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

My thoughts exactly. They need to be pricing lower than the competition, not higher (let alone much higher)

The 50mm although half the price of the 55mm is still loads more than the equivalents as well.
 
I'd agree, over-priced, the Sony FE70-300 G should have come in cheaper than the 70-200mm f4 imo, I'd still get the 70-200mm f4 and crop, I'm sure it'll still be better than the 70-300mm at the 300mm end!
 
Rizvan said:
I'd agree, over-priced, the Sony FE70-300 G should have come in cheaper than the 70-200mm f4 imo, I'd still get the 70-200mm f4 and crop, I'm sure it'll still be better than the 70-300mm at the 300mm end!
Click to expand...

Yeah, tbh, they could've rather made the 1.4x TC compatible with the 70-200 f4 instead of just the GM... but why would they do that when they can release a £1150 lens to give you the extra 100mm.
 
twist said:
Yeah, tbh, they could've rather made the 1.4x TC compatible with the 70-200 f4 instead of just the GM... but why would they do that when they can release a £1150 lens to give you the extra 100mm.
Click to expand...
Correct, make no mistake, Sony is out to make money..... honestly, having used the FE70-200mm f4 and doing extreme crops, it will be as good if not better than the FE70-300mm G in my opinion.
 
Thinking of joining the club. Answer me a simple question please. a7 with more budget for lenses or fork out more for the a7ii?
 
depends if the ibis is useful or you want to use canon lenses ?
 
tlcmcr said:
Thinking of joining the club. Answer me a simple question please. a7 with more budget for lenses or fork out more for the a7ii?
Click to expand...
Having owned both the A7 and A7II, I'd probably go for the A7 and put the rest towards good glass.
With the A7, you will lose IBIS, uncompressed RAW, improved ergonomics and marginally poorer AF.
 
Rizvan said:
Having owned both the A7 and A7II, I'd probably go for the A7 and put the rest towards good glass.
With the A7, you will lose IBIS, uncompressed RAW, improved ergonomics and marginally poorer AF.
Click to expand...


And pdaf with 3rd party. The rest won't even buy another lens.
 
woof woof said:
You're right, these aren't really the same. Fuji don't make one the same but they do make expensive slow APS-C zooms yet you're here critisising Sony. Again.

Several of the usuals seem to make premium expensive slow zooms. The new Sony looks to be expensive but not outlandishly so in this company and I'd rather drop the "slow" critisism as several manufacturers seem to make expensive slow zooms and hope that the performance is equal to or better than the similar slow lenses from the competition and also that the price looks reasonable once we know how it performs and what the street price is 6 months to a year from now.
Click to expand...

Did I say they didn't sell slow zooms? As @twist pointed out the 55-200 isn't fast but its £466 new UK which is fairly comparable to similar speed lenses from say Nikon or Canon (I'm not comparing v Tamron/Sigma as Fuji are not a third party), and frankly as someone who's tried most of the current mirrorless market I think I'm entirely within my rights to criticise Fuji, Sony, Nikon or any of the kit I've tried. Indeed it appears that most people's opinion is that its overpriced and expensive, its not exactly like I'm coming in here saying buy something else its better, I'm not, just pointing out the facts.
 
Quick question guys. Got to do an internal shot of a factory on Monday, they want a wide angle view of the shop floor, that I will probably do from a cherry picker. Would you use the panorama preset, or take individual and stitch together? My post skills are not huge so looking for the best way to do it.
I will be using the 16-35 Zeiss on a R2. I know I can cover the area in 3 shots at 16mm.

Thanks in advance.....
 
16mm is wide tbh should have you well covered without pano if not do you know how to stitch shots?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Did I say they didn't sell slow zooms?
Click to expand...

No, but what you did is criticised Sony for doing what multiple other manufacturers are doing... making premium variable aperture zooms.

Yes, the Sony is at the expensive end on day one but after six months or a year the price may drop to Canon L slow and expensive variable aperture zoom money.

It all hangs on if the lens is any good, if it isn't then it's a rip off but if it's as good or better than the premium zooms from other manufacturers I'm sure there'll be a queue round the block. Lets wait and see.
 
The issue I've got is there's an assumption that because it's got a letter G on it, it's 'premium'. As a photographer, I'd pay more for a lens, body or accessory if it actually delivered a better result overall but light is light and a slow variable aperture is never going to be anything but that.

I'm sure it will be sharp because it's not very fast but I could also buy the 70-200 F4 and stop it down to 5.6 then crop to 300mm. I'm sure the result will be just as sharp but I'll still have the option of shooting at F4 instead which is a 'premium'.

Realistically, it's an average spec lens at a ridiculous price but I'm sure some people will still lap it up.
 
My FE70-200 f4 G OSS is plenty sharp enough when cropping :) proper nice lens.
 
owenb said:
depends if the ibis is useful or you want to use canon lenses ?
Click to expand...

Can you explain this to me as a sony newbie please. I do have access to a selection of canon EF and EFS lenses. I'd need an adapter either way right? Metabones am I right in saying?
 
tlcmcr said:
Can you explain this to me as a sony newbie please. I do have access to a selection of canon EF and EFS lenses. I'd need an adapter either way right? Metabones am I right in saying?
Click to expand...
If you want to use canon glass then in my opinion you need the mkiii it makes use of pdaf focus and is a lot faster.to focus with the Canon glass another advantage is that the ibis also stabilises the Canon glass
 
woof woof said:
No, but what you did is criticised Sony for doing what multiple other manufacturers are doing... making premium variable aperture zooms.

Yes, the Sony is at the expensive end on day one but after six months or a year the price may drop to Canon L slow and expensive variable aperture zoom money.

It all hangs on if the lens is any good, if it isn't then it's a rip off but if it's as good or better than the premium zooms from other manufacturers I'm sure there'll be a queue round the block. Lets wait and see.
Click to expand...

Alright Alan but do you think that the best option for Sony was to make a really expensive, so called 'premium', slow zoom, or should they have come out with a regular, cheaper one first? I am astounded that they did not put out the reasonably priced one before going with a £1150 f4-5.6 zoom if they want people to adopt their system.

After all Canon, who do the £800 L zoom, have one that is £400 and you can buy the compatible Tamron for £250, alongside the ridiculous price one.
 
twist said:
Where do you get your pricing? The newer vrii of that lens is only 400 odd quid BRAND new, The vr1 was never 700 quid!

The older g lens is like 100 quid at most.
Click to expand...

At a guess, he was looking at the wrong lens. I bet it's the 1 series range of lens, for the Nikon. That lens is meant to be excellent and gives you FL equivalent of 189mm > 810mm which puts it in the same type of bracket as the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm super zooms. A bit different to compare against the FF version 70-300mm lenses being discussed. How a slow lens can be defended for this price seems strange IMO, you could have the excellent 300mm f4 primes cheaper for Canon and Nikon mounts over Sony's 70-300mm.
 
JYC said:
Alright Alan but do you think that...

...Canon, who do the £800 L zoom, have one that is £400 and you can buy the compatible Tamron for £250, alongside the ridiculous price one.
Click to expand...

Here we go with the costs again... :D Just buy the Tamron and be happy... I paid more than that for my Canon 70-300mm which was optically average and mechanically poor and I'll be amazed if that Tamron gives comparable image quality to the new Sony but lets wait for the reviews.

My things were computers, electronics and compliance not marketing. I'd imagine that Sony have had a good hard look at strategy and marketing and they've decided the direction they want to go in and it seems to be towards a higher end system. Their company, their money, good luck to them. Having said that there is evidence that they're willing to adapt and change direction a little too, as per the cheaper 50mm and lossless files etc.

I think I'll bow out of this discussion as you and others will see me as a Sony apologist whereas I just see myself as adding a little balance to the same old Sony are too expensive and I can buy something else for less argument we go through every few pages in this thread. Fine, go buy something else. That's what I did when I splashed out just under £1k on kit recently.

Swanseajack said:
At a guess, he was looking at the wrong lens. I bet it's the 1 series range of lens, for the Nikon. That lens is meant to be excellent and gives you FL equivalent of 189mm > 810mm which puts it in the same type of bracket as the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm super zooms. A bit different to compare against the FF version 70-300mm lenses being discussed. How a slow lens can be defended for this price seems strange IMO, you could have the excellent 300mm f4 primes cheaper for Canon and Nikon mounts over Sony's 70-300mm.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about me these's no need to guess as I gave model numbers. My point was that other companies make expensive slow lenses, and they're sometimes not even FF. Also you have to try and remember that the Sony hasn't even hit the shops yet. Prices on day 1 are usually higher than they are a few months to a year later but here we are obsessed with a Sony announcement of high end slow zoom costing over £1k before there are any reviews. If it's a very high quality lens maybe it'll be worth the money, if the street price drops maybe it'll be even more worth it.

Patience grasshoppers.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Here we go with the costs again... :D Just buy the Tamron and be happy... I paid more than that for my Canon 70-300mm which was optically average and mechanically poor and I'll be amazed if that Tamron gives comparable image quality to the new Sony but lets wait for the reviews.

My things were computers, electronics and compliance not marketing. I'd imagine that Sony have had a good hard look at strategy and marketing and they've decided the direction they want to go in and it seems to be towards a higher end system. Their company, their money, good luck to them. Having said that there is evidence that they're willing to adapt and change direction a little too, as per the cheaper 50mm and lossless files etc.

I think I'll bow out of this discussion as you and others will see me as a Sony apologist whereas I just see myself as adding a little balance to the same old Sony are too expensive and I can buy something else for less argument we go through every few pages in this thread. Fine, go buy something else. That's what I did when I splashed out just under £1k on kit recently.



If you're talking about me these's no need to guess as I gave model numbers. My point was that other companies make expensive slow lenses, and they're sometimes not even FF. Also you have to try and remember that the Sony hasn't even hit the shops yet. Prices on day 1 are usually higher than they are a few months to a year later but here we are obsessed with a Sony announcement of high end slow zoom costing over £1k before there are any reviews. If it's a very high quality lens maybe it'll be worth the money, if the street price drops maybe it'll be even more worth it.

Patience grasshoppers.
Click to expand...

Yes I was talking about you. I was pointing out, I thought you quoted the wrong lens. The lens you pointed out was for a different system and not FF compatible like the other lenses being mentioned.. Alan I can't understand why you are unable to see that this Sony lens is way over priced, even if it's good or not when released, when you compare it to other manufactures.

IIRC you only purchased your first native prime lens last year which is a good while after the A7 release and your purchase, and I guess, that the lenses were too expensive?........... You have been crying out for cheaper lenses and with Sony releasing a 70-300mm slow lens for £1149.00 is IMO taking the p*** of it's customers.

All my opinion, who has used longer lenses across different manufactures.
 
Last edited:
Yes it's expensive but what I can't really understand is why people are bleating so much as if this is the first expensive slow zoom when other systems have them too and have done for years. Is the Canon L slow zoom way over priced? Must be because you can get a Tanron for $90. How much was the L on announcement day? (I don't want to know but I'd guess it was more than todays price.) Is the new Leica zoom over priced? The Sony falls waaaaaay below the Leica and looks a bargain next to it but I bet Leica sell every one they make.

No, it's not really a cost thing with me and cost is not the reason it took me a while to buy native primes as luckily I'm rolling in it. I retired at 49 with more money than I'll ever spend :D So no. I don't really make decisions on the actual cost alone but that doesn't mean I don't care as there is a limit that my conscience wont let me exceeed.

I can't remember how long it took me to buy a native prime, the 55mm f1.8, because I was using manual lenses. I mainly bought the AF primes to speed things up when I'm not by myself but with other people. My GF used to shoot a lot with her iphone but she's pretty much stopped now and instead asks me to shoot stuff so faffing about with MF lenses has become an issue although I will still use them when I get time to myself.

Anyway, I said I don't want to carry on with this and I don't but I would ask for a bit less headless chicken and a bit more objectivity. Flame the lens if you must but please wait until we know more and perhsps wait and see what the price is a while down the road, if it's better than the L but a bit more expensive then as far as I care it'll be well done Sony but if it's no better than a £200 third party zoom and the price is still high I'll happily grab my pitch fork and flame with the mob. OK?

First look and some samples, Steve Huff...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/...s-from-the-sony-70-300-f4-5-f5-6-oss-fe-lens/
 
Last edited:
My point wasn't down to the sharpness of the lens or its AF speed because I'd expect those to be a given. My issue is, being a photographer that isn't "considerably richer than you..." I don't see how anyone can see a £1k variable aperture lens as being good value for money! By all means go and spend over a grand for a slow lens.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
My point wasn't down to the sharpness of the lens or its AF speed because I'd expect those to be a given. My issue is, being a photographer that isn't "considerably richer than you..." I don't see how anyone can see a £1k variable aperture lens as being good value for money! By all means go and spend over a grand for a slow lens.
Click to expand...
I agree, get the FE70-200mm f4 G OSS ;)
 
stevelmx5 said:
My point wasn't down to the sharpness of the lens or its AF speed because I'd expect those to be a given. My issue is, being a photographer that isn't "considerably richer than you..." I don't see how anyone can see a £1k variable aperture lens as being good value for money! By all means go and spend over a grand for a slow lens.
Click to expand...
Where on earth did I say it was good value for money?

I almost certainly will not be buying the lens as I like compact primes and a 70-300mm isn't. I wonder if you and the other funsuckers :) are so vocal with your objections in the Canon et al threads? Or maybe in the Fuji thread as they've just brought out a £1,300 APS-C body. That's a total rip off as you can get a Nikon DSLR for a fraction of that. The Fuji should be... what? £200 quid... tops? :D Choice is nice and we can all buy something else and please don't aim any more comments directly at me as I do want to move on from this.

I get your point, I do, you think it's overpriced and slow but I just think you and the other critics of a lens none of us have tried yet are being too selective (lots of companies make expensive slow lenses) in your critisism and too premature (you don't know how good or bad or average it is yet.)

Great pictures there. I'll post some when we get back from our little mini holiday.
 
Last edited:
@stevelmx5 pmsl

article-2260386-16DCA922000005DC-657_634x376.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Where on earth did I say it was good value for money?
Click to expand...

"..if it's better than the L but a bit more expensive then as far as I care it'll be well done Sony"

Like you say, it's not worth carrying on because I'm not going to be spending £1k on any lens at the moment, let alone this one. I don't post similar comments in the CaNikon threads because I don't own a CaNikon anymore, I own Sony kit.

As for being too selective in my criticism, the aperture range is a fact of the lens. Sony might drop the price by a few hundred quid eventually but it's still going to be slow. As for the Fuji kit, yes I agree that £1300 is a lot for an Aps-C body but as I don't shoot Fuji is less interest to me.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
"..if it's better than the L but a bit more expensive then as far as I care it'll be well done Sony"

Like you say, it's not worth carrying on because I'm not going to be spending £1k on any lens at the moment, let alone this one. I don't post similar comments in the CaNikon threads because I don't own a CaNikon anymore, I own Sony kit.

As for being too selective in my criticism, the aperture range is a fact of the lens. Sony might drop the price by a few hundred quid eventually but it's still going to be slow. As for the Fuji kit, yes I agree that £1300 is a lot for an Aps-C body but as I don't shoot Fuji is less interest to me.
Click to expand...

But at the same time it's 1300 for apsc (with a better system roadmap) than 2600 quid.
 
I must admit if sony had fuji lenses and fuji had sony bodies that would be a killer system!
 
owenb said:
16mm is wide tbh should have you well covered without pano if not do you know how to stitch shots?
Click to expand...

Not stitched any before, I have CC , just not had the time to do much more than the basic tweaks that are needed. Any tips?
 
stevelmx5 said:
"..if it's better than the L but a bit more expensive then as far as I care it'll be well done Sony"

Like you say, it's not worth carrying on because I'm not going to be spending £1k on any lens at the moment, let alone this one. I don't post similar comments in the CaNikon threads because I don't own a CaNikon anymore, I own Sony kit.

As for being too selective in my criticism, the aperture range is a fact of the lens. Sony might drop the price by a few hundred quid eventually but it's still going to be slow. As for the Fuji kit, yes I agree that £1300 is a lot for an Aps-C body but as I don't shoot Fuji is less interest to me.
Click to expand...

Fuji - It may be a lot for an APS-C body but I'm sure it'll be a big seller. The market seems to be heading for the premium end with Oly, Panny, Fuji, Leica and Sony and probably more I haven't mentioned. My most used camera over the last few years is still my G1, which I think I paid about £120 for and is currently worth about 2p :D
 
owenb said:
I must admit if sony had fuji lenses and fuji had sony bodies that would be a killer system!
Click to expand...

The thing I like most about the Fuji's is the manual dials, you can keep the rest :D but it's probably too late for Sony to go down that route.

I would like a camera with manual aperture, shutter, ISO and compo dials.
 
pastyman said:
Not stitched any before, I have CC , just not had the time to do much more than the basic tweaks that are needed. Any tips?
Click to expand...

I have a tip... make sure you get a good overlap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top