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

TGphoto said:
Hmmm it’s not a need more of a ‘want’ to see what the hype is about with that sigma.

The Sony is the safe bet I think, can get the Sony new vs sigma used for the same price.
Click to expand...

Size and weight would be something I'd think about. If it's something that would influence you the size comparator site doesn't have the Sony f1.8 on it but it's almost exactly the size of the 55mm. I hope that's the right Sigma...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.758,777.395,ha,t
 
TGphoto said:
Hmmm it’s not a need more of a ‘want’ to see what the hype is about with that sigma.

The Sony is the safe bet I think, can get the Sony new vs sigma used for the same price.
Click to expand...

Hype is for a new or unreleased product, the art is tried and tested and been around a long time and earned its stripes across all mounts. What has the FE achieved besides getting a very mixed reception?
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Hype is for a new product, the art is tried and tested and been around a long time and earned its stripes. What has the FE achieved besides getting a very mixed reception?
Click to expand...

Cheaper? Smaller? Lighter? Close focusing ability? Focus speed?

Ultimate image quality and the size of the aperture might go to the Sigma?
 
woof woof said:
Size and weight would be something I'd think about. If it's something that would influence you the size comparator site doesn't have the Sony f1.8 on it but it's almost exactly the size of the 55mm. I hope that's the right Sigma...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#777.758,777.395,ha,t
Click to expand...

True, it is one thing to consider

twist said:
Hype is for a new or unreleased product, the art is tried and tested and been around a long time and earned its stripes across all mounts. What has the FE achieved besides getting a very mixed reception?
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion, I'd say hype refers to lots of people talking about and 'bigging up' the lens.

But yes, it has a good reputation although seemingly not so much for video with the A7III, I remember trying the Samyang for video and it was pants.

That's one thing that concerns me about the Sony, it does have a mixed bag of results.
 
woof woof said:
Cheaper? Smaller? Lighter? Close focusing ability? Focus speed?

Ultimate image quality and the size of the aperture might go to the Sigma?
Click to expand...

Cheaper by £19.
Smaller, lighter, not unusual for a 1.8 lens vs 1.4.
Focus speed, smaller elements, 1st party, obviously.

Nothing that I've personally seen from the FE lens in terms of iq would make me buy it over the art unless video was very high priority. I'd rather carry the back breaking extra 450g.
 
Last edited:
TGphoto said:
True, it is one thing to consider



Not in my opinion, I'd say hype refers to lots of people talking about and 'bigging up' the lens.

But yes, it has a good reputation although seemingly not so much for video with the A7III, I remember trying the Samyang for video and it was pants.

That's one thing that concerns me about the Sony, it does have a mixed bag of results.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a great AF video lens, I don't think I've read anyone ever say its a great AF video lens though. I got one of the very first and it didn't even AF in video. Sigma recalled and replaced the whole batch.
 
twist said:
No, it's not a great AF video lens, I don't think I've read anyone ever say its a great AF video lens though. I got one of the very first and it didn't even AF in video. Sigma recalled and replaced the whole batch.
Click to expand...

Nah, me neither. Shame really, looks like I’ll probably go with the Sony.

Never knew that, that’s not good!
 
TGphoto said:
Nah, me neither. Shame really, looks like I’ll probably go with the Sony.

Never knew that, that’s not good!
Click to expand...

Very few were released like that, batch was tiny, the Sigma tech guys had a good chat with me and offered to fw update or replace. Good company to deal with.

If you need the best AF for video then you're making a wise choice.
 
twist said:
Cheaper by £19.
Smaller, lighter, not unusual for a 1.8 lens vs 1.4.
Focus speed, smaller elements, 1st party, obviously.

Nothing that I've personally seen from the FE lens in terms of iq would make me buy it over the art unless video was very high priority. I'd rather carry the back breaking extra 450g.
Click to expand...

Well there you go then. Size and weight and close focus ability sold it to me. I don't know if the Sigma is sharp across the frame at f1.8 but that's another thing the Sony has going for it.

The criticism of the Sony I've seen are question marks over bokeh which I think is par for the course for a 35mm f1.8 designed to be sharp which is what this seems to be and CA. Both of these criticisms need to be assessed against the competition. For example in that Admiring light review the bokeh looks harsh if you look at the busy photos on the wall in that shot of the little boy. To really be sure I think you need to shoot multiple shots at close near and far with the lenses you're comparing. I've done that with the three 35mm's I have that'll do f1.8 or f1.7 and at those apertures there's really nothing in it bokeh wise.

Of course if you want f1.4 :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well there you go then. Size and weight and close focus ability sold it to me. I don't know if the Sigma is sharp across the frame at f1.8 but that's another thing the Sony has going for it.

The criticism of the Sony I've seen are question marks over bokeh which I think is par for the course for a 35mm f1.8 designed to be sharp which is what this seems to be and CA. Both of these criticisms need to be assessed against the competition. For example in that Admiring light review the bokeh looks harsh if you look at the busy photos on the wall in that shot of the little boy. To really be sure I think you need to shoot multiple shots at close near and far with the lenses you're comparing. I've done that with the three 35mm's I have that'll do f1.8 or f1.7 and at those apertures there's really nothing in it bokeh wise.

Of course if you want f1.4 :D
Click to expand...

I find the FE characterless, the mid / far oof areas are ugly. The art isn't the best at far bokeh either but it's less offensive and other things work in its favour (The SZ had terrible CA and was softer wide open, also decentered).

Just gotta look at the pros and cons of each lens then decide or buy them all and test alongside then choose. I did that with the art, samyang and SZ.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Cheaper by £19.
Smaller, lighter, not unusual for a 1.8 lens vs 1.4.
Focus speed, smaller elements, 1st party, obviously.

Nothing that I've personally seen from the FE lens in terms of iq would make me buy it over the art unless video was very high priority. I'd rather carry the back breaking extra 450g.
Click to expand...

this the same FE55 vs. ART 50 debate we have :D

FE35/1.8 is better :exit:
 
twist said:
I find the FE characterless, the mid / far oof areas are ugly. The art isn't the best at far bokeh either but it's less offensive and other things work in its favour (The SZ had terrible CA and was softer wide open, also decentered).

Just gotta look at the pros and cons of each lens then decide or buy them all and test alongside then choose. I did that with the art, samyang and SZ.
Click to expand...

I like to stay away from words like characterless unless I'm using "characterful" and have my tongue in my cheek when describing a "classic" lens.

I think how the bokeh looks at various distances and with various backgrounds can be explained by the design choices made and in the case of the Sony it looks like sharpness across the frame from f1.8 was a high priority over bokeh quality and that's going to affect how the bokeh looks but having said that I don't think it's exactly awful compared to other 35mm lenses.

If you look lenses that give a smoother bokeh they are sometimes not as sharp across the frame and sometimes don't deal with aberrations. The Sigma 45mm f2.8 is worth reading up on as it's a case of a lens designed to give nice bokeh and that's lead to other issues. Ditto some Voigtlanders too.
 
The Canon 35L mk2 is the best 35mm.....and the best 50 is the Zeiss 50/1.4. I own all of them together for over a year.

I am hoping the Sigma 35/1.2 is as good as the Canon.

0k0tMXo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The Canon 35L mk2 is the best 35mm.....and the best 50 is the Zeiss 50/1.4. I own all of them together for over a year.

I am hoping the Sigma 35/1.2 is as good as the Canon.
Click to expand...

haven't you heard the new tamron 35mm f1.4 is the best 35mm followed by the sigma ART 35mm f1.2
 
rookies said:
Was thinking earlier what other improvements could Sony do with FW updates now to the a9
Click to expand...
I very much doubt we will see any more firmware update for the original Sony A9. I suspect Sony will give the new A9 II a big firmware boost in a years time to keep things fresh vs competition.

snerkler said:
Bird eye AF (y)
Click to expand...
I suspect Sony will already be working on this a long with AI based goodies, they have setup their own AI division :o
Probably something for the next generation bodies in a couple of years time.

nandbytes said:
this the same FE55 vs. ART 50 debate we have :D

FE35/1.8 is better :exit:
Click to expand...

I think the Sony FE 35/55/85mm f1.8 lenses have their merits, obviously size, weight and cost are being positive points.
I have always loved the FE 55mm f1.8 and for me, its a cracking little lens, I guess the final output from lenses are subjective and come down to individuals tastes etc. :)
 
I try to take some pictures every day if only for Mrs WW to send to her family. Since getting the 35mm f1.8 I haven't used the 35mm f2.8. I use the f1.8 or Voigtlander f1.4 now.
 
I have the 35 f/1.8 and the Sigma Art.

The Sigma is definitely a better lens, it is sharper, handles C.A much better and has much nicer o.o.f areas.

The Sony has faster a.f and is smaller.

There isn't a perfect 35mm available the Zeiss has a lot of issues as well. When I first switched too Sony I bought both the Zeiss and the Sigma as 35mm is a focal length I use a lot and I preferred the Sigma and returned the Zeiss.

That's why I would like to see a 35GM, hopefully similar size to the 24GM with similar performance.

I have a love/hate relationship with both the Sigma and the Sony, with the Sigma it's probably just because I am bored with the lens, I had it for Nikon as well for many years.

With the Sony I love the small size but am always a bit disappointed in the performance for most people I am sure it would be fine.
 
Last edited:
It does.

There's a lot of stuff on Fred Miranda and I think he said it's the sharpest 35mm he's tested.
 
twist said:
Until you look at the background of that portrait shot.
Click to expand...

I still say the best way to judge is to see multiple identical shots at different distances taken with different lenses.
 
Riz_Guru said:
The little Sony 35mm f1.8 fairs well :D lol
Click to expand...

It's a decent enough lens. I am critical of it but I still didn't return mine when I could have, and have continued to use it.

It is as good as any other 35 f/1.8 from any of the other manufacturers.

I guess because of it's cost at launch people are maybe a little more critical of it and with the Sigma being a similar price now it isn't great value for money.
 
f/2.8 said:
It's a decent enough lens. I am critical of it but I still didn't return mine when I could have, and have continued to use it.

It is as good as any other 35 f/1.8 from any of the other manufacturers.

I guess because of it's cost at launch people are maybe a little more critical of it.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

This is true, £600 for a 35 1.8 is a lot of money so expectations will be fairly high.
 
twist said:
This is true, £600 for a 35 1.8 is a lot of money so expectations will be fairly high.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they knew that demand for it was going to be huge so decided to take the p*** a bit with the price and to be fair that worked because over priced or not it's a very popular lens.

Over time I imagine it will drop in price as demand does, it is probably worth about £350-400 realistically.
 
f/2.8 said:
Yeah, I think they knew that demand for it was going to be huge so decided to take the p*** a bit with the price and to be fair that worked because over priced or not it's a very popular lens.

Over time I imagine it will drop in price as demand does, it is probably worth about £350-400 realistically.
Click to expand...

In time maybe as lenses that have been out a while can drop in price but until then good luck waiting for a newly introduced sharp fast focusing 35mm f1.8 or there abouts lens with close focusing ability for £350-400.
 
good to see A7RIII and A7III still being updated even if its small usability improvements.
 
woof woof said:
In time maybe as lenses that have been out a while can drop in price but until then good luck waiting for a newly introduced sharp fast focusing 35mm f1.8 or there abouts lens with close focusing ability for £350-400.
Click to expand...

It has similar performance and build to the Samyang 45mm f/1.8 which is only £279.
 
Hi all a very quick question. I'm considering pairing an A7iii with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Sony 24-105 F4. Apart from a significant price difference and light gathering ability. Do 3rd party lenses focus slower than Sony? Im wanting to change from XT3 to Sony for rapid focus and eye Af.
 
Iiyama said:
Hi all a very quick question. I'm considering pairing an A7iii with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Sony 24-105 F4. Apart from a significant price difference and light gathering ability. Do 3rd party lenses focus slower than Sony? Im wanting to change from XT3 to Sony for rapid focus and eye Af.
Click to expand...

From what Ive seen the Tamron is excellent for AF. A few have it here and Im sure they will confirm.
 
Iiyama said:
Hi all a very quick question. I'm considering pairing an A7iii with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Sony 24-105 F4. Apart from a significant price difference and light gathering ability. Do 3rd party lenses focus slower than Sony? Im wanting to change from XT3 to Sony for rapid focus and eye Af.
Click to expand...

I have the Tamron, thought it was quick enough, can't say I have had any issue with a.f speed. Haven't used the 24-105 enough to know if it's any better. I think there is a few on here that have had both.
 
Iiyama said:
Hi all a very quick question. I'm considering pairing an A7iii with a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Sony 24-105 F4. Apart from a significant price difference and light gathering ability. Do 3rd party lenses focus slower than Sony? Im wanting to change from XT3 to Sony for rapid focus and eye Af.
Click to expand...

have had both and difference in AF is minimal. Not something worth worrying about.

The more important difference to consider is the reach (at both ends), light gathering and the size difference.

Also the Sony lens has a customisable button and AF/MF switch. Kinda useful but not a deal breaker.
 
Diamonddec said:
Still they ignore the grey AF box issue. :mad: What is wrong with you, Sony? We have been asking for this issue to be resolved for 20 months now! :mad: It is such a simple fix! COME ON SONY!
Click to expand...
Is the grey box just on the A7iii or R bodies too? Thinking about an A7Riii and knowing how much I use the joystick to change focus point on my XT2 I have some (minor) concerns if the Sony has a box that ‘disappears’ in the EVF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top