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

KitsuneAndy said:
The 85GM might be slower than the 1.8 to focus, but it's not exactly a slouch. I found it more than quick enough at the wedding I just shot. And the rendering is gorgeous.

I've set AEL to be eye AF though, don't use the focus hold button for anything.

I also like using the aperture ring rather than the dial.. Although tbf, it rarely moves above F2
Click to expand...

I use ael eye af and BBF, works well. Love the lens FN button and assign that to eye af on the 85.
 
twist said:
I use ael eye af and BBF, works well. Love the lens FN button and assign that to eye af on the 85.
Click to expand...

I've stopped using BBF, always did on the Nikon. Seems redundant now with AF points covering the whole screen
 
I can't say I use the Focus Hold button for anything either, the reason being this button is not on all the lenses, currently, it's on my 24GM And 85GM but not the 35 or 50. I rather I use the same motion for every lens than constantly finding myself reaching for a button that isn't there.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
The 85GM might be slower than the 1.8 to focus, but it's not exactly a slouch. I found it more than quick enough at the wedding I just shot. And the rendering is gorgeous.

I've set AEL to be eye AF though, don't use the focus hold button for anything.

I also like using the aperture ring rather than the dial.. Although tbf, it rarely moves above F2
Click to expand...

Focus speed on the 85GM is fine on a par with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G that for me it replaced.

The FE85 f/1.8 is a lot faster though.

I really like having the focus button assigned to eye a.f, pity it's not an option available on all E-Mount lenses.
 
It might help if "flat" is defined.

I don't really like "flat" used in this context. Flat is often a virtue of macro lenses so what's meant here? Lack of distortion? Lack of something else?

I find the Sony 55mm f1.8 to be sharp, contrasty and pretty consistent across the frame from wide apertures so in that sense maybe it's flat as in good and consistent across the frame whereas going to an extreme something like an old legacy lens may be pretty good in the centre but towards the edges the sharpness, contrast and light may drop off considerably and there may be more distortion.

So maybe it'll help resolve this if "flat" is defined.

This was the last picture I took with mine.

1-DSC01625.jpg

I wouldn't say it's a "flat" lens but I do think it could be criticised for being almost uniformly good within the frame but I don't think that's really a fair criticism as lenses are also criticised for not being uniformly good everywhere.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
I don't think there is an 85mm that is better, really it depends on your needs/wants.

I have the 85G.M it has nicer bokeh than the f/1.8, but the autofocus is slower and it weighs a lot more, both also have the focus button than can be changed to eye a.f which for me is the best way in terms of ergonomics to engage eye a.f.

I also have the FE85 F/1.8 which is very sharp, very quick autofocus for an 85mm and is light weight and feels well balanced on the A7III. It is probably the best performing f/1.8 lens I have owned. It's in the classifieds at the moment because it's hard to justify having 2 x 85mm lenses when I also have the 90mm Macro. Although I am tempted to keep it and get another light weight 35mm for when I am travelling. I am still undecided if a 35/85 or 24/50 combo is better for me for my travels.

When buying the 85GM I also tried the Sigma 85mm Art. I only got to use both side by side for about 15-20 minutes but I thought that the a.f wasn't as quick on the Sigma, image quality looked very good, just as good as the 85G.M but was bigger and heavier again than even the G.M and it doesn't have the focus button.

I haven't tried the Zeiss 85mm but it has a rep as a very good performer too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. I’m a while away from one yet but I’ll probably go for best rendering, which seems to be the GM.

woof woof said:
What's this? Did I miss the link?
Click to expand...

Not in a position to link at the moment but will do tonight. It’s on Deci’s site but more a few thoughts on moving over from a
750, so handy for me.
 
twist said:
I said the 35 art is better than the zony and you agreed, which is great.
Click to expand...
Actually your said it was sharper and had less CA wide open which I never disagreed with. But that alone doesnt make it a better lens overall.
 
nandbytes said:
Actually your said it was sharper and had less CA wide open which I never disagreed with. But that since doesnt make it a better lens overall.
Click to expand...

Ah good, AF the Zeiss has a slight edge though, especially movie mode always said that. The zony isn't exactly a pos though, decentred which only some will be bothered by but still a nice lens.
 
The sensible option for me in the 50 fl range might be the 55 sonar. Working out some numbers I like the compactness and already used to the fl given I have a 58G.
 
You know the 50/1.4 Planar makes sense :D

oaXzGTu.jpg


Or you can get the Sigma (adapted but same size)

Wy2VzT2.jpg
 
f/2.8 said:
The Sigma Art is very nice too, if you can put up with the size and additional weight.

If you get a chance too it might be worthwhile trying them both out.
Click to expand...

I absolutely love the 85 art but its size is a real annoyance tbh. Prepared to live with it as it's absolutely brilliant from wide open. The 85GM is a lovely lens too
 
addicknchips said:
55 and the 50 art debate is an interesting one. The 50 art blew my socks off. Crazy, crazy, crazy sharp lens. But so big and heavy though. I found it a chore to take out and use. Not practical for casual stuff. That’s where the 55 is so good. It’s not far behind the art lens imo and I’m much more likely to take it out with me due to its relative compactness. Still one of my favourite lenses.
Click to expand...

The size is the main drawback with the Sigma 50, it is a hell of a lump. I think the Sony 50 f1.4 does look nicer but not enough for me to justify the extra money. I like to use a 50 inside as well which can be a challenge, so the 55 f1.8 would make it even more difficult. It is small though, which is the only reason I'd go for it. It'd have to be cheap as well! For the limited times I'd want the smaller lens I'd probably just get the Sony 50 F1.8 and deal with the slower AF.
 
jj_glos said:
The size is the main drawback with the Sigma 50, it is a hell of a lump. I think the Sony 50 f1.4 does look nicer but not enough for me to justify the extra money. I like to use a 50 inside as well which can be a challenge, so the 55 f1.8 would make it even more difficult. It is small though, which is the only reason I'd go for it. It'd have to be cheap as well! For the limited times I'd want the smaller lens I'd probably just get the Sony 50 F1.8 and deal with the slower AF.
Click to expand...

the 50mm f1.8 is only £180 new - so its not a bad shout and shouldn't be overlooked if you won't be using it much.
 
Livin The Dream said:
How do they compare against one another Ray?
Click to expand...

The biggest advantage of the Zeiss is it's CA control, it has VERY little of it, it reminds me of how good the Canon 35L mk2 does in a lot of respect.

I can't comment how the Sigma focuses with the native mount but in terms of IQ, the Sigma does it just fine, I have used mine for 4-5 seasons in weddings and have no complaints, it is one of the best 50mm there is, so all of the sudden if I say the Sigma is bad would be wrong as it has produce images like this

GKpBxqd.jpg


uP7MAtk.jpg


IcZRTnL.jpg


il7l6kP.jpg


ObMY4nk.jpg


But the Zeiss is better by a fraction though....at double the cost.
 
Last edited:
Are any of the budget primes any good? No way im affording a 1k 50mm lol
 
JJ! said:
Still not what I class as a budget lens though.

I need Samyang to do a 50mm 1.8!
Click to expand...

Anything less I would say it's functional, something to tie over rather than long term keeper. Don't spend £3000 on a camera and cheap out on a lens.

But then again, how much do you like the 50mm?
 
Raymond Lin said:
The biggest advantage of the Zeiss is it's CA control, it has VERY little of it, it reminds me of how good the Canon 35L mk2 does in a lot of respect.

I can't comment how the Sigma focuses with the native mount but in terms of IQ, the Sigma does it just fine, I have used mine for 4-5 seasons in weddings and have no complaints, it is one of the best 50mm there is, so all of the sudden if I say the Sigma is bad would be wrong as it has produce images like this

GKpBxqd.jpg


uP7MAtk.jpg


IcZRTnL.jpg


il7l6kP.jpg


ObMY4nk.jpg


But the Zeiss is better by a fraction though....at double the cost.
Click to expand...
As always, stunning images :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Anything less I would say it's functional, something to tie over rather than long term keeper. Don't spend £3000 on a camera and cheap out on a lens.

But then again, how much do you like the 50mm?
Click to expand...

I think that’s the dilemma. I do like 50 as a FL but not sure about the sheer size of the art on the small body? I’d like the planar and that would stop the inevitable pangs later on. But, balancing trade in deals with a couple of suppliers and they’re price on the planar is way out.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Anything less I would say it's functional, something to tie over rather than long term keeper. Don't spend £3000 on a camera and cheap out on a lens.

But then again, how much do you like the 50mm?
Click to expand...

Not really how I see things TBH! I think you can cheap out on a lens and still get quality images.

Plus the camera was £1600 and would gladly stick a 35mm 2.8 Samyang on the front.

No way I am likely to afford any more expensive glass for years to come!

But is that a reason not to have an A73?!
 
JJ! said:
Not really how I see things TBH! I think you can cheap out on a lens and still get quality images.

Plus the camera was £1600 and would gladly stick a 35mm 2.8 Samyang on the front.

No way I am likely to afford any more expensive glass for years to come!

But is that a reason not to have an A73?!
Click to expand...

I am sure you can get quality images adapting a Canon 50/1.8 bought for £50 too.

It's up to each of us to find where that balance is, if your needs are more towards the really budget end then that's fine, just know that going in eyes open that what you are buying isn't going to be the best optically and happy of what it produces.
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
I think that’s the dilemma. I do like 50 as a FL but not sure about the sheer size of the art on the small body? I’d like the planar and that would stop the inevitable pangs later on. But, balancing trade in deals with a couple of suppliers and they’re price on the planar is way out.
Click to expand...

I picked mine up used from ffords for £1050 or £1110 thereabouts.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am sure you can get quality images adapting a Canon 50/1.8 bought for £50 too.

It's up to each of us to find where that balance is, if your needs are more towards the really budget end then that's fine, just know that going in eyes open that what you are buying isn't going to be the best optically and happy of what it produces.
Click to expand...

True, but when it comes to the cheaper lenses, more expensive does not always equal sharper.

The Samyang 35mm 2.8 is sharper than the Sony 2.8 having tested both side by side.

The 55mm 1.8 is somthing I might look at - but would then need a wider prime and the 28mm does not seem to get a lot of love!
 
Anyway, one of the points of having the A73 for me is at one point going from the 70-200 beast (my staple lens) to then switching to a nice compact prime to have for going super light and fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top