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

Camera physics is weird.

50s can be quite small, Canon do a 40mm pancake but the 35mms tend to be fairly large.
 
woof woof said:
Don't both Canon and Nikon do quite compact (more so than the Sony 35mm f1.4) 35mm f2/1.8 FF lenses?

f2 would be close enough and if it's more towards the bulk of the 35mm f2.8 than the f1.4 it could grab my interest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nikon do the 35/2, its not very good and the other reason its so small is because its body motor driven, Nikons D7xxx upwards all have motors built in to drive lenses without AF motors. To get a better idea of what the Sony version would be like the dimensions I supplied would be more accurate.
 
JYC said:
Camera physics is weird.

50s can be quite small, Canon do a 40mm pancake but the 35mms tend to be fairly large.
Click to expand...

Canon do a 40mm f2.8 APSC pancake. But yeah, there are some standout small lenses, as you say, camera physics can be weird.
 
twist said:
Yeah, Nikon do the 35/2, its not very good and the other reason its so small is because its body motor driven, Nikons D7xxx upwards all have motors built in to drive lenses without AF motors. To get a better idea of what the Sony version would be like the dimensions I supplied would be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Canon's 35mm f2 doesn't need a motor in the body and it seems to have its fans. It looks relatively fat... but I'm pretty convinced that a more compact 35mm f1.8/2 could be made (there are quite compact 28 and 50mm lenses so I don't see why 35 is a particular issue) if there was the will to do it. Maybe there isn't. Maybe one day in the far future there'll be one from Sony, Tamron or Sigma but until then the Sony f1.4 is too bulky for me to consider it and the f2.8 only lacks one thing, the bit faster aperture.
 
Last edited:
Thought it was FF, but it has been a long long time since I had a Canon body :)
 
I think Sony are heading in the right direction at present, exciting times a head :)
 
woof woof said:
Canon's 35mm f2 doesn't need a motor in the body and it seems to have its fans. It looks relatively fat... but I'm pretty convinced that a more compact 35mm f1.8/2 could be made (there are quite compact 28 and 50mm lenses so I don't see why 35 is a particular issue) if there was the will to do it. Maybe there isn't. Maybe one day in the far future there'll be one from Sony, Tamron or Sigma but until then the Sony f1.4 is too bulky for me to consider it and the f2.8 only lacks one thing, the bit faster aperture.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as you know, Sonys probably not going to put their name on a lens with that kind of IQ / AF or build, all that good stuff adds bulk. Every lens has fans somewhere. The optics have to match the image circle so you can only ever go so small.
 
twist said:
Yeah, but as you know, Sonys probably not going to put their name on a lens with that kind of IQ / AF or build, all that good stuff adds bulk. Every lens has fans somewhere. The optics have to match the image circle so you can only ever go so small.
Click to expand...
No, as I've said so often... they seem to be aiming for quality and quality often means bulk and weight. Even Sigma and Tamron seem to be heading upmarket. Damn those camera phones!
 
Rizvan said:
I think Sony are heading in the right direction at present, exciting times a head :)
Click to expand...

I was thinking earlier than one exciting direction is AF with manual lenses and indeed the whole adapt a lens to your body thing. If we assume that adapters are in their infancy and will get better I wonder what performance will be like with old manual lenses and adapted AF lenses in a few years time. One advantage that could give is that we'd keep our lenses no matter what body we switch to.
 
Last edited:
I played with the new leica sl and I must say that the ergonomics where awful and easy slip and drop if you had moisture hands.

Its built like a tank though and has a superb view finder
 
woof woof said:
I was thinking earlier than one exciting direction is AF with manual lenses and indeed the whole adapt a lens to your body thing. If was assume that adapters are in their infancy and will get better I wonder what performance will be like with old manual lenses and adapted AF lenses in a few years time. One advantage that could give is that we'd keep our lenses no matter what body we switch to.
Click to expand...

Old lenses wont get better in terms of IQ unless theres hardcore processing / software correcting the flaws. They just arent like new lenses.

It would be good but I dont think that the manufacturers would all team up and provide AF protocols for every one of their lenses to a common adapter manufacturer, then the camera has to read the elecs. Otherwise they wouldve all used the same mount on interchangeable systems. Can you imagine though, any lens made with native AF speed on a chosen camera, would be sweet.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Old lenses wont get better in terms of IQ unless theres hardcore processing / software correcting the flaws. They just arent like new lenses.

It would be good but I dont think that the manufacturers would all team up and provide AF protocols for every one of their lenses to a common adapter manufacturer. Otherwise they wouldve all used the same mount on interchangeable systems.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that my old lenses can give very good quality. In the central part of the image some of my old mass market lenses have shocked me with how sharp they are and it's really only towards the edges and when looking at non sharpness things like vignetting and fringing that they fall way behind modern lenses and to be honest some of these things just wont matter to normal people in a full image either on screen or in print.

And that's without considering why we'd use an old lens, the look lenses can give. As I've said before my Minolta 50mm f1.2 is (probably... technically) crap but it does give a nice look.
 
woof woof said:
He's not complaining about the time it's taking to lock focus in that second shot is he?
Click to expand...
he as in me ;) nope wasnt complaining lol

i quite like it but would have been better of course if me and the watch was all in focus. see how thin f4 is?
 
jonneymendoza said:
he as in me ;) nope wasnt complaining lol

i quite like it but would have been better of course if me and the watch was all in focus. see how thin f4 is?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's something that some forget. The modern trend seems to be to have very thin DoF, but personally more often than not I like to get the head in the DoF and that can mean a surprisingly not wide aperture :D

You make a good model! :D
 
Could increase the camera to subject distance as well if you want more dof. With such a tight shot you are always going to struggle to get the whole frame in focus.
 
It wasnt me who shot that.

When i was shooting her i wanted shallow DOF not more DOF but when she shot me she forgot to adjust accordingly
 
owenb said:
yep I know mate.... if hes using studio strobes without hss thought you need a nd filter or am I missing the point here? Lol
Click to expand...

Yes, you need an ND for LESS DOF not more. Stopping down will do what the ND is supposed to.
 
I actually like the limited dof of the watch shot, accentuates the watch and time issue and makes it nice and moody.
 
i dont think sony really wants todo a compact 35mm, because they have the rx1
the old minolta 28mm i have is small and lovely feel, the 35mm apsc plastic fantastic is nice, but i dont know how big the circle really is

but 40mm is much better imo, 43mm(!) filter thread, 197g gets you a voightlander 40mm 1.4, with the curved focus tab

the 35mm 1.4 sony is 72mm filter, and 630g
 
heard rumours of an a5 series being released in july could be interesting to see if it is full frame or not....................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top