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

SsSsSsSsSnake said:
your good at persuading people to spend money :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Well it worked here diddnt it? Majority have switched hehe.

Also persuaded many of my work collegues to jump on sony too. In our photo walk we did, most of us had sony gear of some shape and form lol but anyways its all good. just enjoy whatever brand/tool that makes u go out and shoot.

Plenty of options outside of canikon now and i ALWAYS recommend people to look beyond those two brands.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Well it worked here diddnt it? Majority have switched hehe.

Also persuaded many of my work collegues to jump on sony too. In our photo walk we did, most of us had sony gear of some shape and form lol but anyways its all good. just enjoy whatever brand/tool that makes u go out and shoot.

Plenty of options outside of canikon now and i ALWAYS recommend people to look beyond those two brands.
Click to expand...

:LOL::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Well, the mirrorless choices may be a bit wider at some point if/when the repeated rumors eventually come to pass. I can't imagine what would tempt me to buy a Canikon CSC though, maybe if my A7 died and there was a really nice Nikon.

We managed a few hours out over the weekend as it was our anniversary. A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but at f8 all day long :D

Admiring the view.

DSC01078.JPG

"Aren't you coming?"

DSC01081.JPG

Not at the top yet.

DSC01088.JPG

A dull and a bit hazy but warm and close day, looking down at Scarborough.

DSC01098.JPG
 
nandbytes said:
OMG!!! It's so soft :D

On a more serious note what do you think of it?
Click to expand...

It works :D

iyPylOy.jpg


60crkUF.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
It works :D

iyPylOy.jpg


60crkUF.jpg
Click to expand...
Don't quite know what it is but the out of focus areas look a bit weird to me. :thinking:

There seems to be a sort of pattern around the dog, like small circles. And the trees and top of the house behind the young lady give the appearance of moving. The sharp areas seem very sharp. Can anyone else see it?
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
Don't quite know what it is but the out of focus areas look a bit weird to me. :thinking:

There seems to be a sort of pattern around the dog, like small circles. And the tees and top of the house behind the young lady give the appearance of moving. The sharp areas seem very sharp. Can anyone else see it?
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, it looks busy, but you can't get the Canon 35L natively onto it so I just have to "settle" for this.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
A73 and Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon.

(The Canon 35L mk2 is still my fav 35mm)
Click to expand...
Thanks, so that must be with an adapter if it is this lens. So which adapter, and does the lens have a similar effect on the oof areas with a Canon? :thinking:

Sorry for so many questions, but the oof areas seem odd, and if that is the lens I think it is above, and the cost of that, I would be extremely unhappy with those results.

As long as you and your clients are happy though that is all that matters. :)
 
redhed17 said:
Thanks, so that must be with an adapter if it is this lens. So which adapter, and does the lens have a similar effect on the oof areas with a Canon? :thinking:

Sorry for so many questions, but the oof areas seem odd, and if that is the lens I think it is above, and the cost of that, I would be extremely unhappy with those results.

As long as you and your clients are happy though that is all that matters. :)
Click to expand...

Because I prefer the Canon L, most of the time I shoot dual body over the last 2 weddings with these combo.

Canon/35L
Sony/85.1,8

So there weren't that many examples of the 35 Zeiss used.
 
redhed17 said:
Don't quite know what it is but the out of focus areas look a bit weird to me. :thinking:

There seems to be a sort of pattern around the dog, like small circles. And the trees and top of the house behind the young lady give the appearance of moving. The sharp areas seem very sharp. Can anyone else see it?
Click to expand...

Don't tell everyone who keeps saying the Zeiss bokeh isn't nervous :LOL:
 
woof woof said:
Well, the mirrorless choices may be a bit wider at some point if/when the repeated rumors eventually come to pass. I can't imagine what would tempt me to buy a Canikon CSC though, maybe if my A7 died and there was a really nice Nikon.

We managed a few hours out over the weekend as it was our anniversary. A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but at f8 all day long :D

Admiring the view.

View attachment 130128

"Aren't you coming?"

View attachment 130129

Not at the top yet.

View attachment 130130

A dull and a bit hazy but warm and close day, looking down at Scarborough.

View attachment 130131
Click to expand...
I can literally imagine myself on that seat in your first photo,lovely view,wish i was there
 
redhed17 said:
Thanks, so that must be with an adapter if it is this lens. So which adapter, and does the lens have a similar effect on the oof areas with a Canon? :thinking:

Sorry for so many questions, but the oof areas seem odd, and if that is the lens I think it is above, and the cost of that, I would be extremely unhappy with those results.

As long as you and your clients are happy though that is all that matters. :)
Click to expand...

EVERY wider lens will do that with busy/detail areas like grass and leaves etc. The Zeiss has really good OOF areas. What are you trying to compare it against? EDIT The bits around the top of the building could be editing or CA, without seeing the original raw we won't know.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
EVERY wider lens will do that with busy/detail areas like grass and leaves etc. The Zeiss has really good OOF areas. What are you trying to compare it against? EDIT The bits around the top of the building could be editing or CA, without seeing the original raw we won't know.
Click to expand...
I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens. ;)

I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.

Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
 
redhed17 said:
I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens. ;)

I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.

Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
Click to expand...

Thank you ;). You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
 
Last edited:
No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol

There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.

I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
 
twist said:
Thank you ;). You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
Click to expand...
I'm comparing them to similar shallow depth of field pics I've seen over the years. Obviously not that particular combo, because I didn't know what that was, and haven't known exactly what the camera/lenses of other images I've seen in the past, but to me the oof areas in those pics was enough out of the ordinary for me to comment. If Raymond had said it was a 40 year old Cosina or whatever lens then I wouldn't have been too surprised, that it is a very expensive modern lens surprised me. :eek: If you feel they are what is to be expected for the most part though, then again, I bow to your superior knowledge. :) When I factored in the cost of the lens, then that was when I would have been really unhappy. ;)

F/1.4 said:
I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
Click to expand...
This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will. :)
 
F/1.4 said:
No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol

There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.

I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
Click to expand...

Apparently canon is better and has good bokeh.

I bet the AF is better and it's better weather sealed (never thought I'd ever say that about Sony gear!).
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will. :)
Click to expand...

Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
Click to expand...

It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
 
decigallen said:
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
Click to expand...

We all know when things, anything, gets to a certain point it’s all great and there is no twice as good for twice the price.

You’d think some £2000 headphones is 10x as good as £200 ones?

After a certain point it’s all about the micro details and what you prefer.
 
twist said:
Sure, if you like a decentred, purple halo, only truly sharp from f2 lens lottery lens. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.

Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
 
decigallen said:
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
Click to expand...

As Raymond pointed it out its law of diminishing returns which is especially true in photography.
SZ as it stands now is the cheaper option for me. I can sell it back at no loss, sigma will definitely incur a loss since I'll have to buy it new.
If I could get e-mount sigma used I'd definitely buy it.
 
Last edited:
Have they had enough already :wave:
 
nandbytes said:
It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.

Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
Click to expand...

It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.

So your first SZ was a dud and you're getting another?
Click to expand...

Old vintage lenses sometimes do render nicely and so do some older non-vintage lenses like canon 85mm/1.2L. but that's not because they are soft lol.

No my first Zeiss was great. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. A wedding dress shop owner wanting it to shoot models wearing their wedding dress. I even told them it'd cheaper to buy sigma or samyang but they wanted the Zeiss.

I bought another because I found one in LCE and they agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously. Also they tested the lens for me on a tripod which was nice.
I did intend to get sigma but I don't want to pay full new price for it. Rather keep the Zeiss till I find a used one at a good price.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top