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

nandbytes said:
After going back and forth I have decided I prefer certain lenses than lens types i.e. zoom or primes. A mixture works very well overall don't think I'd be happy with only primes or with only zooms.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of primes but I havent ever got on with them (apart from the 300 f2.8 and even then I missed having a zoomability). I would even up swapping lenses far too much!
 
I had 3 24-70mm f2.8’s for the Nikon (not at the same time ;)) but didn’t use them very much. However, I was always convinced I needed one, and I’d love the new Z mount one but I certainly can’t afford one ;)
 
woof woof said:
To be honest I could live with a standard zoom and a wide aperture prime.
Click to expand...
I like having a general purpose zoom. Took me a while to figure out what exactly that was but I am now pretty sure that's 24-105mm equivalent. It's gives a good balance between quality trade-off and range.
Then rest fast primes.
Then for UWA I still can't make my mind on a zoom Vs. Prime.
For really long telephotos it's definitely zoom because I can't afford primes. May be one day I'll be able to afford one lol (perhaps after I have bought and paid off a house)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I like having a general purpose zoom. Took me a while to figure out what exactly that was but I am now pretty sure that's 24-105mm equivalent. It's gives a prefer balance between quality trade-off and range.
Then rest fast primes.
Then for UWA I still can't make my mind on a zoom Vs. Prime.
For really long telephotos it's definitely zoom because I can't afford primes. May be one day I'll be able to afford one lol (perhaps after I have bought and paid off a house)
Click to expand...
For me there’s too many options for framing with landscapes which is why I’d never have an UWA prime.
 
snerkler said:
For me there’s too many options for framing with landscapes which is why I’d never have an UWA prime.
Click to expand...

Well depends on you look at it.
24mm is already fairly wide. If you need wider you can stitch.
Previously I had a 15mm prime. With high MP I can easily crop down to 18-20mm. Also allows for framing in post.

Currently trying a 10-18mm which is silly wide lol.
 
snerkler said:
For me there’s too many options for framing with landscapes which is why I’d never have an UWA prime.
Click to expand...

With modern cameras there's so much scope for cropping that I don't think exact framing is really necessary for a lot of people a lot of the time.

I may be wrong but I don't think that many people are truly honest about their needs. If for example all that's needed is a picture to fill a screen or an A4 sheet or even an A3 viewed anything like normally then what is really needed? I have A3 prints from my Canon 20D and some would say 8mp is overkill.

PS.
I read somewhere recently that 2mp is enough :D Not for pixel peeping or viewing with a magnifying glass but for normal viewing by normal people.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I read a piece by a famous Vietnam war photographer once. He used an 85mm Nikon and thought it was the best lens ever made and said that if he couldn't take a picture with that lens he wouldn't want to take it.

I have 7 35's.
Click to expand...
You should get a few more :) Which is tour favourite?
 
Zooms are such useful things. I really like a 24/28-105/120 type, and if it's sharp then I'll use it 80% of the time. 19-35 as a wide-walk about zoom around town, 12-24 for interiors (mine hasn't been used in months, at least partly because I hate using it manual only)

Primes are for specific purposes: Sammy 35 f2.8 pancake to make the camera as small and un-noticeable as possible, 50 and 85 f1.4 for super-shallow DoF and high sharpness when stopped down.

I'd not *want* to be restricted to one lens type - they all have their place.
 
twist said:
You should get a few more :) Which is tour favourite?
Click to expand...

They're all ever so slightly different which is why I have more than one.

The Sony f2.8 is very compact and great if you don't need wider than f2.8 or the close focus ability of the f1.8 and the f1.8 is great if you're not bothered about it being bigger and need the f1.8 or close focus ability plus it's fast.

The Voigtlander f1.4 is very well made and is a joy to use and gives a more classic look at wider apertures, for good or bad, and it's very compact. The film era ones I have are one f1.8 and three f2.8's but even the f2.8's are slightly different but really any one would do and I really only have them because they're cheap and fun to buy and test and use. You don't really need 7. Any normal person would be happy with any one of them.

At the moment I like the Voigtlander f1.4 but if I want AF and close focus then the Sony f1.8 is ok unless I want compact and AF and then it's the Sony f2.8.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
From what I’ve seen it’s 50/50 for wedding togs between 24-70 and primes.
Click to expand...

How many wedding photographers do you know? :LOL:

I know quite a few and as I already said only one uses a 24-70 regularly.

It’s only really old school photographers that use them.

It’s a boring lens.
 
f/2.8 said:
How many wedding photographers do you know? :LOL:

I know quite a few and as I already said only one uses a 24-70 regularly.

It’s only really old school photographers that use them.

It’s a boring lens.
Click to expand...
A few, I meet a lot of people in my ‘trade’. Also, every wedding I’ve attended the tog has used zooms :p
 
nandbytes said:
Well depends on you look at it.
24mm is already fairly wide. If you need wider you can stitch.
Previously I had a 15mm prime. With high MP I can easily crop down to 18-20mm. Also allows for framing in post.

Currently trying a 10-18mm which is silly wide lol.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
With modern cameras there's so much scope for cropping that I don't think exact framing is really necessary for a lot of people a lot of the time.

I may be wrong but I don't think that many people are truly honest about their needs. If for example all that's needed is a picture to fill a screen or an A4 sheet or even an A3 viewed anything like normally then what is really needed? I have A3 prints from my Canon 20D and some would say 8mp is overkill.

PS.
I read somewhere recently that 2mp is enough :D Not for pixel peeping or viewing with a magnifying glass but for normal viewing by normal people.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting perspective, different focal lengths give different perspectives which you can’t replicate with stitching or cropping.
 
Some of my most favourite lenses are primes as apposed to zooms..

Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8
Fujinon 56mm f1.2
Fujinon 90mm f2.0
Fuji X100 (23mm)
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Sony 85mm f1.4 GM

I have the holy trinity Sony GM collection but need to use them more often to really get a feel for them, they are great for convenience but for personal stuff, I could make so with a prime.
Still debating to sell up and get something cheaper...... [emoji33]
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
Some of my most favourite lenses are primes as apppsed to zooms..

Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8
Fujinon 56mm f1.2
Fujinon 90mm f2.0
Fuji X100 (23mm)
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
Sony 85mm f1.4 GM

I have the holy trinity Sony GM collection but need to use them more often to really get a feel for them, they are great for convenience but for personal stuff, I could make so with a prime.
Still debating to sell up and get something cheaper...... :eek:
Click to expand...
My favourite is probably the 70-200mm f2.8
 
snerkler said:
You’re forgetting perspective, different focal lengths give different perspectives which you can’t replicate with stitching or cropping.
Click to expand...

Perspective is same as field of view. 12mm on m43 will have the same perspective as 24mm on FF or putting a 12mm on FF and cropping from centre 2x is same as putting 12mm on m43.
 
snerkler said:
You’re forgetting perspective, different focal lengths give different perspectives which you can’t replicate with stitching or cropping.
Click to expand...

Stitching no, but cropping? Yes. You can get a 70mm perspective with a 35mm lens by standing at 70mm distance and cropping but you can't do it the other way for 35mm perspective, not by shooting with a 70mm and cropping but maybe you can get a 35mm look with a 70mm by standing at 35mm distance and stitching as 35mm isn't that extreme so you might get the look but I don't know if you can get a 12mm look with a 70mm as I haven't tried.

There's Brenizer method too to confuse things further.
 
woof woof said:
Stitching no, but cropping? Yes. You can get a 70mm perspective with a 35mm lens by standing at 70mm distance and cropping but you can't do it the other way for 35mm perspective, not by shooting with a 70mm and cropping but maybe you can get a 35mm look with a 70mm by standing at 35mm distance and stitching as 35mm isn't that extreme so you might get the look but I don't know if you can get a 12mm look with a 70mm as I haven't tried.

There's Brenizer method too to confuse things further.
Click to expand...

With stitching also you can get the same perspective but it's much harder and takes more effort than it's worth. But you can get close enough to being slightly wider by shooting portrait orientation and stitching into a landscape.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Perspective is same as field of view. 12mm on m43 will have the same perspective as 24mm on FF or putting a 12mm on FF and cropping from centre 2x is same as putting 12mm on m43.
Click to expand...

Yup. There's only one perspective until you move :D Some think there's a flattening effect with long lenses but there isn't, not one that you couldn't replicate with a 12mm and a lot of mp's and some heavy cropping. I don't know if you can replicate the stretching effect of extreme wide angles with a long lens though. I think you could but I'll have to try unless someone can tell me so I don't have to bother :D
 
nandbytes said:
With stitching also you can get the same perspective but it's much harder and takes more effort than it's worth. But you can get close enough by shooting portrait orientation and stitching into a landscape.
Click to expand...

Ah, you may have answered my next post.
 
I think I should have known. These are 35mm stitch shots that do seem to give the stretching effect of a much wider FoV.

4CGHghj.jpg


PYoqysM.jpg
 
nandbytes said:
Perspective is same as field of view. 12mm on m43 will have the same perspective as 24mm on FF or putting a 12mm on FF and cropping from centre 2x is same as putting 12mm on m43.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
Stitching no, but cropping? Yes. You can get a 70mm perspective with a 35mm lens by standing at 70mm distance and cropping but you can't do it the other way for 35mm perspective, not by shooting with a 70mm and cropping but maybe you can get a 35mm look with a 70mm by standing at 35mm distance and stitching as 35mm isn't that extreme so you might get the look but I don't know if you can get a 12mm look with a 70mm as I haven't tried.

There's Brenizer method too to confuse things further.
Click to expand...
nandbytes said:
With stitching also you can get the same perspective but it's much harder and takes more effort than it's worth. But you can get close enough to being slightly wider by shooting portrait orientation and stitching into a landscape.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
Yup. There's only one perspective until you move :D Some think there's a flattening effect with long lenses but there isn't, not one that you couldn't replicate with a 12mm and a lot of mp's and some heavy cropping. I don't know if you can replicate the stretching effect of extreme wide angles with a long lens though. I think you could but I'll have to try unless someone can tell me so I don't have to bother :D
Click to expand...
Yes what I was alluding to was trying to get the ‘exaggerated’ distortion of something like a 16mm lens using a 28mm for example. Using the 16mm you can get closer to a foreground subject and the resulting image will always look different to one taken with a 28mm where you have to stand further back.
Granted the other way around you can just crop but I’d rather have a lens with the ‘right’ focal length. I would imagine most shots we’re talking about are at f8-11 where differences in sharpness are less noticeable.
 
The new Sigma 24-70 has an 82mm filter thread.

It is gonna be huge.

I thought it would be, so much for them trying to make light weight mirrorless lenses.

Sigma-24-70mm-FE.png
 
Last edited:
Might still be more compact compared to 24-70GM.
Sigma were never really going to make small light lenses for FF. It's like telling water to stop being wet. :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Might still be more compact compared to 24-70GM.
Sigma were never really going to make small light lenses for FF. It's like telling water to stop being wet. :D
Click to expand...

I think the only evidence for smaller Sigma lenses we have to date is the 45mm f2.8. That was designed to be small and that in turn lead to Sigma developing it for a look rather than for class leading sharpness across the frame which they couldn't achieve given the constraints.

We may see other smaller lenses but I doubt they'll make the likes of a 24-70mm f2.8 significantly smaller and lighter than the competition as that would almost certainly mean it would be significantly bettered by the competition if better in your mind means sharp across the frame and into the corners from wide open. The only way to do it would probably be to do an f4. That would probably allow it to be smaller than a f2.8 but may lead to it being just another f4 :D
 
woof woof said:
I think the only evidence for smaller Sigma lenses we have to date is the 45mm f2.8. That was designed to be small and that in turn lead to Sigma developing it for a look rather than for class leading sharpness across the frame which they couldn't achieve given the constraints.
Click to expand...

They issued a statement last year saying they were working towards lighter weight smaller lenses for e-mount.
 
f/2.8 said:
They issued a statement last year saying they were working towards lighter weight smaller lenses for e-mount.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what they said and so far the only one we can buy is... the 45mm f2.8.

If you read the story of how that lens came into being you'll know that they couldn't make it sharper than the competition because of the need to make it smaller and that lead to it being developed for pleasing bokeh rather than sharpness. If that design challenge is faced with lenses like the 24-70mm f2.8 too then I think it'd be a difficult decision for Sigma to make.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes, I know what they said and so far the only one we can buy is... the 45mm f2.8.

If you read the story of how that lens came into being you'll know that they couldn't make it sharper than the competition because of the need to make it smaller and that lead to it being developed for pleasing bokeh rather than sharpness. If that design challenge is faced with lenses like the 24-70mm f2.8 too then I think it'd be a difficult decision for Sigma to make.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they only have to compete with the Tamron for the 24-70, if they had been able to make the lens just a little better than the Tamron but keep the small size they would have been possibly on to a winner. This is likely to be similar size and weight to the G.M and probably not much cheaper.
 
f/2.8 said:
Yeah but they only have to compete with the Tamron for the 24-70, if they had been able to make the lens just a little better than the Tamron but keep the small size they would have been possibly on to a winner. This is likely to be similar size and weight to the G.M and probably not much cheaper.
Click to expand...

I'd bet on ~£1400 give or take £50

While they are 3rd party for us they are still 1st party for L-mount and need to compete in sharpness with Panasonic/Leica equivalents.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I'd bet on ~£1400 give or take £50

While they are 3rd party for us they are still 1st party for L-mount and need to compete in sharpness with Panasonic/Leica equivalents.
Click to expand...

Based on the prices of their recent lenses I think it will be more expensive than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top