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

jonneymendoza said:
Ffs I said I won't buy anymore gear this year. f*** you sigma
Click to expand...

Looking at the rumor looks like they are releasing the lens for canon EF and Nikon F too. So the Sony version is just a DSLR version of the left with a permanent adapter stuck to it. Its not a lens designed for mirrorless unlike their APS-C mirrorless lenses (30mm/1.4 and 16mm/1.4).

f*** you sigma indeed, I have no interest in buying DSLR lenses for mirrorless bodies :P
 
nandbytes said:
Looking at the rumor looks like they are releasing the lens for canon EF and Nikon F too. So the Sony version is just a DSLR version of the left with a permanent adapter stuck to it. Its not a lens designed for mirrorless unlike their APS-C mirrorless lenses (30mm/1.4 and 16mm/1.4).

f*** you sigma indeed, I have no interest in buying DSLR lenses for mirrorless bodies :p
Click to expand...

Would be a huge shame if thats all they end up doing.
 
nandbytes said:
So what other stuff is there left to shoot? :D
Click to expand...

It's a bummer as 99% of my shots are of twigs at f1.4 and the other 1% are bottom left side corner blow ups of pebbles at 200% :(

At f5 the blurred corner is about 150 x 150 pixels and if you tighten your acceptance criteria maybe 300 pixels so I doubt anyone but us obsessive geeks will notice in a whole picture, see the red box...

1-DSC09422.jpg

1-DSC09422-c.jpg

This is a similar crop from the Sony 35mm f2.8.

2-DSC09426.jpg

Voigtlander at f8.

f8-DSC09423.jpg

I think this lens is going to draw a lot of criticism, I think it's good.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the update - but surely to do an accurate sharpness comparison from each corner of the lens the surface being photographed would need to be perpendicular to the lens?


S
U
R
F <-------|FRONT OF LENS
A
C
E

Also was it performed on a tripod - I'm not accusing anyone of having Parkinsons or anything but every little helps ;)
 
Last edited:
I wasn't looking for sharpness as such rather performance throughout the frame and into the corners as this lens has been criticised for corner performance so I just wanted to see what they'd look like in (a sort of) normal picture and of course I rarely shoot stuff face on and dead flat :D If I was doing that and wanted the best results I think I'd use a longer lens and maybe a macro.

Yes the pebbles are yards from the point of focus (the middle of the picture) and the camera is angled downward and it's all wrong for a bench test but IMO this is more real world.

YMMV and probably will.

I've shot a brick wall with the Voigtlander but I haven't done a side to size comparison of a brick wall against the Sony 35mm f2.8 but I expect that the result would still be that the Sony is better in the corners, maybe the Voigtlander is a little sharper in the central area at f2.8.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Looking at the rumor looks like they are releasing the lens for canon EF and Nikon F too. So the Sony version is just a DSLR version of the left with a permanent adapter stuck to it. Its not a lens designed for mirrorless unlike their APS-C mirrorless lenses (30mm/1.4 and 16mm/1.4).

f*** you sigma indeed, I have no interest in buying DSLR lenses for mirrorless bodies :P
Click to expand...
That's pretty much how all the gm lenses are like
 
woof woof said:
Just in case anyone is interested in the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

I've been pixel peeping for two hours and have decided it's about as good in the corners at f8 as the Sony 35mm f2.8.

:D
Click to expand...

Watched the huff review on YouTube. it’s not a lens for me. Bokeh looked a little all over the place wide open. A mix of oval and hexagon shapes
 
jonneymendoza said:
That's pretty much how all the gm lenses are like
Click to expand...

Nope, GM lenses are designed specifically for FE mirrorless ;)
But if you mean they are DSLR-like in size and weight then yes.
However Sony has designed the GM lenses from day one to meet the needs of future sensor technology / resolutions etc.
As these new sensors come out, we may see the GM lenses show their true colours.
 
addicknchips said:
Watched the huff review on YouTube. it’s not a lens for me. Bokeh looked a little all over the place wide open. A mix of oval and hexagon shapes
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it and can't see it on his site or on you tube, got a link?

Specular highlights are not something I'm going to worry too much about, it is what it is and the positives way outweigh the negatives for me until something better comes along :D

Test shots at f1.4 looking for blooming, CA, how it does on brighter objects, backlit etc.

DSC09407.jpg

DSC09408.jpg

DSC09415.jpg

DSC09416.jpg

DSC09418.jpg
 
DSC09469.jpg

DSC09492.jpg

DSC09551-V-f1-4.jpg

DSC09522.jpg

Certainly sharp at f1.4 in the central area, but may not look as sharp here as it does on my screen.

s-DSC09439.jpg

I'll have a look at bokeh balls when I get the time and subject but for this week until Friday I'll have no time to myself at all.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
my mistake - i was thinking of the 40mm
Click to expand...

Ah, I think the FE 40mm is excellent, one of the best lenses I've ever had the pleasure to use :D but it's big and heavy and this 35mm isn't. The 40mm is more of an all rounder though and suits me for walk about stuff.
 
woof woof said:
Ah, I think the FE 40mm is excellent, one of the best lenses I've ever had the pleasure to use :D but it's big and heavy and this 35mm isn't. The 40mm is more of an all rounder though and suits me for walk about stuff.
Click to expand...

I've just re-watched the video - the 40mm f1.2
 
nandbytes said:
I disagree, while most of them bar 16-35mm and 100-400mm are DSLR size they were designed for mirrorless bodies. It's not like they permanently stuck an adapter on an a-mount version of the lens.
Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence that Sigma are simply going to permanently stick an adapter on another mount version of this (yet to be announced) lens.

Why would they bother doing that when they could not bother with an FE mount lens and just tell people to buy the MC-11 adapter?
 
chrism_scotland said:
I don't see any evidence that Sigma are simply going to permanently stick an adapter on another mount version of this (yet to be announced) lens.

Why would they bother doing that when they could not bother with an FE mount lens and just tell people to buy the MC-11 adapter?
Click to expand...

I don't know and that puzzles me too. Unless they are not adding any more lenses via. Firmware updates for new lenses.

Currently it's just all something I picked up from the rumour. If you believe the rumour that sigma is going to announce 105mm for Sony FE then why not believe the part that implies/says it's just a DSLR version with permanent adapter stuck to it.
 
nandbytes said:
I don't know and that puzzles me too. Unless they are not adding any more lenses via. Firmware updates for new lenses.

Currently it's just all something I picked up from the rumour. If you believe the rumour that sigma is going to announce 105mm for Sony FE then why not believe the part that implies/says it's just a DSLR version with permanent adapter stuck to it.
Click to expand...

I guess the issue of physics still applies so if people want fast FF glass, the lens still needs to be as big so maybe it makes sense to use existing designs (with updated, ‘native’ firmware) and a physical spacer built in. Look at the new Tamron lens. Before it’s even officially announced, some people on here have written it off because it’s ‘only’ 28-75 but it appears to be smaller than existing GM lenses that are 24mm at their widest. The alternative would be for Tamron to take their existing 24-70 and bolt a spacer onto it.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I don't see any evidence that Sigma are simply going to permanently stick an adapter on another mount version of this (yet to be announced) lens.

Why would they bother doing that when they could not bother with an FE mount lens and just tell people to buy the MC-11 adapter?
Click to expand...

It could be that they can optimise the AF by implementing it specifically for FE, rather than have the MC-11 'translate' between FE protocols and EOS.
- Once the lens is released in both formats, as comparison of the two options will be possible, which may give the answer.
Another benefit could be mechanical - you remove the MC-11 / Lens link, making the whole assembly stronger (and simpler).
They may also feel that users are more likely to buy a lens which is apparently 'native'.
 
Ron_like_dat said:
Are the A7/A9 mirror less cameras? Are they better than standard DSLRs?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are mirrorless.
Are they are better then 'standard' DSLRs - there are advantages, and disadvantages to mirrorless compared to a DSLR - since this is a thread for those who own / want an A7/A9, most here will tell you the advantages outweigh the disadvantages :)

They are 'Full Frame' cameras, so you will want large and expensive lenses to take full advantage of all they can offer (the same would be true of a full frame DSLR).
 
Faldrax said:
It could be that they can optimise the AF by implementing it specifically for FE, rather than have the MC-11 'translate' between FE protocols and EOS.
- Once the lens is released in both formats, as comparison of the two options will be possible, which may give the answer.
Another benefit could be mechanical - you remove the MC-11 / Lens link, making the whole assembly stronger (and simpler).
They may also feel that users are more likely to buy a lens which is apparently 'native'.
Click to expand...


Possibly but reading the articles on SAR there isn't a single mention of an adaptor?
 
stevelmx5 said:
I guess the issue of physics still applies so if people want fast FF glass, the lens still needs to be as big so maybe it makes sense to use existing designs (with updated, ‘native’ firmware) and a physical spacer built in. Look at the new Tamron lens. Before it’s even officially announced, some people on here have written it off because it’s ‘only’ 28-75 but it appears to be smaller than existing GM lenses that are 24mm at their widest. The alternative would be for Tamron to take their existing 24-70 and bolt a spacer onto it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it had to be pancake size. I am well aware that such lens will be large mirrorless or DSLR. But a mirrorless design could perhaps look at eliminating the hollow 26mm tube that will be there to simply make up the flange distance.
 
nandbytes said:
I didn't say it had to be pancake size. I am well aware that such lens will be large mirrorless or DSLR. But a mirrorless design could perhaps look at eliminating the hollow 26mm tube that will be there to simply make up the flange distance.
Click to expand...

I'm no lens designer but I'd imagine Sony would have already managed to do that if they could. The GM lenses are as big as (or lager) than equivalent CaNikon lenses;

jONKA8P.jpg


The only way to make the lenses smaller is to slow them down (e.g. F4) or limit their focal range (e.g. 28-75 instead of 24-70). The image above shows how much smaller the FE 24-70/4 is than the FE 24-70/2.8.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I'm no lens designer but I'd imagine Sony would have already managed to do that if they could. The GM lenses are as big as (or lager) than equivalent CaNikon lenses;

jONKA8P.jpg


The only way to make the lenses smaller is to slow them down (e.g. F4) or limit their focal range (e.g. 28-75 instead of 24-70). The image above shows how much smaller the FE 24-70/4 is than the FE 24-70/2.8.
Click to expand...

Yes they are as big but the flange of Sony e-mount is ~26mm shorter. So there is still that advantage. The overall length of your set up is still 26mm shorter. Now if sigma simply puts a hollow 26mm tube at the end of their lens to convert it for e-mount then it'll be 26mm longer than DSLR version and hence loses that smaller flange advantage.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Possibly but reading the articles on SAR there isn't a single mention of an adaptor?
Click to expand...

They mean that you could use an existing Canon version of the Sigma lens and their MC11 adaptor to get the same end result. This 'new' FE lens from Sigma could just be the same Canon version with the technology from the MC11 embedded into the body instead.
 
stevelmx5 said:
They mean that you could use an existing Canon version of the Sigma lens and their MC11 adaptor to get the same end result. This 'new' FE lens from Sigma could just be the same Canon version with the technology from the MC11 embedded into the body instead.
Click to expand...

More than likely or just hollow. Aka Samyangs earlier attempts, dslr lenses.
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
Possibly but reading the articles on SAR there isn't a single mention of an adaptor?
Click to expand...

The MC-11 does 2 things
1) Physically moves the lens to the correct distance from the sensor and provide an E Mount fitting
2) 'Translate' Sony AF commands to EOS (or Sigma) commands (and vice versa, for the responses).

They MAY have simply eliminated the need for an MC-11 by extending the lens body (a purely mechanical exercise), and putting the circuit board from an MC-11 in this extra space
OR they may have replaced the circuit board from an EOS mount lens with one that 'natively' talks Sony AF.

I would imagine it should also be possible to design a lens which had a different rear element, so did not need to be as far from the sensor, and so could be a bit shorter, but that would increase the testing / design costs, so seems less likely!
 
nandbytes said:
Yes they are as big but the flange of Sony e-mount is ~26mm shorter. So there is still that advantage. The overall length of your set up is still 26mm shorter. Now if sigma simply puts a hollow 26mm tube at the end of their lens to convert it for e-mount then it'll be 26mm longer than DSLR version and hence loses that smaller flange advantage.
Click to expand...

But Sony can't mount the same optical construction 26mm closer to the body because of the physics involved in covering the full sensor (image circle).
 
stevelmx5 said:
But Sony can't mount the same optical construction 26mm closer to the body because of the physics involved in covering the full sensor (image circle).
Click to expand...
Well I would make that judgement based on one lens. For example GM85 is the 107mm Vs new 85L/1.4 which is 105mm. Sony is only 2mm longer in this case, not 26mm.
So I think if lenses are designed specially for mirrorless they can still largely retain the benefits of smaller flange. And in case of UWA lenses they be even smaller compared to DSLR equivalents.
 
nandbytes said:
Well I would make that judgement based on one lens. For example GM85 is the 107mm Vs new 85L/1.4 which is 105mm. Sony is only 2mm longer in this case, not 26mm.
So I think if lenses are designed specially for mirrorless they can still largely retain the benefits of smaller flange. And in case of UWA lenses they be even smaller compared to DSLR equivalents.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the size of the bodies;

upload_2018-2-26_16-28-18.png

Sony GM 85/1.4 - 107.5mm Long (Flange depth 18mm) - Theoretical lens length to sensor - 125.5mm
Nikon 85/1.4G - 84mm Long (Flange depth 46.5mm) - Theoretical lens length to sensor - 130.5mm
Canon 85/1.4L - 105.4mm Long (Flange depth 44mm) - Theoretical lens length to sensor - 149.5mm

I know that optical physics isn't a simple addition, but if you imagine the lens being a tube that extends from the sensor to the front element you can see that the Sony is already the shortest lens. However, as the body is so thin with a much shorter flange depth, the lenses will always look bigger.

If you look at the 3 cameras above, you can see where their sensors are positioned by the marker on the top plate. If the Sony sensor was moved back by 28.5mm to align with the Nikon and the lens mount was kept in the same place, the Sony lens would (theoretically at least) be 28.5mm shorter which brings it down to 79mm. My point is that you probably can't make the lenses any smaller and retain the same aperture/focal length.
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
The MC-11 does 2 things
1) Physically moves the lens to the correct distance from the sensor and provide an E Mount fitting
2) 'Translate' Sony AF commands to EOS (or Sigma) commands (and vice versa, for the responses).

They MAY have simply eliminated the need for an MC-11 by extending the lens body (a purely mechanical exercise), and putting the circuit board from an MC-11 in this extra space
OR they may have replaced the circuit board from an EOS mount lens with one that 'natively' talks Sony AF.

I would imagine it should also be possible to design a lens which had a different rear element, so did not need to be as far from the sensor, and so could be a bit shorter, but that would increase the testing / design costs, so seems less likely!
Click to expand...
But they said they be making e mount lenses from the ground up else if they simply slapped on a built-in mc 11.they would have released e mount lenses ages ago
 
stevelmx5 said:
Ignoring the size of the bodies;

View attachment 121053

Sony GM 85/1.4 - 107.5mm Long
Nikon 85/1.4G - 84mm Long
Canon 85/1.4L - 105.4mm Long

Considering the flange depth for the Nikon mount is the longest of all current manufacturers at 46.5mm, they can still make their entire lens 23mm shorter than Sony's lens. Maybe Nikon should be designing lenses for Sony ;0)

If you look at the 3 cameras above, you can see where their sensors are positioned by the marker on the top plate. If the Sony sensor was moved back by 28.5mm to align with the Nikon and the lens mount was kept in the same place, the Sony lens would (theoretically at least) be 28.5mm shorter which brings it down to 79mm. My point is that you probably can't make the lenses any smaller and retain the same aperture/focal length.
Click to expand...

Yeah but isn't Nikon's lens older (design) like canon 85mm f/1.2 and unlike GM and new L lens. Canon 85mm/1.2 is about same size as Nikon 85mm/1.4.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top