updated the optics and left the AF as it is, so it's still slow. Any improvement you have is from sensor side, not lens side.
 
nandbytes said:
I had the X100v for a little while
It's certainly improved but still not up par for X100vi high res sensor wide open. Seems pretty sharp once stopped down but why buy a body with f2 lens to use at f2.8 in this day and age ;)

Plus they only updated the optics and left the AF as it is, so it's still slow. Any improvement you have is from sensor side, not lens side.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree.
 
I was sort of happy with the IQ of my X100's (s and f) and the lens was ok for me. OK it isn't a cutting edge lens but overall I was happy with the IQ from it. The main issue seemed to be soft images at close distance wide open but I don't often take pictures wide open at close distance so it wasn't an issue for me. I gave up because of focus misses and what I assume were metering choices as it seemed to sometimes blow areas my MFT cameras didn't. Also the IMO awful manual focus was I suppose a factor for me. All in all I decided it couldn't replace my MFT kit.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I had the X100v for a little while
It's certainly improved but still not up par for X100vi high res sensor wide open. Seems pretty sharp once stopped down but why buy a body with f2 lens to use at f2.8 in this day and age ;)

Plus they only updated the optics and left the AF as it is, so it's still slow. Any improvement you have is from sensor side, not lens side.
Click to expand...
I didn't do a lot of testing at f2 but it was certainly sharp enough in the centre for me. Bokeh's not the prettiest though, not bad but not as nice as the RX1R.
 
Thanks for your help with this.

I still really like the OVF of the X100 series and the built in ND filter and leaf shutter can’t be replicated, but I’m really impressed with the Sony images and the focus speed/accuracy would of course help in some situations.

Completely naive question, but is there a way to reproduce the various film sim recipes in LR Classic with Sony RAW or JPGs - can I still apply the Fuji ones?

I like these lenses for their size, but not sure I’d need all the FLs.

IMG_0488.jpeg

IMG_0488.jpeg

  • Media owner bl0at3r
  • Date added
 
Last edited:
@bl0at3r ........ you are doing your usual "getting carried away"...... you lust after cameras, buy one, then don't use it, get buyers remorse and then sell it on ... then repeat the exercise.

I would suggest slowing down a bit, go and handle the Sony in a store, make sure it is for you before investing (as unlike the X100's you have owned) you are likely to take a resale bath when you come to sell. You havd X100s at the right time not to lose money, this is unlikely to happen with the Sony (especially if you buy multiple lenses!!)

Just saying......... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top