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

decigallen said:
Doing my first bit of editing the A7iii. I'm working a little harder than I normally do, but I think its a case of getting used to the colours and contrast and having edited nothing really but Nikon before. I remember that it took me about 6 months to properly adapt to the D4 after using the D700/D3s for years. The Sony files are closer to the D750 than the D700 was.

wl8AiBK.jpg


70rpgZZ.jpg
Click to expand...


I want to like this twice.is the 2nd photo in F/8?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I want to like this twice.is the 2nd photo in F/8?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Raymond - appreciate it. It was maybe as narrow as f14 if memory serves. Sun was low but still really strong. Being able to use the evf really helped.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
Thanks, Raymond - appreciate it. It was maybe as narrow as f14 if memory serves. Sun was low but still really strong. Being able to use the evf really helped.
Click to expand...

I find this part of the photo hard to do not because of the photo but to actually “remove” the couple from their drinks, food and friends.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I find this part of the photo hard to do not because of the photo but to actually “remove” the couple from their drinks, food and friends.
Click to expand...

They gave us complete creative freedom. Said yes to everything. Technically speaking the first is a really simple shot, but practically speaking it's so difficult to do at a real wedding.
 
decigallen said:
They gave us complete creative freedom. Said yes to everything. Technically speaking the first is a really simple shot, but practically speaking it's so difficult to do at a real wedding.
Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't but I feel kind of guilty asking at times !

And to drag them away….and stopping at every guests in between and I am looking at the sun setting…..getting nervous of missing out because it is now just right etc….

It's my favourite time to shoot but also quite tricky, if i can get to where i want to be.
 
In the next couple of days I shall be making the (almost) complete switch from Olympus m4/3 to Sony EF.
To complete what I already have in lenses I'm going to look at the 16-35 f4 for wider stuff and the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for general travel. I know the 16-35 is poor at the long end but I intend to use it between 16 and 24ish. I also know that that 24-70 is poor at the edges at 24 and wide open but I will be using it stopped down more mostly I suppose between 35-70.

My main interests are wildlife so I have the 100-400GM with the 1.4TC and portraits for which I have the 85mm Batis 1.8. For general walking around in stealth mode I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. All of these I find excellent thus far.
I shall be looking to p/ex my Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and my 300 F4 Pro.
I'd appreciate some comments on my choice of these last 2 lenses.
 
footman said:
In the next couple of days I shall be making the (almost) complete switch from Olympus m4/3 to Sony EF.
To complete what I already have in lenses I'm going to look at the 16-35 f4 for wider stuff and the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for general travel. I know the 16-35 is poor at the long end but I intend to use it between 16 and 24ish. I also know that that 24-70 is poor at the edges at 24 and wide open but I will be using it stopped down more mostly I suppose between 35-70.

My main interests are wildlife so I have the 100-400GM with the 1.4TC and portraits for which I have the 85mm Batis 1.8. For general walking around in stealth mode I have the Zeiss 35mm 2.8. All of these I find excellent thus far.
I shall be looking to p/ex my Olympus 40-150 2.8 Pro and my 300 F4 Pro.
I'd appreciate some comments on my choice of these last 2 lenses.
Click to expand...

Firstly no such thing as sony EF :D

16-35mm f4 is not poor at 35mm. It's perfectly good and usable wide open and gets sharper stopped down to f5.6 and then f8. People complain because they compare it to the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 which is a prime lens. Zoom is always a compromise.
The Sony 24-70mm/4 also isn't poor at 24mm. It suffers from a fair bit of field of curvature. So if brick walls aren't your main subject matter you won't notice much poor corners. It is also a compromise zoom, sure the canon EF24-70/4 is sharper but it's also a fair bit larger. You won't find another FF zoom with constant f4 size of 24-70 which is smaller and better.

You can't win at everything because physics is a b***h :p
 
Last edited:
footman said:
That comes from a zillion years using Canon:D
Thanks for the other stuff, I’ve probably being reading too many reviews.
Click to expand...

Sony is FE, Canon is EF.

And Canon lenses on Sony works PRETTY well…..it's like Sony is trying to do something to Canon users…..

/looks at my ever increasing Sony gear collection.
 
footman said:
That comes from a zillion years using Canon:D
Thanks for the other stuff, I’ve probably being reading too many reviews.
Click to expand...
Raymond Lin said:
Sony is FE, Canon is EF.

And Canon lenses on Sony works PRETTY well…..it's like Sony is trying to do something to Canon users…..

/looks at my ever increasing Sony gear collection.
Click to expand...

Actually still not technically true.

For canon, EF is the actual mount.
For Sony, it's e-mount and FE is a lens designation to denote a FF lens apart from APS-C lens. Just like how Nikon have FX and DX designations (but no such thing as FX or DX mount).
 
nandbytes said:
Actually still not technically true.

For canon, EF is the actual mount.
For Sony, it's e-mount and FE is a lens designation to denote a FF lens apart from APS-C lens. Just like how Nikon have FX and DX designations (but no such thing as FX or DX mount).
Click to expand...

You forgot EF-S which is APSC.

So in that FE is for Full frame lenses and EF is for Full frame lenses.

And when someone says FE lenses, you know exactly what they are talking about.

When someone says E-mount lenses, it's a bit vague.

When I said that's a EF lens, I mean that is a full frame Canon lens, I don't mean the 17-50/2.8 EF-S.
 
Last edited:
I guess Sony moved from APSC into FF where as Canon moved from FF into APSC.

EOS EF mount came in the 80's so when APSC came along, they had to add the letter, EF-S

Sony started with E-mount APSC and when FF came along, they added the F.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You forgot EF-S which is APSC.

So it is correct in that FE is for Full frame lenses and EF is for Full frame lenses.
Click to expand...

EF-S is basically a different mount. EF-S lenses don't fit on EF mount.

All e-mount lenses including APS-C lens fit on all e-mount bodies regardless of the format. Just like it does for Nikon F-mount. Nikon uses DX and FX to denote APS-C & FF respectively. Sony uses FE to denote their FF e-mount lens and absence of FE designation means it's an APS-C lens. Canon in their infinite wisdom made a new mount for APS-C lenses :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
I guess Sony moved from APSC into FF where as Canon moved from FF into APSC.

EOS EF mount came in the 80's so when APSC came along, they had to add the letter, EF-S

Sony started with E-mount APSC and when FF came along, they added the F.
Click to expand...
Raymond Lin said:
I think you can fit the EF-S lens into EF…you just will break the mirror if you take a photo.
Click to expand...

True.

But other of manufacturers also moved from FF to APS-C. Nikons F-mount and sony/Minolta a-mount are both older than EF. For some reason they didn't feel the need to make a new mount ;)

Ok ok may be saying it's a different mount is wrong but I still can't understand why they decided to make it so that you can't use EF-S lenses on EF.
Having said that canon (non-sigma) EF-S lenses don't work with MC-11 adapter. Techically shows sigma APS-C lenses are EF lenses with a smaller image circle rather than EF-S lenses. So they are somewhat different.

I suppose canon users don't have much point in using EF-S lenses on their FF bodies. On Sony is quite useful for video purposes and video centric lenses for shooting in super35 format.
 
nandbytes said:
True.

But other of manufacturers also moved from FF to APS-C. Nikons F-mount and sony/Minolta a-mount are both older than EF. For some reason they didn't feel the need to make a new mount ;)

Ok ok may be saying it's a different mount is wrong but I still can't understand why they decided to make it so that you can't use EF-S lenses on EF.
Having said that canon (non-sigma) EF-S lenses don't work with MC-11 adapter. Techically shows sigma APS-C lenses are EF lenses with a smaller image circle rather than EF-S lenses. So they are somewhat different.

I suppose canon users don't have much point in using EF-S lenses on their FF bodies. On Sony is quite useful for video purposes and video centric lenses for shooting in super35 format.
Click to expand...

One is a mirrorless, one is DSLR. I guess if you put the mirror up first then put the lens on…..it might work :p

I am saying if the mirror isn't there, a EF-S lens will work on say the 5D4. There is no reason why it won't and then get the same functions as a APSC lens on a A7III.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
One is a mirrorless, one is DSLR. I guess if you put the mirror up first then put the lens on…..it might work :p

I am saying if the mirror isn't there, a EF-S lens will work on say the 5D4. There is no reason why it won't and then get the same functions as a APSC lens on a A7III.
Click to expand...

A-Mount was DSLR as well (and was originally a film mount), and is now DSLT - which still uses a mirror, but a fixed one.

My first DSLR was the A200, APS-C A mount, no issues with using FF lenses - since the APS-C mirror is smaller than the FF mirror there's no risk using them that way round.
Going the other way, and putting APS-C lenses on FF - well, that will only be an issue if your lens designers have made the assumption that they can use the extra space back from the mount towards the mirror that the smaller APS-C mirror gives - which the Sony lens designers (including those that moved from Minolta to Sony) were smart enough not to do, so you can mount any APS-C A-Mount lens on a FF A-Mount camera (and the camera will detect it as such via the lens ID, and automatically switch the sensor to a crop mode, unless you disable that feature).
 
So, what lenses have people opted for?

Primes vs zooms, native vs adapted?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I just realised I have 35/50/85 for all native mounts in Canon, Fuji and Sony.
Click to expand...

I've just been looking at the Zeiss Primes and they look amazing. In particular the 35, 85, and the 135.
 
Last edited:
JohnBradbury said:
I've just been looking at the Zeiss Primes and they look amazing. In particular the 35, 85, and the 135.
Click to expand...

I am not into the Batis 85 or 135. The Batis 25/2.0 is good as there isn't really any real alternative since the Sigma isn't out yet.

I'm a prime shooter so have no Sony Zooms.
 
JohnBradbury said:
So, what lenses have people opted for?

Primes vs zooms, native vs adapted?
Click to expand...

Sony Zeiss 35mm/1.4
Sony FE 85mm/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm/2.8

Waiting on:
Samyang 24mm f2.8
Laowa 10-18mm f4.5-5.6

In adapt a bunch of random stuff that's ever changing depending on whatever takes my fancy. My main adapted lens are:
Olympus OM 16mm/3.5 fisheye because it's tiny and fun.
Canon 100-300mm USM - my cheap telezoom for times when I'd like the reach.

When my child grows up and I am hoping I'll once again have time for wildlife then I'll buy a nice telephoto again
 
Last edited:
JohnBradbury said:
So, what lenses have people opted for?

Primes vs zooms, native vs adapted?
Click to expand...

Primes... Native.

35 ART FE on its way
85 1.8 FE
Might add the 50 ART FE or SZ55 again in the future.

Have used SZ35 1.4, Samyang 35 1.4, ART 50 1.4 FE and SZ55 1.8.
 
Last edited:
JohnBradbury said:
So, what lenses have people opted for?

Primes vs zooms, native vs adapted?
Click to expand...

Primes & native. I'm not a pro.

Loxia 21
Batis 25
Loxia 35
Loxia 50
Loxia 85
FE Macro 90
Trioplan 100
 
CharleyBird said:
Primes & native. I'm not a pro.

Loxia 21
Batis 25
Loxia 35
Loxia 50
Loxia 85
FE Macro 90
Trioplan 100
Click to expand...

Will you replace batis 25 with Loxia 25 now? :D

I had the trioplan 100 didn't get along well with it. I like my trioplan 50 though
 
Currently I have the following:
Primes
35mm Art adapted
FE 55mm f1.8
FE 85mm f1.8

Zooms
FE16-35mm f4
FE100-400 GM
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 SPORT adapted

I am toying with the FE24-105 and a small prime either 25/28 or 35mm however I am waiting to see if I “need” them
 
I'm currently looking at the Zeiss primes having gone primarily the zoom route.

I'm loving the A9 so much. It's so incredibly good to use.

Big question mark now is do I cancel my A7RIII order and get another.
 
JohnBradbury said:
So, what lenses have people opted for?

Primes vs zooms, native vs adapted?
Click to expand...
i use both primes and zooms and mostly native now.

primes:
25mm batis
35mm samyang f2.8
55mm sony
85mm batis

zooms:
12-24 sony
24-70 f2.8 GM
100-400 GM

None native:
35mm ART
85 f1.2 Canon L
70-200 f2.8 mk2 Canon L
 
Last edited:
35mm Samyang
55mm Sony
85mm batis
90mm sony macro
16-35 f4
70-200f4
12mm Samyang

... and a 24-105 sony if it ever turns up!

Oh, and also an old Nikon 35mm shift lens from the olden days :)
 
Currently running...

24-70 GM
16-35 GM
85 GM
70-200 f4
Laowa 12mm 2.8
35mm 1.8 OSS ---- not quite sold on this one yet...so may be up for sale shortly.
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
Currently running...

24-70 GM
16-35 GM
85 GM
70-200 f4
Laowa 12mm 2.8
35mm 1.8 OSS ---- not quite sold on this one yet...so may be up for sale shortly.
Click to expand...

The 35mm/1.8 is a rubbish lens IMO though most of the world will disagree with me. It was as sharp at f2.8 as my Zeiss 35mm/2.8 wide open. Wide open at f1.8 it's mostly soft apart from the very centre.
 
nandbytes said:
The 35mm/1.8 is a rubbish lens IMO though most of the world will disagree with me. It was as sharp at f2.8 as my Zeiss 35mm/2.8 wide open. Wide open at f1.8 it's mostly soft apart from the very centre.
Click to expand...

exactly what I was thinking. I wanted a small lens to pair with the a6500, to convince me to keep the body instead of getting a second full frame ... but I'm not overjoyed by the 35. I know its not fair to, but when I compare to the IQ that all my other lenses give its just not there, but equally I know I'll struggle to get anything that small that does compare. Thinking maybe to give the 28 f2 or sigma 30 1.4 a go...
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
exactly what I was thinking. I wanted a small lens to pair with the a6500, to convince me to keep the body instead of getting a second full frame ... but I'm not overjoyed by the 35. I know its not fair to, but when I compare to the IQ that all my other lenses give its just not there, but equally I know I'll struggle to get anything that small that does compare. Thinking maybe to give the 28 f2 or sigma 30 1.4 a go...
Click to expand...

They both are pretty nice lenses. Sigma is noticiably larger but Sony FE28 is very small and sharp. Not to mention you can use it on your FF camera too.
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
any idea what the 50 oss is like? mpb have one for 99...
Click to expand...
Nice price.
Much better than 35mm/1.8
Also not amazing sharp wide open but definitely usable. At that price I'd get it if it's not too narrow for you.

As a general rule of thumb all Sony APS-C e-mount lenses are either bad, overpriced or both. That 50 OSS is not one of them :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Nice price.
Much better than 35mm/1.8
Also not amazing sharp wide open but definitely usable. At that price I'd get it if it's not too narrow for you.

As a general rule of thumb all Sony APS-C e-mount lenses are either bad, overpriced or both. That 50 OSS is not one of them :D
Click to expand...

Cheers... I've gone ahead and ordered - at that price it would be silly not to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top