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

Sounds like samyang have ironed out their AF further in 24mm f2.8. it's seems nearly silent and reliable. They seem to be iteratively fixing their AF with every new lens. Here's hoping we'll see a small 85mm f1.4 like the canon EF version with good AF.
 
nandbytes said:
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 agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues. Regarding the Samyang, within 5 minutes I preferred the Sigma but I'll run some more tests.

Good luck with the new lens.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues.
Click to expand...

I purposefully didn't say better. It's subjective.

I like the Zeiss. I have nothing against sigma. I had it in a-mount and preferred it to Sony (thier a-mount 35mm/1.4 G sucks also :P )
 
You are mis-quoting me.

Overall better lens is not same as saying better rendering.
Overall includes AF, build, size, ergonomics, video usage etc.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
You are mis-quoting me.

Overall better lens is not same as saying better rendering.
Overall includes AF, build, size, ergonomics, video usage etc.
Click to expand...

Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
 
morning peeps

friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"

can you advise?

cheers
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
morning peeps

friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"

can you advise?

cheers
Click to expand...

Quick way, shoot a brick wall wide open and fill the frame, then turn the camera upside down and shoot again. Take into lightroom the soft side will move from left to right or vice versa when reviewing the images.
 
twist said:
Quick way, shoot a brick wall wide open and fill the frame, then turn the camera upside down and shoot again. Take into lightroom the soft side will move from left to right or vice versa when reviewing the images.
Click to expand...
or just buy the samyang version and be done with it
 
decigallen said:
Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
Click to expand...
Sony is definitely better weather sealed (or rather sigma isn't at all). The AF was smoother and faster than my a-mount version and I don't suspect the DSLR lens will do better on mirrorless.
FE35 is slightly smaller but slightly fatter. So about equal as you say.
Zeiss also has aperture ring and for video AF is once again better with Zeiss with option of clickless aperture.
But of course YMMV and not really be bothered by these
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Quick way, shoot a brick wall wide open and fill the frame, then turn the camera upside down and shoot again. Take into lightroom the soft side will move from left to right or vice versa when reviewing the images.
Click to expand...
thanks for that, ive passed it onto him
 
decigallen said:
Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss has better video AF and in my opinion no other advantage. Hope youre enjoying the cameras Deci !
 
Dudewheresmybrain said:
morning peeps

friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"

can you advise?

cheers
Click to expand...

he can do the quick test twist suggested.

for more information my post from 50 pages ago :D

nandbytes said:
as the saying goes...
every lens ever made is decentered ;)
if you can't find it you just haven't got equipment sensitive enough :D

Anyway here's some material for you to read and figure out how to properly test your lens for de-centering
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ntered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover/
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/testing-for-decentering-by-eye/
https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/

Re-iterating what much clever people than me have said, a lot of people incorrectly test their lens and cry wolf which results in many copies sent back. That said there is a fair bit of sample variable in the FE35/1.4 but its not like every other lens is going to be bad. Also a lot of these lenses are not decentered they simply have slightly asymmetrical focussing (mine does very very slightly) which won't affect your photographs apart from brick walls. You can test for this also.
Click to expand...
 
nandbytes said:
Sony is definitely better weather sealed (or rather sigma isn't at all). The AF was smoother and faster than my a-mount version and I don't suspect the DSLR lens will do better on mirrorless.
FE35 is slightly smaller but slightly fatter. So about equal as you say.
Zeiss also has aperture ring and for video AF is once again better with Zeiss with option of clickless aperture.
But of course YMMV and not really be bothered by these
Click to expand...

Okay, so a few things..... youre comparing the DSLR version to the mirrorless version, they are NOT the same. So you should really try one.

1) The Sigma FE ARTs have a weather seal on the mount.
2) The AF has changed from the DSLR lenses, its MUCH smoother and quietly swoops, acts like a mirrorless lens during stills.
3) FE35 is 72mm vs 67mm filter of the ART.
4) Does anyone actually use the manual aperture on an AF lens?
 
twist said:
Okay, so a few things..... youre comparing the DSLR version to the mirrorless version, they are NOT the same. So you should really try one.

1) The Sigma FE ARTs have a weather seal on the mount.
2) The AF has changed from the DSLR lenses, its MUCH smoother and quietly swoops, acts like a mirrorless lens during stills.
3) FE35 is 72mm vs 67mm filter of the ART.
4) Does anyone actually use the manual aperture on an AF lens?
Click to expand...

They haven't changed the AF motors and I'd be very surprised if it's as good as FE35

1) - sure but not rest of the lens. Sony is missing on mount (for some insane reason)
2) what about video?
3) sure, I prefer 67mm because it matches my other lens
4) - yes

It's a DSLR lens hacked to work for mirrorless. There is no getting away from that.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
They haven't changed the AF motors and I'd be very surprised if it's as good as FE35

1) - sure but not rest of the lens. Sony is missing on mount (for some insane reason)
2) what about video?
3) sure, I prefer 67mm because it matches my other lens
4) - yes

It's a DSLR lens hacked to work for mirrorless. There is no getting away from that.
Click to expand...

The AF behaves differently, wether its a motor change which you wouldn't know about or not it does behave differently. I have used all these lenses including the FE versions which you haven't so you don't really know the differences. Youre basing your comparison against the DSLR version on a DSLR camera.

1) So glad we cleared up that it does have weather sealing
2) What about it? Id rather have the fastest and quietest video AF lens, the 55mm and that I can buy with my £650 saving
4) Maybe just you then and people who like a slower approach or lots of video

Hey, it works, AF is fast, accurate, silent and its cheap with arguably better optics.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Er nope.
Click to expand...

Would value your input on why nope, realise it’s probably been shared somewhere in this thread that I have missed along the way, but no hope of finding it again ... a lot of the reviews of the l me seem favourable so will be good to hear another side
 
RPhotos said:
Would value your input on why nope, realise it’s probably been shared somewhere in this thread that I have missed along the way, but no hope of finding it again ... a lot of the reviews of the l me seem favourable so will be good to hear another side
Click to expand...

Ill reply a little later, both have strengths and weaknesses, time for lunch!
 
twist said:
The AF behaves differently, wether its a motor change which you wouldn't know about or not it does behave differently. I have used all these lenses including the FE versions which you haven't so you don't really know the differences. Youre basing your comparison against the DSLR version on a DSLR camera.

1) So glad we cleared up that it does have weather sealing
2) What about it? Id rather have the fastest and quietest video AF lens, the 55mm and that I can buy with my £650 saving
4) Maybe just you then and people who like a slower approach or lots of video

Hey, it works, AF is fast, accurate, silent and its cheap with arguably better optics.
Click to expand...

1) errr no where did I agree to it. having rubber seal on mount is not same as weathersealing.
2) so 55mm is same as 35mm now? if its all about what you rather have there isn't much point carrying on with an objective comparison is there!
4) again not about me or you (also its not slower)

yeah it partly works by sounds of it.

not sure why you are taking sigma so personally.
 
Last edited:
Sigma Fanboy? Hehe
nandbytes said:
1) errr no where did I agree to it. having rubber seal on mount is not same as weathersealing.
2) so 55mm is same as 35mm now? if its all about what you rather have there isn't much point carrying on with an objective comparison is there!
4) again not about me or you (also its not slower)

yeah it partly works by sounds of it.

not sure why you are taking sigma so personally.
Click to expand...
 
nandbytes said:
1) errr no where did I agree to it. having rubber seal on mount is not same as weathersealing.
2) so 55mm is same as 35mm now? if its all about what you rather have there isn't much point carrying on with an objective comparison is there!
4) again not about me or you (also its not slower)

yeah it partly works by sounds of it.

not sure why you are taking sigma so personally.
Click to expand...

1) Errr not having a rubber seal on the mount is not properly weather sealed. ;)
2) No, but you keep taking it down that road. You said the Sony and Samyang are better, they are not. You haven't even used the Sigma FE lenses.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
1) Errr not having a rubber seal on the mount is not properly weather sealed. ;)
2) No, but you keep taking it down that road.

You said the Sony and Samyang are better, they are not. You haven't even used the Sigma FE lenses.
Click to expand...

I will use it one day :D
Hopefully won't be too long before I can find one on used market
 
RPhotos said:
Thanks
Click to expand...

Samyang is sharper than Sony +
Samyang may require dock to tweak AF and update FW, mine did -
Samyang has better CA control than Sony +
Samyang has a slightly warmer cast -
Samyang is MUCH cheaper +
Sony is better built and looks nicer +
Sony has slightly nicer OOF +
Sony has QC issues with the optics -
Sony has better CAF +
Sony has better video AF +

I really struggled with a fast 35mm choice in E mount because both have pros and cons, it took me ages to compare these two lenses because they are both good lenses in different ways. Ive never tested 2 lenses as much. Usually its a 10 min job.

Ive been a long time Sigma 35 ART user on other mounts and I now have that in E mount to compare against the samples I took previously, but I kinda know what to expect. Its 30% more expensive than the Samyang, but then the Sony is 175% more expensive than the Samyang

Decide whats most important and go from there.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Samyang is sharper than Sony +
Samyang may require dock to tweak AF and update FW, mine did -
Samyang has better CA control than Sony +
Samyang has a slightly warmer cast -
Samyang is MUCH cheaper +
Sony is better built and looks nicer +
Sony has slightly nicer OOF +
Sony has QC issues with the optics -
Sony has better CAF +
Sony has better video AF +

I really struggled with a fast 35mm choice in E mount because both have pros and cons, it took me ages to compare these two lenses because they are both good lenses in different ways. Ive never tested 2 lenses as much. Usually its a 10 min job.

Ive been a long time Sigma 35 ART user on other mounts and I now have that in E mount to compare against the samples I took previously, but I kinda know what to expect. Its 30% more expensive than the Samyang, but then the Sony is 175% more expensive than the Samyang

Decide whats most important and go from there.
Click to expand...
Quality bruv. It's coming home
 
nandbytes said:
nikon's getting serious - https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nik...irst-two-full-frame-mirrorless-rumored-specs/

time to dump Sony? :D
Click to expand...

Wait and see. I never owned Nikon branded lenses for long so for me it's all about the camera, badge meh. I'd be surprised if Nikon can sell the body and 35 1.4 for less than an a7iii and 35 art (2600 quid). I'm seeing 3k for body and slow 2470f4 kit lens.

Sony is a much more mature milc system and Nikon will take time to catch up. Maybe in a couple years a switch would be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Wait and see. I never owned Nikon branded lenses for long so for me it's all about the camera, badge meh. I'd be surprised if Nikon can sell the body and 35 1.4 for less than an a7iii and 35 art (2600 quid). I'm seeing 3k for body and slow 2470f4 kit lens.
Click to expand...

They have nice set of f1.8 G lenses too that can be adapted and apparently there'll be an adapter from nikon for that.
 
nandbytes said:
They have nice set of f1.8 G lenses too that can be adapted and apparently there'll be an adapter from nikon for that.
Click to expand...

This had to be their interim option, I owned the 1.8g lenses, they were alright. Not great.

I got my a7iii for a price that Nikon can't come close to and with better lens options I can use now. No point in switching early.... I can't see Nikon's 1st camera being better than the a7iii.... Plus reliability.
 
twist said:
This had to be their interim option, I owned the 1.8g lenses, they were alright. Not great.

I got my a7iii for a price that Nikon can't come close to and with better lens options I can use now. No point in switching early.... I can't see Nikon's 1st camera being better than the a7iii.... Plus reliability.
Click to expand...
How much did you get it for? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top