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

decigallen said:
My wife sold her 1.4G for a 1.8G and loves it. Weight-wise it's a good fit with a D750. Would be well matched for a mirrorless body.

I don't get the concern with the look of the Sigma art lenses. I honestly don't care what a lens looks like, or any gear for that matter. Ergonomics is my first thought, weight is second. My concern with the Sigma Art is their weight. All the ones we own are beasts.
Click to expand...
The Sony 85 1.8 FE is an unbelievable lens for the £££. I've had almost every major 85 from the Canon 85 1.2 to the 1.4G Nikon and for the price I find the performance really unbelievable.

The Sigma range looks like they just bolted an MC-11 adapter on the DSLR versions of each model of lens so they will all be even bigger

When I changed I decided to go all native as I never wanted to ever have to tune a lens again haha

Having AF points as accurate at the far sides of the frame as all the centre points with the amazing eye AF and tracking abilities will blow you away (seeing how you frame your shots I think this will be huge for you guys)

You're more than welcome to come and try any of our equipment out before you switch over
 
snerkler said:
Don’t want to use adapted lenses and lose AF speed. The Tamron is a really nice lens tbh, and my 24-120mm is pretty good throughout. 28mm’s not wide enough for me for a general purpose lens.
Click to expand...

didn't think for UWA the speed is that important. Its nice but I am willing bet a penny or two Sony 100-400 on A7RII cropped to 18mp (to get 600mm equivalent) will be at least as good in terms of sharpness than 150-600mm on D750 ;) (though I believe there is a second version now? may be that's improved over the first especially wide open)
 
nandbytes said:
didn't think for UWA the speed is that important. Its nice but I am willing bet a penny or two Sony 100-400 on A7RII cropped to 18mp (to get 600mm equivalent) will be at least as good in terms of sharpness than 150-600mm on D750 ;)
Click to expand...

What’s the difference in price between the tamron and the gm?
 
chrism_scotland said:
Its exactly the issue with Sony current, the first party stuff is expensive as is most of the 3rd party stuff as its a bit more "specialist or high end" than the 3rd party stuff thats available for Canon/Nikon.

You can get a 24-70 Tamron for Nikon for less than £500 thats about 95% as good as the £1800 GM lens for Sony, hell even the Nikon 24-120 f4 is only £500 v £1200 for the Sony 24-105 f4.

Telephoto is exactly where the biggest issue is though, I'd love to see some of the Sigma and Tamron stuff in FE mount, the newer Tamron stuff is magnificent value and again about 99% as good as the much dearer Nikon, Canon options. Would sell in bucket loads as most people wouldn't be willing to pay the extortionate first party prices when a 70-200 f2.8 can be had for £1200 from Tamron.
Click to expand...

I agree 3rd party support is desperately lacking on Sony. Hopefully this will improve and we are already starting to see tamron, tokina and sigma dipping their feet. Hopefully the momentum will pick up now.

But don't get me started on nikon 24-120mm :P I'd rather buy Sony @ £1200 than buy the nikon even if it was £120 :D Its basically a 24-70mm and drops a lot in performance past that.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I'm lucky enough to be self-employed (IT/Project Contractor) but I don't think that'll last much longer with all the new rules they're looking to bring in.
Click to expand...

Me too :D and agree that things are looking bad for us, you considered umbrella?
What field are you in?
I’m in Storage & Backup. :)
 
nandbytes said:
didn't think for UWA the speed is that important. Its nice but I am willing bet a penny or two Sony 100-400 on A7RII cropped to 18mp (to get 600mm equivalent) will be at least as good in terms of sharpness than 150-600mm on D750 ;) (though I believe there is a second version now? may be that's improved over the first especially wide open)
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I quoted the price for the 70-400mm a mount, the 100-400mm is even more at £1700 grey :eek: I keep the Tamron to 550mm and below and IQ is pretty darn good imo, I'm more than happy with the results (y)
 
nandbytes said:
didn't think for UWA the speed is that important. Its nice but I am willing bet a penny or two Sony 100-400 on A7RII cropped to 18mp (to get 600mm equivalent) will be at least as good in terms of sharpness than 150-600mm on D750 ;) (though I believe there is a second version now? may be that's improved over the first especially wide open)
Click to expand...

When you mention 2nd version is there a 2nd version of the 70-200 f4 as I seen some
Site selling them with the focus screen
Some don’t
 
nandbytes said:
I agree 3rd party support is desperately lacking on Sony. Hopefully this will improve and we are already starting to see tamron, tokina and sigma dipping their feet. Hopefully the momentum will pick up now.

But don't get me started on nikon 24-120mm :p I'd rather buy Sony @ £1200 than buy the nikon even if it was £120 :D Its basically a 24-70mm and drops a lot in performance past that.
Click to expand...

Read a shed load of reviews on that lens and yours is one of the only negative ones to be fair.
 
nandbytes said:
I think some listed that in previous page, about 3 times-ish
Like i said I think its 3 times better also ;)
Click to expand...

No doubting which is better but the point was about cost. The tamron isn’t bad. It’s affordable and for most it’s hood enough. I’ve had some seriously sharp shots with it on a d810 and adapted to the r2
 
addicknchips said:
No doubting which is better but the point was about cost. The tamron isn’t bad. It’s affordable and for most it’s hood enough. I’ve had some seriously sharp shots with it on a d810 and adapted to the r2
Click to expand...
Stopped down to f8 it's actually pretty sharp, wide open not so much. But my experience is only with the first version from when I shot a-mount. I decided simply keep my 70-400mm.
 
Tom Green said:
Read a shed load of reviews on that lens and yours is one of the only negative ones to be fair.
Click to expand...

really did you read any non-subjective ones? ones with comparisons to canon/sigma 24-105mm f/4?

Let me post a couple:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/ - "Performance on the long end is problematic when used wide-open (ƒ/4) at either 70mm or 85mm. In particular, we see only a small area of central sharpness, surrounded by intense corner softness, upwards of 6-8 blur units."

dxomark field sharpness screenshots show the same

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 08.30.49.png Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 08.30.40.png

photozone - http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1

one more - https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr

When I talk about sharpness of such lenses I am mainly referring to wide open sharpness (f/4 in this case). Sure you get sharper images stopping it down to f/5.6-8 but then why would you buy a huge constant f/4 zoom for that... even my kit lens is sharp at f/8 :p

p.s. I have had this lens in the past and with current range of high res sensors you'd be better of with a sharp 24-70mm f/2.8 and cropping down to 105mm :p
or get the sigma art 24-105mm... after all one of the benefits of shooting canikon is you have 3rd options which are sometimes better ;)
 
Last edited:
So guys is there 2 different versions of Sony 70-200 F4
 
So some pictures are wrong then. For example WEX shows a focus window
 
Well just looked again it the wrong image lol
 
nandbytes said:
didn't think for UWA the speed is that important. Its nice but I am willing bet a penny or two Sony 100-400 on A7RII cropped to 18mp (to get 600mm equivalent) will be at least as good in terms of sharpness than 150-600mm on D750 ;) (though I believe there is a second version now? may be that's improved over the first especially wide open)
Click to expand...
Speed's not important for that, but wildlife and sports it is (y)
 
nandbytes said:
I agree 3rd party support is desperately lacking on Sony. Hopefully this will improve and we are already starting to see tamron, tokina and sigma dipping their feet. Hopefully the momentum will pick up now.

But don't get me started on nikon 24-120mm :p I'd rather buy Sony @ £1200 than buy the nikon even if it was £120 :D Its basically a 24-70mm and drops a lot in performance past that.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you had a duff 24-120mm then, unless you had the old f3.5-5.6?
 
nandbytes said:
really did you read any non-subjective ones? ones with comparisons to canon/sigma 24-105mm f/4?

Let me post a couple:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review/ - "Performance on the long end is problematic when used wide-open (ƒ/4) at either 70mm or 85mm. In particular, we see only a small area of central sharpness, surrounded by intense corner softness, upwards of 6-8 blur units."

dxomark field sharpness screenshots show the same

View attachment 121374 View attachment 121375

photozone - http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1

one more - https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr

When I talk about sharpness of such lenses I am mainly referring to wide open sharpness (f/4 in this case). Sure you get sharper images stopping it down to f/5.6-8 but then why would you buy a huge constant f/4 zoom for that... even my kit lens is sharp at f/8 :p

p.s. I have had this lens in the past and with current range of high res sensors you'd be better of with a sharp 24-70mm f/2.8 and cropping down to 105mm :p
or get the sigma art 24-105mm... after all one of the benefits of shooting canikon is you have 3rd options which are sometimes better ;)
Click to expand...

Most are really good and most real world use is very good as well. I suppose all lens with so much range are going to have downfalls.
 
snerkler said:
I'd suggest you had a duff 24-120mm then, unless you had the old f3.5-5.6?
Click to expand...
nope it was f4, its not a good lens. went through 2 copies too because i thought it' be as good as canon's equivalent. but no where close past 70mm.

Tom Green said:
Most are really good and most real world use is very good as well. I suppose all lens with so much range are going to have downfalls.
Click to expand...

you mean most subjective reviews with no real proof to back it up. ;)
"real world use" is very good with kit lens too :P
those kind of reviews are only good for getting an idea of how the lens handles, renders, colours, contrast, bokeh etc. for basic sharpness measure they are misleading.

the reviews i posted are some of the most well known sites for unbiased tests and they are all singing the same tune. if you choose not to believe them then that's up to you.

not all lenses, sony, sigma, canon 24-105mm are much better and actually usable past 70mm wide open.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
nope it was f4, its not a good lens. went through 2 copies too because i thought it' be as good as canon's equivalent. but no where close past 70mm.



you mean most subjective reviews with no real proof to back it up. ;)

the reviews i posted are some of the most well known sites for unbiased tests and they are all singing the same tune. if you choose not to believe them then that's up to you.

not all lenses, sony, sigma, canon 24-105mm are much better and actually usable past 70mm wide open.
Click to expand...

WELL I can vouch for the Canon 24-105 as I had that when I was in the canon Camp it was my most used lens and was a damn fine lens.. I have miss the days when I was in the canon camp.. But no going back lol.

What sony lens you got with your A7rii pal
 
nandbytes said:
nope it was f4, its not a good lens. went through 2 copies too because i thought it' be as good as canon's equivalent. but no where close past 70mm.



you mean most subjective reviews with no real proof to back it up. ;)
"real world use" is very good with kit lens too :p
those kind of reviews are only good for getting an idea of how the lens handles, renders, colours, contrast, bokeh etc. for basic sharpness measure they are misleading.

the reviews i posted are some of the most well known sites for unbiased tests and they are all singing the same tune. if you choose not to believe them then that's up to you.

not all lenses, sony, sigma, canon 24-105mm are much better and actually usable past 70mm wide open.
Click to expand...
Well I must have one of the few good copies then ;) Two 24-70mm f2.8's have been and gone whilst I've had my 24-120mm and I'm still happy with the lens (y)
 
nandbytes said:
I agree 3rd party support is desperately lacking on Sony. Hopefully this will improve and we are already starting to see tamron, tokina and sigma dipping their feet. Hopefully the momentum will pick up now.

But don't get me started on nikon 24-120mm :p I'd rather buy Sony @ £1200 than buy the nikon even if it was £120 :D Its basically a 24-70mm and drops a lot in performance past that.
Click to expand...

To be fair 3rd party support is better on Sony than for the other Mirror-less systems (Fuji / Oly / Panasonic) it doesn't really impact micro 4/3 though as Panasonic and Olympus have covered off between them just about anything you want, wide or long, cheap or expensive.

Have you used the Sony 24-105 yet? I have and didn't see any real difference compared to the Nikon 24-120 I've used in the past, in fact if it wasn't just f4 I think that would easily have been my Nikon lens of choice (Prefer a 24-70 f2.8 though). The Sony 24-105 seems great but the usual Sony caveat exists "if you get a good one". I've tried 2, one was great, one was terrible.

Riz_Guru said:
Me too :D and agree that things are looking bad for us, you considered umbrella?
What field are you in?
I’m in Storage & Backup. :)
Click to expand...

I've done a mix of things, did a lot of Property Move / IT Fit out for a well known government owned bank, a couple of years doing MI/Data (mainly defect management - was a tester before), and now working on Technology Transformation (Hardware Refresh, Office 365, Windows 10 rollout), I'm thinking about trying to specialise in the Microsoft Stuff actually, 365 and Azure seems to be where a lot of folk are going. I may consider umbrella, will wait and see what changes first!!

Tom Green said:
Read a shed load of reviews on that lens and yours is one of the only negative ones to be fair.
Click to expand...

Its a very good lens, more so when you consider you can usually get one for about £380 used...
 
rookies said:
WELL I can vouch for the Canon 24-105 as I had that when I was in the canon Camp it was my most used lens and was a damn fine lens.. I have miss the days when I was in the canon camp.. But no going back lol.

What sony lens you got with your A7rii pal
Click to expand...

Currently just FE 85mm f/1.8

Previously had sony zeiss 16-35mm, 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm and sony 24-240mm

chrism_scotland said:
Have you used the Sony 24-105 yet? I have and didn't see any real difference compared to the Nikon 24-120 I've used in the past, in fact if it wasn't just f4 I think that would easily have been my Nikon lens of choice (Prefer a 24-70 f2.8 though). The Sony 24-105 seems great but the usual Sony caveat exists "if you get a good one". I've tried 2, one was great, one was terrible.
Click to expand...

At the shop only... I wouldn't form opinion based on that. I liked how it handles is as far as I can say really.

From what I have read in passing its apparently the best 24-105mm available but can't say I have particularly looked into it.

chrism_scotland said:
Azure seems to be where a lot of folk are going. I may consider umbrella, will wait and see what changes first!!
Click to expand...

Currently trying to set up single sign-on for our services using Azure AD... god I hate Azure


chrism_scotland said:
Its a very good lens, more so when you consider you can usually get one for about £380 used...
Click to expand...


Looks like all the unbiased reviews disagrees with you all :p (at least past 70mm)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Currently just FE 85mm f/1.8

Previously had sony zeiss 16-35mm, 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm and sony 24-240mm
Click to expand...

Why did you sell them. Are you happy with just one prime?
 
rookies said:
Why did you sell them. Are you happy with just one prime?
Click to expand...

those are only the Sony lenses I listed I have other lenses but mostly manual primes.

sold them because of changing needs and also sometimes to fund GAS :D

No I need more than one native lens.
I am waiting to buy the new tamron 28-75mm/2.8 and a 35mm/1.4 (waiting for @addicknchips to sell me his)
 
Tom Green said:
I am not considering this as an option but just throwing it out there....

I wonder if a combo of A7II and A6500 would be better than one A7III :)
Click to expand...

Depends on your uses, I suspect the AF will be better on the A7 III than both the A7 II and A6500.
 
I think I want to swap my A7R for the A7iii.
Seems a brilliant all-rounder and change my 24-70 f4 for the 24-105 f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top