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

woof woof said:
Bad news guys... the Sony e mount is too small for an f0.58 lens so we'll have to make do with f0.63. It's hard I know but we'll just have to live with it...
Click to expand...

It's hard to take this as something other than go faster stripes for the marketing department, aren't there any examples of lens designs people actually use that show the difference mount size makes? If not then surely a smaller mount is actually an advantage?
 
Just got a LA-EA4 from MPB for £150 posted. Lets hope good condition is that, and not bashed & scuffed. :oops: :$
 
TGphoto said:
Seeing as though two of you may have one to sell, I could be interested in a Samyang 24mm as well - keep hovering over the buy button!
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t bother, other than the novelty of it being tiny, it’s muck.
 
simonbarker said:
It's hard to take this as something other than go faster stripes for the marketing department, aren't there any examples of lens designs people actually use that show the difference mount size makes? If not then surely a smaller mount is actually an advantage?
Click to expand...

My God man! Remember where you are! This is an internet forum! A more correct response would be "What! Sony suck!! and I'm gonna suit them!"
 
ancient_mariner said:
Just got a LA-EA4 from MPB for £150 posted. Lets hope good condition is that, and not bashed & scuffed. :oops: :$
Click to expand...

Haven't you got an A7 III? I thought consensus was the LA-EA3 was the better performer on the newer models? I could of course be completely wrong though.
 
NewBeetle said:
Haven't you got an A7 III? I thought consensus was the LA-EA3 was the better performer on the newer models? I could of course be completely wrong though.
Click to expand...
Depends on the lenses he wants to use/adapt. Screw driven lenses like old Minoltas or some Sony primes don't work with EA3
 
woof woof said:
Who's going to post the link in one of the Nikon fanboy threads on Luminous Landscape...
Click to expand...

This sort of article is quite interesting. I’m still curious as to why others went so big but I cannot say I’ve read truly convincing arguments one way or the other to draw a conclusion.

But I have to comment that I don’t know why all your posts about this sort of thing are loaded with all this faux confrontation. Why create scenarios that don’t seem to exist?
 
nandbytes said:
they more robust than the latest greatest lenses i think. There's little in them that could break.
Click to expand...

My one concern is that the adapter will destroy the drive mechanism - one review I read mentioned a 35-70 being rendered unusable - but the lenses wont get any more use either way, so I'd rather use them. Quite looking forward to giving the beercan an airing, since none of the Nikon mount telezooms I've tried ever seemed especially crisp in comparison (I never would afford f2.8s) and perhaps the 75-300 will be a bit less crap on FF. Will probably hunt down an A mount 24-105 or 28-105 as a walkabout lens at a bargain price and pick up a couple of primes to use for eye-AF.
 
I’ve not bought any new lens yet been trying decide which processing software to settle on. As no longer subscribed to lr cc but thinking going back
 
ancient_mariner said:
My one concern is that the adapter will destroy the drive mechanism - one review I read mentioned a 35-70 being rendered unusable - but the lenses wont get any more use either way, so I'd rather use them. Quite looking forward to giving the beercan an airing, since none of the Nikon mount telezooms I've tried ever seemed especially crisp in comparison (I never would afford f2.8s) and perhaps the 75-300 will be a bit less crap on FF. Will probably hunt down an A mount 24-105 or 28-105 as a walkabout lens at a bargain price and pick up a couple of primes to use for eye-AF.
Click to expand...
Never had any issues tbh. It doesn't do anything differently or any more destructive than an a-mount body.

Used to have the 24-105mm, nice light lens. Also had 24-85, 24-50, 35-70, 70-210, 100-200,100-300 and many Minolta primes. To this day the Minolta 200mm f2.8 is my favourite prime and unbeaten.
I actually used original A7+24-105+100-300mm as my walk around combo with FE55 thrown in for low light. Was a nice little setup.

I still have a scratched 100-200/4.5 (experiment gone wrong). It has small amount of fungus (now dead). No one wanted it in the freebies thread. You are welcome to it at cost of postage. It's actually a sharp copy better than the non-fungus one I had and sold!
 
nandbytes said:
I still have a scratched 100-200/4.5 (experiment gone wrong). It has small amount of fungus (now dead). No one wanted it in the freebies thread. You are welcome to it at cost of postage. It's actually a sharp copy better than the non-fungus one I had and sold!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer. I'll hold off for now, because I think there'll be some rebellion at home if I start acquiring more lenses before I sell some of the Nikon fit jobs! REALLY want some of them gone soon, and the 'bay is beckoning with the lack of interest here.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks for the offer. I'll hold off for now, because I think there'll be some rebellion at home if I start acquiring more lenses before I sell some of the Nikon fit jobs! REALLY want some of them gone soon, and the 'bay is beckoning with the lack of interest here.
Click to expand...

no worries.

All this minolta lens talk is making me want the A99II again :D
 
gad-westy said:
This sort of article is quite interesting. I’m still curious as to why others went so big but I cannot say I’ve read truly convincing arguments one way or the other to draw a conclusion.

But I have to comment that I don’t know why all your posts about this sort of thing are loaded with all this faux confrontation. Why create scenarios that don’t seem to exist?
Click to expand...

All my posts? Really? But anyway... Got a sense of humour? Use it.

I do have a bit of a thing about fanboys as I think it's just amazingly silly and childish for grown men to behave in that way and I really don't feel all that guilty about having a laugh at people who think Nikon (or anyone else) invented everything and represent the SOTA every single time.

I don't know the technical arguments but it does seem rather obvious to me that the Sony mount is suitable for full frame as the camera I have seems to work with FF lenses. That's pretty convincing proof for me.
 
simonbarker said:
It's hard to take this as something other than go faster stripes for the marketing department, aren't there any examples of lens designs people actually use that show the difference mount size makes? If not then surely a smaller mount is actually an advantage?
Click to expand...

Quite. It's marketing spin.

Surprisingly enough, the basic physics of optical design was perfectly well understood when manufacturers specified their SLR and DSLR lens mounts. Nothing has changed and they're still more than adequate.

The exceptional lenses that are appearing now, spawned by these magical new lens mounts, are all ultra-fast and/or wide. Inevitably though, they're also exceptionally huge and costly and therefore of minority interest. Longer focal lengths don't benefit at all from the new mounts and are simply DSLR designs with a mirrorless spacer/adapter bolted on to restore the flange-back distance - eg Sigma https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Si...1B5sKdHX7BsY3gSpM-zGcEOj2Fqex-uhoCcn4QAvD_BwE
 
It may well be marketing spin but I think it's a little unusual for one company to directly criticise another as the Leica guy has done even if there's a real world difference. It's more usual, surely, to avoid directly named comparisons and instead make rather more less specific comparisons such as "Our XYZ does this better than other brands with a different optical formula."
 
woof woof said:
It may well be marketing spin but I think it's a little unusual for one company to directly criticise another as the Leica guy has done even if there's a real world difference. It's more usual, surely, to avoid directly named comparisons and instead make rather more less specific comparisons such as "Our XYZ does this better than other brands with a different optical formula."
Click to expand...

Either way, no one needs lenses less than F 1 or whatever. The only real benefit they offer is for photographers to have bragging rights and the brands to charge an absolute fortune. The times you’d actually shoot that shallow are next to none. They are also massive. Opportunity cost is what I’d say to that.

Cracks me up that they bring out 1.4/1.2 lenses and they do enough for everyone, yet we still want more :LOL: they bring out an A9 that has 20 FPS and peoples first reaction is ‘can’t wait to see what the A9ii offers’.

Crazy.
 
Does anyone have experience of the A7 III with the A-Mount Tamron 70-200 2.8 using the LA-EA3 adapter?
 
nandbytes said:
The AF in 24mm f2.8 was rather decent tbh
Click to expand...

At a price though. No point worrying about a.f speed in a lens that is only sharp at f/8. Plus pretty sure they where talking about their other f/1.4 lenses not the little toy lenses.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
At a price though. No point worrying about a.f speed in a lens that is only sharp at f/8. Plus pretty sure they where talking about their other f/1.4 lenses not the little toy lenses.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, everything is a compromise. For the size of that lens, it was alright. I liked it anyway. I don't like the colours out of Samyang lenses.
 
nandbytes said:
Well yeah, everything is a compromise. For the size of that lens, it was alright. I liked it anyway. I don't like the colours out of Samyang lenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see why I got one for my daughter she loves that lens. It might be crap but it is tiny and weighs nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top