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

Another nice one Trevor.

I was thinking of giving a 28mm a go (I have 3) as it's a long time since I've used one but it's raining and even if it wasn't I've photographed everything in the house and garden from every angle in the last few weeks.
 
Last edited:
First shot here with the 55 f1.8.


The pain of decay by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Not convinced by it yet, especially as it's not a budget lens. The AF is generally good, and it's very sharp & contrasty in the centre, but the OOF areas aren't particularly smooth and it doesn't render especially nicely (damn, I'm getting fussy these days - a couple of years ago I'd have loved this). OTOH it is nicely compact and light, though too big to fit in the clamshell case of the Samyang 45 (and it's a lot crisper than that lens, as it should be!).
 
I don't find the bokeh unusually bad. Cats eyes and onions don't bother me as much as with the 85mm (cats eye.) What you do get I don't find all that bad. I do remember reading reviews which said it has nice bokeh. It's never going to be a f1.4 though.

The first time I tried it I was amazed at the quality across the frame. That doesn't guarantee a smooth bokeh look and may work against you and a faster fall off may help, but it is what it is.

This is one I always remember taking and liking but it's f4 not f1.8. Just a quick snap as we sat on a bench, not working fountain in the background.

BcrlxtQ.jpg
 
woof woof said:
I don't find the bokeh unusually bad.
Click to expand...

In the above example the OOF areas are a long way behind your wife, but in the shot about the OOF areas are much closer and the transition isn't pleasing.
 
My point is that I don't think it's particularity bad and much of the time I wouldn't be at f1.8 so the characteristics of it stopped down also need looking at.

Your shot, personally that would probably not be a shot I'd look at again but maybe because of the processing. Which goes to show that it is difficult posting examples as it's all opinion and someone will always disagree.

Care to post more examples you think are poor? It'd be best if we could compare examples at the same aperture from different lenses. I only have two modern 50's, the Sony 55 and Voigtlander 50mm f2. I suppose there may be comparisons on the net somewhere and maybe that's what to look at to help you to make your mind up. I'd advise not judging too quickly. It takes me a long time to get to know a lens as I need to take a lot of pictures of different subjects with different compositions and distances and of course at different apertures.

I think the 55mm has probably been designed more for across the frame sharpness than bokeh quality, I could be wrong but that's how I feel. Even so I don't think it's a bad lens. I think it's very good if you want a smallish 50-ish lens that's relatively good/excellent across the frame.

Good luck with it.
 
Toni, I've just thought of something...

Have you looked at the Sigma 45mm f2.8?

OK it's f2.8 not f1.x but it was designed to give nice bokeh and has had some good reviews for bokeh.

One drawback could be that there have been reports of poor af tracking and that may well be as a result of the nice bokeh biased design.

It's a lens I read up on some time ago and it does look interesting and it's a different approach to the maybe more common approaches of huge f1.4's and super sharp lenses.
 
ancient_mariner said:
First shot here with the 55 f1.8.


The pain of decay by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Not convinced by it yet, especially as it's not a budget lens. The AF is generally good, and it's very sharp & contrasty in the centre, but the OOF areas aren't particularly smooth and it doesn't render especially nicely (damn, I'm getting fussy these days - a couple of years ago I'd have loved this). OTOH it is nicely compact and light, though too big to fit in the clamshell case of the Samyang 45 (and it's a lot crisper than that lens, as it should be!).
Click to expand...
My 45mm is pretty sharp tbh, but I’ve heard the 55mm is crazy sharp. I’m still on the fence about the 55mm from images I’ve seen, rendering’s not as pleasing as other lenses.
 
snerkler said:
My 45mm is pretty sharp tbh, but I’ve heard the 55mm is crazy sharp. I’m still on the fence about the 55mm from images I’ve seen, rendering’s not as pleasing as other lenses.
Click to expand...

One thing which could affect the bokeh.

There are lenses which are sharp enough in the central area but with quite fast fall off. Those can be some of the best for people shots with nice bokeh but they can also maybe be criticised for having crap corners.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
One thing which could affect the bokeh.

There are lenses which are sharp enough in the central area but with quite fast fall off. Those can be some of the best for people shots with nice bokeh but they can also maybe be criticised for having crap corners.
Click to expand...
Thats why I don’t get caught up with sharpness, rendering is far more important to me
nandbytes said:
Better than the Z50/1.8 you had :p
Click to expand...
Not to me, the Z 50mm f1.8 S is lovely.
 
snerkler said:
Thats why I don’t get caught up with sharpness, rendering is far more important to me

Not to me, the Z 50mm f1.8 S is lovely.
Click to expand...

Didn't someone say that lenses have been sharp enough for a long time now? But he didn't have an A7x and sharp modern lenses or a computer to pixel peep on.

Actually he was probably in the age before bokeh mattered.

Another thing that matters, what will fit on the camera and if you want AF and care about bulk and weight the list of possibilities gets shorter.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Didn't someone say that lenses have been sharp enough for a long time now? But he didn't have an A7x and sharp modern lenses or a computer to pixel peep on.

Actually he was probably in the age before bokeh mattered.

Another thing that matters, what will fit on the camera and if you want AF and care about bulk and weight the list of possibilities gets shorter.
Click to expand...
I've said it for a while now that most modern lenses are 'sharp enough' (y)
nandbytes said:
I suggest spending the money on Specsavers first :D
Click to expand...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that ;) I really like the rendering and pop from the 50mm f1.8G and Z 50mm f1.8 S (y)
 
Managed a woodland walk this morning! Not very photo productive as I've just plugged the A7 in & it's still on 96% battery :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Also after 3 days of trying managed to get the Escort to start! A mate of mine passed away a few weeks ago. 37 years old :( He was an old neighbour of mine (lives a few doors down from the ex/my kids) & he's always been into the old Fords & used to navigate with another mate in various Mk2 Escort rally cars over the years. His funeral is tomorrow & his wish was for all the old cars to follow the hearse from the house seeing as we can't do much else at the moment.
 
ancient_mariner said:
First shot here with the 55 f1.8.


The pain of decay by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Not convinced by it yet, especially as it's not a budget lens. The AF is generally good, and it's very sharp & contrasty in the centre, but the OOF areas aren't particularly smooth and it doesn't render especially nicely (damn, I'm getting fussy these days - a couple of years ago I'd have loved this). OTOH it is nicely compact and light, though too big to fit in the clamshell case of the Samyang 45 (and it's a lot crisper than that lens, as it should be!).
Click to expand...

I love the little 55mm yep it doesn't render as nice as some other lenses and a lot of that isn't just to do with the lens itself according to a review I read on it when I bought mine. The review said that as the lens is an older model now one thing they were looking at intensely at the time was in camera correction, and they went way overboard with this lens because they wanted to show what they can do, this meant that the lens lost a little bit of character you can't even switch of in camera corrections for this lens. Before anyone says that it doesn't affect raw files, it absolutely does according to that review and they went into that in a quite a lot of detail. They used some sort of software to extract the real raw file from the ARW file and there was quite a lot of difference between the 2.

The lens is clinical but that doesn't mean bad, it actually means technically great, it's one of the sharpest lenses in the system even now.

Personally I like mine, it's is very sharp, the a.f is nice and fast and it's very light weight and small. Something else I read somewhere about this lens was quite interesting as well apparently because of the 55mm focal length it has the same light transmission as a 50mm f/1.4. There was a complicated explanation for this I can't remember the details. But in basic terms it gathers the same amount of light as the Planar.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
50ZA is better still :p
Click to expand...


The Sigma art 50mm is a better lens than the planar, in my opinion, I tried them both, sent the planar back because the Sigma was better then sent the Sigma back because for a 50mm it's too heavy.There is nothing special about that background, its actually a bit busy, the 55 may well have done a better job with that with it being slightly longer.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The Sigma art 50mm is a better lens than the planar, in my opinion, I tried them both, sent the planar back because the Sigma was better then sent the Sigma back because for a 50mm it's too heavy.There is nothing special about that background, its actually a bit busy, the 55 may well have done a better job with that with it being slightly longer.
Click to expand...

That isn't at 1.4

p.s. I had the Sigma too.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
I love the little 55mm yep it doesn't render as nice as some other lenses and a lot of that isn't just to do with the lens itself according to a review I read on it when I bought mine. The review said that as the lens is an older model now one thing they were looking at intensely at the time was in camera correction, and they went way overboard with this lens because they wanted to show what they can do, this meant that the lens lost a little bit of character you can't even switch of in camera corrections for this lens. Before anyone says that it doesn't affect raw files, it absolutely does according to that review and they went into that in a quite a lot of detail. They used some sort of software to extract the real raw file from the ARW file and there was quite a lot of difference between the 2.

The lens is clinical but that doesn't mean bad, it actually means technically great, it's one of the sharpest lenses in the system even now.

Personally I like mine, it's is very sharp, the a.f is nice and fast and it's very light weight and small. Something else I read somewhere about this lens was quite interesting as well apparently because of the 55mm focal length it has the same light transmission as a 50mm f/1.4. There was a complicated explanation for this I can't remember the details. But in basic terms it gathers the same amount of light as the Planar.
Click to expand...

Yup, again here about the 90 and how C1 avoids it... actually a very interesting site for close up stuff. Sigma 70 looks a much better buy if you dont need the additional FL... that printing Nikkor though :p

https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-test-2020/
 
Last edited:
Interesting how the conversation has gone.

The 55 isn't a bad lens - sharpness is extremely high, and the AF gives a very fast an accurate lock on a face when the camera finds one. It renders areas of low contrast OK when OOF bust struggles with high contrast and also has quite a bit of CA, though nothing like my Sony 50 f1.4. As said already, it's an older design using a conservatively sized set of elements and works as intended. If I were to compare it with other 50s I've had then it's of MUCH higher sharpness than either Nikon 50 f1.8 D or G, but the rendering is a little less pleasing than either of them. It's also sharper than the Sammy 50 f1.4 but the rendering is a long way behind at wide apertures with more CA, and compared to the old Sony 50 f1.4 it's also much sharper and doesn't have the coma that lens suffers (which also gives a beautiful rendering to OOF areas - wish this lens was native mount).

It's a good (expensive) general purpose lens, and I'll use it as such.
 
That looks like a lens I'd like, an older lens, but I'm not sure the bokeh would get a lot of fans in this thread but foliage can be a torture test.

How about the Sigma 45mm f2.8? I remember you had a slight interest in it?

Some of my older lenses can be nervous? messy? at wide apertures and with some subjects and sometimes I prefer the look they give stopped down.
 
twist said:
Backing up what snerks said about the Nikon lens rendering nicer than the sz 55. Tbh, like @f/2.8 I also prefer the sigma... Its heavy though... Much bigger than a 55.
Click to expand...
That’s why I like the Sammy 45mm, renders nicely and is small and light. Doesn’t feel great quality but I guess that goes a long way to explain why it’s light.
 
woof woof said:
That looks like a lens I'd like, an older lens, but I'm not sure the bokeh would get a lot of fans in this thread but foliage can be a torture test.

How about the Sigma 45mm f2.8? I remember you had a slight interest in it?

Some of my older lenses can be nervous? messy? at wide apertures and with some subjects and sometimes I prefer the look they give stopped down.
Click to expand...

That's the Sammy 45 f1.8 last weekend. :)

I was interested in the Sigma, but wanted a faster aperture and it seems a bit pricey for what it is. In the end I found it really difficult to get over the aperture/price barrier, and the images I looked at from reviewers didn't overcome that.
 
twist said:
Backing up what snerks said about the Nikon lens rendering nicer than the sz 55. Tbh, like @f/2.8 I also prefer the sigma... Its heavy though... Much bigger than a 55.
Click to expand...

If the Sigma 50 had been smaller and lighter I'd have bought that instead. As it was I very nearly went for a new Sammy 50 f1.4 (Amazon had a deal £349 including dock) but the size/weight issue was the same plus it's not the best lens when it comes to focussing though still usable.

TBH I think that the Sony SEL50 f1.8 renders quite acceptably, but the focussing system is made of faeces.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If the Sigma 50 had been smaller and lighter I'd have bought that instead. As it was I very nearly went for a new Sammy 50 f1.4 (Amazon had a deal £349 including dock) but the size/weight issue was the same plus it's not the best lens when it comes to focussing though still usable.

TBH I think that the Sony SEL50 f1.8 renders quite acceptably, but the focussing system is made of faeces.
Click to expand...

It's so frustrating isn't it?

I'd probably have gone for that and the 50mm macro too.
 
woof woof said:
I think your processing got me there, it looks like an older lens shot.
Click to expand...

It's only the colours, plus backing off clarity a little. I've not done anything to the actual rendering different from what I normally do to smooth things out. There's lots of detail in the small area that's in focus, but the micro-contrast doen't try to poke you in the eye.

The picture I posted with the 55 was processed like that to give a feeling of pain & discomfort - the lenses rendering brought out all the fine textures and cracks in the wood, and emphasised the feeling. Normally I'm looking for smooth, rather than crunchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top