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

nandbytes said:
Nah not GAS (at least not entirely). it's smaller than others zoom options and still a f2.8. initial review suggests it's at least as good as Sony 16-35GM which is currently the best UWA zoom and it's cheaper.

My main reservation is the 17mm isn't as wide as my current 15mm prime.
Click to expand...

being smaller/lighter and also very good are valid reasons for sure. i was just a bit puzzled by the excitement for it as i knew Sony already had at least one WA zoom.

Raymond Lin said:
A lot of the time the use of a ultra wide isn't for style but for necessity.

I am in a hotel room shooting bridal prep, I want big frame of the room, the only way to make the room look big is an ultra wide. I can't step back anymore than i can limited by the wall behind me.

Stepping back isn't a solution. If I can step back for the shot, I wouldn't use a 17mm, I would use 35mm or even a 50mm.
Click to expand...

If it's more necessity then the current 16-35 should suffice no? You're probably using flash in many of these situations too
 
Cagey75 said:
being smaller/lighter and also very good are valid reasons for sure. i was just a bit puzzled by the excitement for it as i knew Sony already had at least one WA zoom.



If it's more necessity then the current 16-35 should suffice no? You're probably using flash in many of these situations too
Click to expand...

Except the current 16-35 is like £1500. This is like halved.

For a back up lens and one that I use much less frequently than my primes, this makes more financial sense. Hence the "excitement".

At the moment I just adapt my Canon 16-35L mk1...its an ancient lens that could do with updating and getting a native mount.

p.s. I still want too keep it at 2.8, otherwise I would've got the F/4 Sony.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Except the current 16-35 is like £1500. This is like halved.

For a back up lens and one that I use much less frequently than my primes, this makes more financial sense. Hence the "excitement".

At the moment I just adapt my Canon 16-35L mk1...its an ancient lens that could do with updating and getting a native mount.

p.s. I still want too keep it at 2.8, otherwise I would've got the F/4 Sony.
Click to expand...

There is clear excitement, nothing over the top about that. Half the price sounds good, I see it's IF too, i like that and focuses nice and close. I'm just not an UWA type, was more curious than anything
 
Cagey75 said:
There is clear excitement, nothing over the top about that. Half the price sounds good, I see it's IF too, i like that and focuses nice and close. I'm just not an UWA type, was more curious than anything
Click to expand...

I don't think my initial sentence is what i would call CLEAR excitement.

Raymond Lin said:
The Tamron 17-28 looks good......
Click to expand...
 
Raymond Lin said:
I don't think my initial sentence is what i would call CLEAR excitement.
Click to expand...

Yes Raymond, the world revolves around you only ... completely skip over the part actually concerning the lens :D I'm talking in general, obviously I would have thought
 
Cagey75 said:
Yes Raymond, the world revolves around you only ... completely skip over the part actually concerning the lens :D I'm talking in general, obviously I would have thought
Click to expand...

Pardon my mistake since you quoted me in the first place. I will try to learn mind reading by lunch time.
 
T_J_G said:
Don't blame you. I am too. But the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is seriously a lot of lens for the money. Think there was a used one go for around £500 on here!
Click to expand...

nandbytes lens. I was tempted but a) I've just bought that Sammy 35 f2.8 and b) it's a damn great piece of metal and glass and c) £500 is still a lot to me for a lens that will see relatively little use. I would like an 85 or similar and a native 12-24.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The Tamron 17-28 looks good......
Click to expand...

I'm hoping its as good as there saying, I love the 28-75.
nice and small/light and preforms great, I would say its as good if not better than my Nikon 24-70 was at less than 1/2 the cost.
yeah the range isn't great but I'm sure I will try and pick one up.


Shoot Em Up said:
Disclaimer: The following image was not shot with a Sony. :)

View attachment 248586
Click to expand...


see you have someone with the same issue as my wife... and she complains about the cost of my camera kit when she has bags that cost 2k
 
pmac said:
I'm hoping its as good as there saying, I love the 28-75.
nice and small/light and preforms great, I would say its as good if not better than my Nikon 24-70 was at less than 1/2 the cost.
yeah the range isn't great but I'm sure I will try and pick one up.





see you have someone with the same issue as my wife... and she complains about the cost of my camera kit when she has bags that cost 2k
Click to expand...

Get it with the 28-75, it is the cost of 1 single GM (either 24-70 or 16-35). Amazing value.
 
Cagey75 said:
I mean, I see people falling over themselves for the 200-600, people who've never shot wildlife or sports suddenly 'need' this lens - is there not a bit of this at the wide end too?
Click to expand...
Cagey75 said:
i was just a bit puzzled by the excitement for it as i knew Sony already had at least one WA zoom.
Click to expand...

Personally I shoot at both ends and hence I am excited by both 17-28mm and 200-600.

But I am also really excited about say the 600mm f4 even though I'll probably never own one or shoot with one for more than few minutes.

Having more options is generally good and also shows the system is alive and kicking. Also shows the system is growing. I get asked why I care how many people shoot a certain system and I don't to some extent but it's also important.
In my past experience with Sony a-mount it was really hard to find good deals on used market and then sell on my gear. If tried to trade in a-mount gear some shop looked at me like I asked to trade in a dead puppy. Now with e-mount if my sale on here fails I can normally have my lens sold within a few days on eBay. My last three lenses sold within few hours!
So to some extent I feel it's important to be on a system that's growing and these lenses show just that even if one may not buy them.
 
pmac said:
see you have someone with the same issue as my wife... and she complains about the cost of my camera kit when she has bags that cost 2k
Click to expand...

Oh that's just an image off the web. It was a tongue in cheek post for the previous couple of members and their 'handbags' :).
 
Raymond Lin said:
Have you seen the price of a Birkin bag?!
Click to expand...

Mrs WW was given an expensive bag as a gift by a colleague but she didn't know what it was or how much it cost and gave it to an 8 year old girl :D
 
woof woof said:
Just the talk on here and the performance of the 50mm lenses which I think have the cheaper focusing mechanisms and that Gosh awful 50mm macro I had for a day and sent back.

I'm hoping it'll be as good as the 55 and 85mm f1.8's but even those are a bit leisurely at least on my A7 although I expect they might be quicker on newer cameras.
Click to expand...

If you dont take taxing imagery and the a7 af is okay why would it matter if the 35 1.8 isn’t the fastest lens around? It will be at least as fast as the fe 50 which is fine. The macro would’ve been slower by design.
 
nandbytes said:
with some looking and patience you can grab a 70-200mm f4 for £750. There isn't really a cheaper native option.

Since you are still using the original A7 for cheap usable AF option your best bet is LA-EA4+a-mount glass. LA-EA4 will cost you £150-200 for remaining £300-350 you could grab - sony G 70-300mm, tamron 70-300mm, minolta 100-300mm APO, minolta 200mm f2.8 (with some luck), minolta 100-400mm
Click to expand...

So nandbytes I'm guessing you have been here, so maybe in a position to answer. What does the LA-EA4 give me over the LA-EA3?
Use of screwdrive minolta lenses and none SSM older Sony A mount
I lose 1/3 stop of light
My wallet is lighter

Is there any other technical reason on the old A7 to go with the AF sensor on the adaptor rather than native camera sensor?
So what 'essential/amazing/incredible vaule' lenses can I consider buying (i.e. Minolta and older Sony) that need the LA-EA4 to function.

sorry for the repeated question, just want to be sure before stretching the trigger finger, want something for Goodwood next weekend!

Thanks
 
puggie said:
So nandbytes I'm guessing you have been here, so maybe in a position to answer. What does the LA-EA4 give me over the LA-EA3?
Use of screwdrive minolta lenses and none SSM older Sony A mount
I lose 1/3 stop of light
My wallet is lighter

Is there any other technical reason on the old A7 to go with the AF sensor on the adaptor rather than native camera sensor?
So what 'essential/amazing/incredible vaule' lenses can I consider buying (i.e. Minolta and older Sony) that need the LA-EA4 to function.

sorry for the repeated question, just want to be sure before stretching the trigger finger, want something for Goodwood next weekend!

Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes been there done that :D
So with the original A7/r/s you only get slow, unusable (sometimes very inaccurate) CDAF with adapters. Sometimes the lenses won't even lock-on and hunt endlessly. With a bit of practice it's practically quicker to manually focus.

The only adapter that provides usable AF especially with telephoto lenses is the LA-EA4 adapter because it has its own AF system.

The good a-mount telephoto lenses are Sony 70-300, tamron 70-300, Sony 70-400. If you want cheaper ones then there is Minolta 100-300 APO version and Minolta 100-400. Minolta/Sony 500mm f8 reflex lens is a rather interesting one too. Minolta 200mm f2.8 prime to this day is sharpest in its class. So thats a special one if can get one cheaply.

Your other option is to upgrade your A7 body to A7II or A7RII and then you get on-sensor PDAF with MC-11+canon lenses. This may be a better approach if you rather not spend money buying adapter and lenses from a dying mount plus if you already have some canon lenses.
The AF with A7II isn't great but it works fast enough to be usable.
 
Last edited:
Shoot Em Up said:
Disclaimer: The following image was not shot with a Sony. :)

View attachment 248586
Click to expand...


Honestly, this doesn't look all too different to some of the 'camera bags' some photographers use these days. Man-bags :D

jonneymendoza said:
His at it again

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp24rJdPXFQ
Click to expand...


This t*** again? eurgh, why doesn't he and KW just GTFO and quit acting like 2 attention seeking brats. I flicked into the video and he's showing some supposed examples of models coming on to him ... all I seen was some selective clips of models being a bit cheeky, putting a hand on his shoulder or being playful. And the camera is on, obviously he's not going to be seen to put a hand on them. Not saying he has ever done anything of the sort, but he's trying to turn it that they're coming on to him. Later in the video he's playing sad piano music over him reading texts from these models praising him [before any allegations] .. pathetic, only his own following care about this nonsense surely?

Curiosity got the better of me, had to check KW's IG to see if he has any come backs, it led to links of videos from models Lanier doesn't mention also coming out against him ... why would so many of them make these allegations? I was curious because I find Lanier a bit creepy myself, I've seen how he deals with models and it's awkward and uncomfortable at times. He calls them honey, or dear or sweetie and I definitely have seen him put hands on, he's probably deleted a lot of those old vids
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
No don't know of any close to London tbh. The closest one I know of now is the one in Bewdley in Worcester. My main concern going there is I am not sure if the field will still be alive this weekend and/or next.
Click to expand...

Isn't there one in Kent that's all over the Internet?
 
twist said:
If you dont take taxing imagery and the a7 af is okay why would it matter if the 35 1.8 isn’t the fastest lens around? It will be at least as fast as the fe 50 which is fine. The macro would’ve been slower by design.
Click to expand...

I've only had one of the slower focusing / hunting lenses, the 50mm macro, and it was complete pants on my A7. This is possibly because I got a faulty one or possibly because the slow / hunting performance that reviewers reported is worse on my A7. That little episode makes me nervous and as I said I have multiple manual lenses I can use and my AF f2.8 so I'd be interested in a 35mm f1.8 of the quality and focusing ability of the 55 and 85mm f1.8 but anything less and I'll just send it back as it'll be pointless or as likely I just wont bother if reviewers report slow and hunting performance. It's not as if I don't have the odd 35mm laying around :D
 
If the 35/1.8 is of the same standard as the 85/1.8 then I could be tempted.....

But unlikely as I sold the FE35/2.8 & bought a Samyang 35/2.8 from JJ (I think?) back in January just incase I ever needed AF around that focal length. I've never used it & it's spent the past few months at my boys house......

CV40/1.2 FTW :)
 
puggie said:
So nandbytes I'm guessing you have been here, so maybe in a position to answer. What does the LA-EA4 give me over the LA-EA3?
Use of screwdrive minolta lenses and none SSM older Sony A mount
I lose 1/3 stop of light
My wallet is lighter

Is there any other technical reason on the old A7 to go with the AF sensor on the adaptor rather than native camera sensor?
So what 'essential/amazing/incredible vaule' lenses can I consider buying (i.e. Minolta and older Sony) that need the LA-EA4 to function.

sorry for the repeated question, just want to be sure before stretching the trigger finger, want something for Goodwood next weekend!

Thanks
Click to expand...

I've had an La-EA4 too - focus is fast and accurate, and I was really impressed - presently looking out for another used one, since I have a couple of Minolta screw drive lenses that I really like.
 
nandbytes said:
Yes been there done that :D
So with the original A7/r/s you only get slow, unusable (sometimes very inaccurate) CDAF with adapters. Sometimes the lenses won't even lock-on and hunt endlessly. With a bit of practice it's practically quicker to manually focus.

The only adapter that provides usable AF especially with telephoto lenses is the LA-EA4 adapter because it has its own AF system.

The good a-mount telephoto lenses are Sony 70-300, tamron 70-300, Sony 70-400. If you want cheaper ones then there is Minolta 100-300 APO version and Minolta 100-400. Minolta/Sony 500mm f8 reflex lens is a rather interesting one too. Minolta 200mm f2.8 prime to this day is sharpest in its class. So thats a special one if can get one cheaply.

Your other option is to upgrade your A7 body to A7II or A7RII and then you get on-sensor PDAF with MC-11+canon lenses. This may be a better approach if you rather not spend money buying adapter and lenses from a dying mount plus if you already have some canon lenses.
The AF with A7II isn't great but it works fast enough to be usable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the indepth review. I'm not really looking to upgrade the body if I can help it, frankly it's a good sensor and a flexible mount, it's not the weak link here. I see my current options as:

SEL24250 (and lose the kit lens and Canon 200mm)
SAL70300 and LA-EA4 (later hunt a cheap minolta 200 f2.8)
Canon 70-200L and pinch my Dad's Canon 5D2.

The 5D2 may be available to me soon, I could jump ship back to Canon, or stick with my Sony. I'm a casual snapper, I don't want or need to jump on the upgrade wagon. I'm happy with my Sony kit lens, it feels a bit cheap but is sharp enough for me, I just want more reach. One thought is the FE stuff does tend to hold its value well second hand a tidy LA-EA4 second hand is not much cheaper than new (clean ones are maybe £40 cheaper than Amazon New.
 
Last edited:
Hi all
I've just picked up an A6000 and 16-50 and I'm really pleased with initial results.
I've noticed a few posts about the benefit of using cheap older lenses from minolta etc.
Does anyone have a link to a simple review or info site about this including adapters etc? It seems like a bit of a minefield!
Thanks,
Steve
 
Thread need more pictures

lutxm5r.jpg
 
puggie said:
Thanks for the indepth review. I'm not really looking to upgrade the body if I can help it, frankly it's a good sensor and a flexible mount, it's not the weak link here. I see my current options as:

SEL24250 (and lose the kit lens and Canon 200mm)
SAL70300 and LA-EA4 (later hunt a cheap minolta 200 f2.8)
Canon 70-200L and pinch my Dad's Canon 5D2.

The 5D2 may be available to me soon, I could jump ship back to Canon, or stick with my Sony. I'm a casual snapper, I don't want or need to jump on the upgrade wagon. I'm happy with my Sony kit lens, it feels a bit cheap but is sharp enough for me, I just want more reach. One thought is the FE stuff does tend to hold its value well second hand a tidy LA-EA4 second hand is not much cheaper than new (clean ones are maybe £40 cheaper than Amazon New.
Click to expand...
E-MOUNT stuff does it's value quite well except for the bodies (but I think bodies from any brand drops in value over time).

Well for the amount it'll cost you to buy LA-EA4 you can probably upgrade the to A7II for about the same amount or a little more. Then get the mc-11 for £150-ish and you can just continue using your canon glass. Seems cheaper or about the same as LA-EA4+a-mount glass.
That way you give your canon glass a new life and you have a better slightly better body.

On the other hand you could move back to canon but you'll have a worst sensor.
 
beercan said:
Hi all
I've just picked up an A6000 and 16-50 and I'm really pleased with initial results.
I've noticed a few posts about the benefit of using cheap older lenses from minolta etc.
Does anyone have a link to a simple review or info site about this including adapters etc? It seems like a bit of a minefield!
Thanks,
Steve
Click to expand...
Minolta glass will only autofocus with LA-EA2 and LA-EA4 adapters. Not much else to say really.
Both adapters have their own AF module like in a DSLR and uses Sony's SLT tech.

LA-EA2 is for APS-C only while LA-EA4 works for both FF and APS-C.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top