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

I forgot to include a barrel distortion shot so here's one after applying the profile. It's the same in landscape as far as I can see.

Otemecs.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've just received an m mount adapter for my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and after firing off a few test shots I'm quite happy. I'd read that this lens is soft wide open, vignetted like crazy, had really bad barrel distortion and had ca but in use after applying the profile in CS5 I'm quite pleased. The vignetting is well within the range of CS5 to correct and the barrel distortion which is visible when taking shots seems to be insignificant (this is after applying the profile, architectural photographers may still see it as a problem.) There's purple fringing at 100% in some shots with bright objects and it may be visible in some other shots but so far it's not shown itself too much in my test shots and lastly although the lens is softish wide open it's ok after a little more sharpening than I'd usually apply and it's sharper at f2 to the point that IMO it's good anywhere you'd put a main subject in the frame at f2.
Click to expand...

I think all the M's have their little quirks. I don't use the close focus adapter often but it is always attached (it is a little heavier than a standard adapter) The 40/1.4 has a wide open glow on occasion but by f/2 it's more than acceptable.

The 40/1.2E should be with me next week!! :)

I'm also considering the Color Skopar 21mm f/3.5E too but I'm trying to resist for now just incase some offers come up. They also don't seem popular on the used market.
 
JJ! said:
Just find the EVF much easier and more atble when tracking sports for me so its a better set up for me, but for other situations I can see the benefits of screen.
Click to expand...
I think I’m going to be the same. For wildlife the EVF will be the better option due to tracking the subject. For landscapes the LCD will likely be better and easier to use unless it’s really bright.
 
LeeRatters said:
I think all the M's have their little quirks. I don't use the close focus adapter often but it is always attached (it is a little heavier than a standard adapter) The 40/1.4 has a wide open glow on occasion but by f/2 it's more than acceptable.

The 40/1.2E should be with me next week!! :)

I'm also considering the Color Skopar 21mm f/3.5E too but I'm trying to resist for now just incase some offers come up. They also don't seem popular on the used market.
Click to expand...

I had the Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 years ago and I stupidly sold it. I should have just bought another but I was swayed by the f1.4 but the focus tab annoyed me today and I'm sort of wishing I had gone for the f2.5 as that's equally tiny and has a focus ring. I'll give the f1.4 a long road test and see if I can live with it.

I haven't used my e mount 40mm f1.2 for a while but it is a very nice lens and I think you'll be pleased with the image quality. It certainly gives a more modern and less divisive "classic" look than the e mount 35mm f1.4 and to an even greater extent these RF lenses give.
 
Last edited:
ianmarsh said:
Three more from Naples

1. Vesuvius view
Napoli III by Ian, on Flickr

2. Posillipo sunset
Napoli II by Ian, on Flickr

3. Dawn over Castel dell'Ovo
Napoli IV by Ian, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Lovely photos Ian, in particular like the calm colours and lighting of the first. The skys in 2 & 3 are also fantastic. I hope you don’t mind a little critique bit I find the dark mass at the bottom of the third a little distracting, although I don’t think you can do much about that now, other than maybe clone it out, which I don’t think would look right either. Also personallly I think the large white borders detract from the images, the shots are great in their own right, let them shine (y)
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Lovely photos Ian, in particular like the calm colours and lighting of the first. The skys in 2 & 3 are also fantastic. I hope you don’t mind a little critique bit I find the dark mass at the bottom of the third a little distracting, although I don’t think you can do much about that now, other than maybe clone it out, which I don’t think would look right either. Also personallly I think the large white borders detract from the images, the shots are great in their own right, let them shine (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments Chris. I wasn't convinced by the first so I'm pleased you like it. The dark mass in 3 is the black sand beach. I can crop it to but then the bottom is too tight. I might revisit when I am back on my proper computer and see if I can improve that part. I know borders aren't to everyone's taste, I use them so the Flickr stream look neater.
 
Some recent samples from 24GM. Took it out for Christmas at the Kew gardens, was a surprise anniversary outing for the missus.
This lens actually weathersealed, sony has finally realised rubber sealing around the mount is needed. I was fairly comfortable using it in the rain.

f/10, 15s, ISO100 - the round thingies in the sky are water droplets on the lens
ASA06360 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr

f/1.4, 1/250, ISO256000 (bit of a high ISO shot, other option is to have my son blurry, so... yeah)
ASA06364 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr
 
nandbytes said:
Some recent samples from 24GM. Took it out for Christmas at the Kew gardens, was a surprise anniversary outing for the missus.
This lens actually weathersealed, sony has finally realised rubber sealing around the mount is needed. I was fairly comfortable using it in the rain.

f/10, 15s, ISO100 - the round thingies in the sky are water droplets on the lens
ASA06360 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr

f/1.4, 1/250, ISO256000 (bit of a high ISO shot, other option is to have my son blurry, so... yeah)
ASA06364 by Anand Gopinath, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Don't the other GMs have a weather seal?
 
twist said:
Don't the other GMs have a weather seal?
Click to expand...

Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they do, my Sigmas also have them (dslr versions do not).
 
twist said:
Pretty sure they do, my Sigmas also have them (dslr versions do not).
Click to expand...

Ah good to know... is the sigma now weathersealed? that could be a benefit on buying these for e-mount...
I know my a-mount sigma art 35 was not weathersealed

hope this answers your question about shooting in the rain. I don't choose to but we live in the UK and we like doing things outside. Tickets were booked nearly 6 months ago. Not much you can do or just not get any pictures.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Ah good to know...

hope this answers your question about shooting in the rain. I don't choose to but we live in the UK and we like doing things outside. Tickets were booked nearly 6 months ago. Not much you can do or just not get any pictures.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question and no reason you can't get a rain cover if you are that worried but a few here use their cameras in the rain without issues.
 
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

The 85 GM does.

Is it just me, but I find the Sony prime lens lineup a bit bizarre when you consider these differences. The 35 distagon is an odd ball. Doesn’t have the rubber seal and there’s no GM 35?
 
Livin The Dream said:
The 85 GM does.

Is it just me, but I find the Sony prime lens lineup a bit bizarre when you consider these differences. The 35 distagon is an odd ball. Doesn’t have the rubber seal and there’s no GM 35?
Click to expand...

Its a Zeiss specification, not Sony. Still waiting for the 35GM.... guess they think there are enough 35 options already and they don't acknowledge the CZ QC issues.
 
Livin The Dream said:
The 85 GM does.

Is it just me, but I find the Sony prime lens lineup a bit bizarre when you consider these differences. The 35 distagon is an odd ball. Doesn’t have the rubber seal and there’s no GM 35?
Click to expand...
Why have a gm 35? What would be different about that vs the distagon?

The distagon was more of less a launch lens that came with the original launch of the whole ff e mount
 
twist said:
It wasn't a question and no reason you can't get a rain cover if you are that worried but a few here use their cameras in the rain without issues.
Click to expand...

i guess you didn't catch my question before i edited it lol

is the sigma now weathersealed? that could be a benefit on buying these for e-mount...
I know my a-mount sigma art 35 was not weathersealed
 
jonneymendoza said:
Why have a gm 35? What would be different about that vs the distagon?

The distagon was more of less a launch lens that came with the original launch of the whole ff e mount
Click to expand...

Id welcome it, for starters it would be different optically and have a weather seal and less variation.
 
nandbytes said:
i guess you didn't catch my question before i edited it lol

is the sigma now weathersealed? that could be a benefit on buying these for e-mount...
I know my a-mount sigma art 35 was not weathersealed
Click to expand...

Yes, the E mount ART lenses are weather sealed, I did mention it to you a while ago. Definitely beneficial. DSLR mounts definitely aren't {the primes} (not just A mount).
 
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

My FE 70-200 f2.8 GM has the rubber gasket around the mount.
I believe all GM lenses are weather sealed being their Pro lineup :)
 
twist said:
Id welcome it, for starters it would be different optically and have a weather seal and less variation.
Click to expand...

But what were they thinking when they sat down to plan the roadmap? Surely GM’s were in their thoughts, so why have a 24 & 85 but Zeiss 35 & 50? Makes no sense to me, what’s the Zeiss label really mean when you’ve got that designation on a 1.8 55 too? It’s all over the place.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...
From photos I’ve seen there looks like there is a rubber seal on the seal mount. Sony’s diagram of weather sealed point seems to say there is one.

All Photos-1413 by -Rob - Nikon-

I will be interested how you get on with the 100-400. It’s a lens I’m thinking of getting in the future for wildlife if I need a longer lens. I thought I would start off with the 70-200 f4 because it has the f4 aperture at 200m. I gather the 100-400 is f4.5 at 100mm then f5.6 at 200mm, 300mm and 400mm.
 
nandbytes said:
Don't think they have a rubber seal around the mount which is my main issue with these highly priced GMs. Don't think my 70-200mm had it, I am expecting a 100-400mm next week so I'll check.
But more than happy to be wrong in this case
@Riz_Guru - could you enlighten us please?
Click to expand...

With regards to the 100-400, I have just looked on mine and it definitely has a rubber seal on the mount
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
I will be interested how you get on with the 100-400. It’s a lens I’m thinking of getting in the future for wildlife if I need a longer lens. I thought I would start off with the 70-200 f4 because it has the f4 aperture at 200m. I gather the 100-400 is f4.5 at 100mm then f5.6 at 200mm, 300mm and 400mm.
Click to expand...

I had the 70-200 f4 a while back and had the 70-200GM just recently. Both great lenses but found 200mm short for wildlife which was my main use case too. Also I am thinking of eventually getting the 1.4x TC to use with the 100-400. On A7RIII with the cropping ability, that's a fairly good amount of reach overall.
 
nandbytes said:
I had the 70-200 f4 a while back and had the 70-200GM just recently. Both great lenses but found 200mm short for wildlife which was my main use case too. Also I am thinking of eventually getting the 1.4x TC to use with the 100-400. On A7RIII with the cropping ability, that's a fairly good amount of reach overall.
Click to expand...
The 70-200 is quite short for wildlife but potentially still possible depending on location/subject. I can see me getting a 100-400 in the future because 200mm maybe a little limiting.

For the last few years I’ve been using a Nikon 200-400 f4 and 70-200 f4. I’ve checked my focal length use in LR. Whilst quite a bit has been in the 300-400mm range but I still used the 200mm range quite a bit. I’ve found quite a few of my favourite images in the last few years have been 200mm or below. I’m planning to try just the 70-200 f4 for wildlife and see how I get on. Hopefully the A7R3 will give a little extra cropping. The 100-400 does look a nice lens and fairly light too (I’m already talking myself into it but need to shift the Nikon gear first). One of my biggest issues in the last few years has been weight. Carrying about 7-8kg of lens/camera/tripod doesnt make wildlife photography as much fun. I’m hoping the move to Sony means less weight to carry especially if in the future it could mean a 100-400 plus A7R3 will be circa 2kg and light enough to hand hold without a tripod. That’s hopefully a 5-6kg saving covering the same range for one stop less aperture.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Likewise its an amazing lens.I originally bought it for wildlife, but quickly found that it is also just as good at landscape. I always have it my bag, just in case the opportunity arises.

Whipsnade,20180113 -12133.jpg

Untitled

Click to expand...
After buying the 70-200 f4 I’ve started to wonder if I should have got the 100-400 instead and used it for both wildlife and landscapes. For landscapes the only downside seems it weights 1.5kg compared to 1kg for the 70/200 f4.
 
rob-nikon said:
The 70-200 is quite short for wildlife but potentially still possible depending on location/subject. I can see me getting a 100-400 in the future because 200mm maybe a little limiting.

For the last few years I’ve been using a Nikon 200-400 f4 and 70-200 f4. I’ve checked my focal length use in LR. Whilst quite a bit has been in the 300-400mm range but I still used the 200mm range quite a bit. I’ve found quite a few of my favourite images in the last few years have been 200mm or below. I’m planning to try just the 70-200 f4 for wildlife and see how I get on. Hopefully the A7R3 will give a little extra cropping. The 100-400 does look a nice lens and fairly light too (I’m already talking myself into it but need to shift the Nikon gear first). One of my biggest issues in the last few years has been weight. Carrying about 7-8kg of lens/camera/tripod doesnt make wildlife photography as much fun. I’m hoping the move to Sony means less weight to carry especially if in the future it could mean a 100-400 plus A7R3 will be circa 2kg and light enough to hand hold without a tripod. That’s hopefully a 5-6kg saving covering the same range for one stop less aperture.
Click to expand...
Weight is definitly a consideration for me.
I was actually hoping the AF on Nikon Z7 would be on level with Sony so I could adapt the 300mm f4 PF lens for weight saving. But they are so behind in this area. I can't even get decent FPS with Z7 and buffer is worst. I am not really keen on Sony and would much prefer something like the Nikon combo in future.

I prefer the 70-200 over 100-400 for landscapes. Because I really like the 70mm end. The sony a-mount 70-400mm is one of my all time favourite lenses. It was brilliant for both landscapes and wildlife. Rather disappointed they didn't do the same for e-mount. The 70-400G2 is hands down the best overall telezoom IMO. Too bad its on a dying mount. :(
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Had the A7III for two days now, and it's amazing!

I can't believe just how much faster/smoother the AF is over the A99.
Loving the 85/1.8, probably my new favourite lens, and the 50/1.4 ZA works perfectly on the adapter

Can't decide if I'm annoyed at myself for waiting this long to go mirrorless or glad I waited for the "III"

Having to stop myself from buying lenses just for the sake of it now, as I want any excuse to play around with it :)
 
woof woof said:
Loving the positivity there Matt :D
Click to expand...

Haha, other than the fact that my GAS still casts a sideward glance at the 7RIII, it's the perfect camera for me

If the rain ever stops (at 6 days and counting here) I'll be able to get out and really try it out!
 
rob-nikon said:
After buying the 70-200 f4 I’ve started to wonder if I should have got the 100-400 instead and used it for both wildlife and landscapes. For landscapes the only downside seems it weights 1.5kg compared to 1kg for the 70/200 f4.
Click to expand...

TBH I don’t really find the weight an issue. But then after using a Sigma 120-300 Sport anything is lightweight
 
mjScall said:
Had the A7III for two days now, and it's amazing!

I can't believe just how much faster/smoother the AF is over the A99.
Loving the 85/1.8, probably my new favourite lens, and the 50/1.4 ZA works perfectly on the adapter

Can't decide if I'm annoyed at myself for waiting this long to go mirrorless or glad I waited for the "III"

Having to stop myself from buying lenses just for the sake of it now, as I want any excuse to play around with it :)
Click to expand...

Hehe a happy user [emoji106]

Did you get a screen protector and if so which one?
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Hehe a happy user [emoji106]

Did you get a screen protector and if so which one?
Click to expand...

Not yet, it's on my list of things to get though. My RX1R suffered from the weird separation of the built in protection layer (looks like an oil slick across the screen) so will hopefully prevent that!
 
mjScall said:
Not yet, it's on my list of things to get though. My RX1R suffered from the weird separation of the built in protection layer (looks like an oil slick across the screen) so will hopefully prevent that!
Click to expand...

Yes I think that kind of delamination is common on Sony. Back in the the day it happened to my RX100 mk1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top