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

Indeed, and if we get a nice compact 35mm f1.8 it'd be almost as if they've been reading this thread.

And if they are reading... can we have one before April please as that's when me and my 35mm f1.8 would be in Thailand.
 
Last edited:
^^^ haha :)

A 35/1.8 wouldn't be an issue cost wise as it would replace both the FE35/2.8 & my Voigtlander 40/1.4 which I do tend to interchange a little [mainly for AF vs MF]

I should use the 35/2.8 a lot more really as although it is only f/2.8 it is IMO more then good enough to use wide open. The CV40/1.4 really needs to be at f/2 to be really sharp & avoid some defects ;)
 
I'd be interested in a 35mm 1.8. I currently use the sigma 35mm 1.4 but sometimes too heavy to use.

IMO I would love to see a 200mm F2 /F2.8 lens prime
 
...... and I am sorry I sold my 35mm when I bought the 16-35, it is an excellent lens, but so big!
 
Although I'd love a 35mm f1.8 the charm of the f2.8, besides it being a very good lens, is its compactness. If any future f1.8 is significantly larger it'll mean losing that compactness and using a different bag. As I've mentioned before, my A7 and 35mm f2.8 fits in the same bag my Panasonic GX80 and 17mm f1.8 fits in and I'll be very sorry to give up that compactness.
 
woof woof said:
Although I'd love a 35mm f1.8 the charm of the f2.8, besides it being a very good lens, is its compactness. If any future f1.8 is significantly larger it'll mean losing that compactness and using a different bag. As I've mentioned before, my A7 and 35mm f2.8 fits in the same bag my Panasonic GX80 and 17mm f1.8 fits in and I'll be very sorry to give up that compactness.
Click to expand...

How close can the 2.8 focus? I'd still like something that can get pretty close and blur out some of the background.
 
addicknchips said:
How close can the 2.8 focus? I'd still like something that can get pretty close and blur out some of the background.
Click to expand...

Minimum Focus Distance = 0.35m which coupled to f2.8 doesn't give a lot of scope to get a lot of separation. These are all f2.8 and I couldn't blur out the overhead cables behind...







I have some close focus filters so I'll have to give them a try with the 35mm one day, they're a faff on though.
 
morning guys. has anyone used the 28mm f2? seems to get decent reviews but am wondering if anyone here has any experience with it?

thanks
 
woof woof said:
Minimum Focus Distance = 0.35m which coupled to f2.8 doesn't give a lot of scope to get a lot of separation. These are all f2.8 and I couldn't blur out the overhead cables behind...







I have some close focus filters so I'll have to give them a try with the 35mm one day, they're a faff on though.
Click to expand...
Which do you prefer Alan,your 35 or 55?
 
Without wishing to fudge the answer I think it depends on the use and subject. There are times when I want a 35mm and others when I prefer a 50mm but to be honest when I do want a 50mm I mostly reach for a Rokkor.

If we're talking just these two AF lenses, I use the 35mm f2.8 more. The Rokkors give a more... arty look :D
 
thanks Alan,just bought a

Used Minolta MF 50mm F2 MC-Rokkor-PF MD Lens from harrisons £20 del 12 months warranty
 
That's a 50mm I've never tried. I've had a Minolta f1.7 and now have the f1.2 and f1.4.

I'll look forward to seeing your shots.
 
Pics to follow, but just come back from a trip to Lanzarote and the Bokina is every bit as good as people say it is... a joy to use, pin sharp and incredible bokeh. Also quite a bit of purple fringing in strong light, but hey - this is in England, we don't get that ;)
 
I was in town today and spotted a 5DII in a Cash Converters window. Looking at it now after not having a Canon DSLR for years it looked big, fat, primative and actually something that belongs in a museum.
 
woof woof said:
I was in town today and spotted a 5DII in a Cash Converters window. Looking at it now after not having a Canon DSLR for years it looked big, fat, primative and actually something that belongs in a museum.
Click to expand...

should post this in a canon thread for a laugh :popcorn:
 
hehe.

It's a while since I've seen a dslr up close, seen people carrying them but seeing one again up close I was surprised how big and how dated to looked to me. It didn't even have a lens.
 
woof woof said:
I was in town today and spotted a 5DII in a Cash Converters window. Looking at it now after not having a Canon DSLR for years it looked big, fat, primative and actually something that belongs in a museum.
Click to expand...
Well Tech moves on at quite a pace. I really remember loving my 5D Classic the first 35mm FF digital body which was about 12MP and images like butta. I remember at the time all the Nikon fanboys poo-pooing FF now a lot of CaNikon lovers detest Mirrorless but over time Tech moves on and at a pace I can't afford to keep up with, so we tend to make beds for ourselves and get on with what we've got/can afford at the time and of course what we decide to invest in is obviously the Dogs B*ll*cks surely <LOL>
 
I had a 20D for over 7 years then moved toa 5D but growing up with film I always disliked the extra bulk and weight of dslr's and it was to save bulk and weight that I went mirrorless. The mirrorless cameras I have now are more or less the same bulk as the film cameras I had but of course they're heavier as they're full of stuff whereas film cameras are mostly empty boxes.

Time does move on, I was comparing some 5D and Panasonic mft shots the other day and I think the mft shots are technically better. ok a modern 5D IV or whatever the latest thing is may be better than my MFT cameras but for higher quality I have my MFT sized A7.

And the Canon crowd will become CSC converts the minute Canon has a serious contender.
 
I wanted to post this as I used a preset from the Thomas Fitzgerald sony raw develop ebook and I have to say i prefer his to my effort :) what do you think? less saturation predominantly isn't it?

DSC00517-1 by Chris B, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Which do you think is more natural and matches what you saw and which do you think looks better?
 
I agree with what Alan is saying, however I think the first photo looks really good. The second looks to dark and doesn't display the same bite in the detail.
 
Last edited:
I think the 2nd one looks more natural but i also like the 1st one's look too lol.
The 2nd one looks a bit more moody too.
 
Last edited:
Im wondering also if it could be that i have my mac brightness fully up so the 2nd one looks better to me.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I think the 2nd one looks more natural but i also like the 1st one's look too lol.
The 2nd one looks a bit more moody too.
Click to expand...
This is what constantly goes through my mind, do I accurately record reality or do I make an artistic choice to do something else. Actually what I sometimes do is save two images, one accurate and one artistic, just for me.

It is IMO one of the good things about photography and being an amateur gives one the freedom to choose.
 
I know its a bit sad but working my way through this thread,on page 17 at moment.whats interesting is reading peoples excitement and expectation on the release and waiting for delivery then trying it out etc.picking up some good tips,only another 200 or so pages to go lol
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I know its a bit sad but working my way through this thread,on page 17 at moment.whats interesting is reading peoples excitement and expectation on the release and waiting for delivery then trying it out etc.picking up some good tips,only another 200 or so pages to go lol
Click to expand...

An interesting read, I'm sure. Just wait until you get to the Fuji and Nikon chapters..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top