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

[nandbytes]

Can’t keep comparing apples to oranges. I like the Tamron, but it’s crap at 200mm

so is RF70-200/2.8 at 200mm for how much ever they charge for that.

I don't see why you can't compare the two they are close enough.
tamron sharper at 180mm than RF is at 200mm. you might as well crop

 

[jonneymendoza]

so is RF70-200/2.8 at 200mm for how much ever they charge for that.

I don't see why you can't compare the two they are close enough.
tamron sharper at 180mm than RF is at 200mm. you might as well crop

Tbh I wouldn't miss the extra 20mm. I'd barely notice that.



100-400 is my fav travel zoom though. Got the reach and speed for Day time pics.

 

[nandbytes]

Tbh I wouldn't miss the extra 20mm. I'd barely notice that.

100-400 is my fav travel zoom though. Got the reach and speed for Day time pics.

they are very comparable lenses imo.
that is not say the RF doesn't have its benefits but when you are paying like twice the amount you'd expect it to perform at least as well as a 3rd party option in the sharpness department.
not to mention the vignetting on the lens too, which seems to be a larger problem across a few RF lenses (so much for the large mount claims )

 

[jonneymendoza]

they are very comparable lenses imo.
that is not say the RF doesn't have its benefits but when you are paying like twice the amount you'd expect it to perform at least as well as a 3rd party option in the sharpness department.
not to mention the vignetting on the lens too, which seems to be a larger problem across a few RF lenses (so much for the large mount claims [emoji14] )

O RF lenses not as good?

I thought they were the best mirroless full frame lenses?

 

[nandbytes]

O RF lenses not as good?

I thought they were the best mirroless full frame lenses?

best at vignetting may be

they aren't any better or worst than the competition but some lenses have "issues" that kinda put me off.

15-35mm/2.8 has nearly 6 stops vignetting
70-200/2.8 not the sharpest at 200mm in the corners, easily beaten by like of tamron 70-180mm. plus has a bit of vignetting but not as bad. also you can use TCs with this lens.
RF 50mm/1.2 has about 3-4 stops vignetting and AF isn't exactly silent or smooth
The 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f2 have AF motors from last century. they make samyang lenses look state of the art in terms of AF.
100-500mm has reports of issue with its rear element cracking (unsure why) plus costs £2.7K!!
24-105mm f4 close focus magnification is 0.2x vs 0.33x of Sony and 0.5x of panasonic which is brilliant

some lenses I droll over - RF 85mm/1.2 and the 800mm f11 (for when i am in sunnier parts of the world, not UK)

 

[addicknchips]

so is RF70-200/2.8 at 200mm for how much ever they charge for that.

I don't see why you can't compare the two they are close enough.
tamron sharper at 180mm than RF is at 200mm. you might as well crop

Yeah close like an f4 lens is close to a f2.8
The rf is far from crap at 200mm. My biggest issue with it is it takes a few turns of the zoom ring to go through the full range. The Tamron beats it there for sure.

 

[footman]

I'm looking for a Tamron 28-75, I have a post in "Wanted".

 

[snerkler]

Id like to see a 70-200 like canons extending RF versions. Canons RF versions are so compact and light. The F4 versions isn’t that much bigger than their 24-105 f4.

I’ve been waiting for a new lighter 70-200mm f2.8 for a while now. I’m not sure if they’ve got one in the pipelines but some of the big youtubers are asking for it and are starting to slate the current one so I would assume Sony know there is some demand fit it?

Tbh I wouldn't miss the extra 20mm. I'd barely notice that.



100-400 is my fav travel zoom though. Got the reach and speed for Day time pics.

I’d never consider the 100-400mm a travel zoom

 

[nandbytes]

Yeah close like an f4 lens is close to a f2.8
The rf is far from crap at 200mm. My biggest issue with it is it takes a few turns of the zoom ring to go through the full range. The Tamron beats it there for sure.

that's totally not the case. 180mm vs. 200mm is far less of a difference than f4 to a f2.8.

70-180mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 are in the same class of lenses and very comparable. I don't think I am alone in saying this.

My response about being crap was more of a tongue in cheek response to yours about tamron being crap at 200mm.
But I wouldn't pay the price tag of the RF based on its performance and you can't use TCs with this lens which is also kinda of a deal breaker (as much as it is for the tamron).

 

[woof woof]

Does anyone think a really top class 28mm would be nice?

28mm used to be a very popular focal length and of course today I think I'm right in saying it's the most used focal length due to smartphones but the only Sony 20mm prime is the 20mm f2 which although light and compact and fast focusing perhaps isn't a really top class lens in the way that the 20, 24, 35, 50 and 85's possibly are.

Will we see a very good 28mm? f1.4 maybe?

 

[addicknchips]

that's totally not the case. 180mm vs. 200mm is far less of a difference than f4 to a f2.8.

70-180mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 are in the same class of lenses and very comparable. I don't think I am alone in saying this.

My response about being crap was more of a tongue in cheek response to yours about tamron being crap at 200mm.
But I wouldn't pay the price tag of the RF based on its performance and you can't use TCs with this lens which is also kinda of a deal breaker (as much as it is for the tamron).

Fact remains it’s not a 70-200 and it’ll be a compromise for many. Some will be happy at 180 while others it’s won’t do at all.

 

[rob-nikon]

The RF70-200/2.8 isn't all that great optically.
The tamron 70-180mm is optically better.

RF lenses on the whole are a bit disappointing so far.

My thought was more the compact size and weight than comparing sharpness. I don’t really go into the specific performance of other manufacturers other than very basic design functionality.

The Tamron sounds like it’s nearly the same size and weight, but the current Sony versions aren’t hence I’d like to see Sony try to reduce size and design. The issue is that reducing size and weight means making comprises, which in the case of canon may be some loss of sharpness and in tamron case a slightly different focal range as I’m guessing stopping at 180mm was a design decision based upon not being able to design it for the same size, weight, cost and performance if it did go up to 200mm.

It feels like there are gaps in the Sony lens line up that are currently only being filled by third party lens manufacturers.

 

[nandbytes]

My thought was more the compact size and weight than comparing sharpness. I don’t really go into the specific performance of other manufacturers other than very basic design functionality.

The Tamron sounds like it’s nearly the same size and weight, but the current Sony versions aren’t hence I’d like to see Sony try to reduce size and design. The issue is that reducing size and weight means making comprises, which in the case of canon may be some loss of sharpness and in tamron case a slightly different focal range as I’m guessing stopping at 180mm was a design decision based upon not being able to design it for the same size, weight, cost and performance if it did go up to 200mm.

It feels like there are gaps in the Sony lens line up that are currently only being filled by third party lens manufacturers.

Tamron is smaller and lighter than canon rather than same size or weight. Tamron also doesn't have OS like the canon does.

I wouldn't call this a gap though.... Sony does have a 70-200mm/2.8 lens. Some people prefer internal zooms and also like to have the ability to use TCs with a 70-200mm which you can't with the RF version. barring a few speciality lenses there aren't any major gaps in the Sony line up. they apparently released their 60th lens today in the 50GM. So a quite a number of lenses.

but 3rd parties do make some excellent lenses for Sony. I have come like and use a lot of them.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I’d never consider the 100-400mm a travel zoom

I guess different people will have different definitions of what a travel lens is but one of the reasons I like the 100-400mm is I find it a great travel zoom, it's pretty at the upper limit of size/weight for that but since buying it that's usually the lens I carry around with me as it just fits with the camera in a small slingshot bag and easy to take while I'm on the bike or walking. I bought a Tamron 150-600mm a while ago and that was a mistake because I found it too hefty to ever take with me so it never left the house.

 

[snerkler]

Fact remains it’s not a 70-200 and it’ll be a compromise for many. Some will be happy at 180 while others it’s won’t do at all.

There are other compromises too (for some) such as lack of focus limiter and tripod collar.

My thought was more the compact size and weight than comparing sharpness. I don’t really go into the specific performance of other manufacturers other than very basic design functionality.

The Tamron sounds like it’s nearly the same size and weight, but the current Sony versions aren’t hence I’d like to see Sony try to reduce size and design. The issue is that reducing size and weight means making comprises, which in the case of canon may be some loss of sharpness and in tamron case a slightly different focal range as I’m guessing stopping at 180mm was a design decision based upon not being able to design it for the same size, weight, cost and performance if it did go up to 200mm.

It feels like there are gaps in the Sony lens line up that are currently only being filled by third party lens manufacturers.

It's never going to happen, but I'd be happy for Sony to make a 70-180mm f2.8 if it was as as light and sharp as the Tamron. I wonder why manufacturers don't go back to the 80-200mm f2.8, assuming it saved significant weight. I wouldn't miss 10mm at the short end on a lens like this.

I guess different people will have different definitions of what a travel lens is but one of the reasons I like the 100-400mm is I find it a great travel zoom, it's pretty at the upper limit of size/weight for that but since buying it that's usually the lens I carry around with me as it just fits with the camera in a small slingshot bag and easy to take while I'm on the bike or walking. I bought a Tamron 150-600mm a while ago and that was a mistake because I found it too hefty to ever take with me so it never left the house.

My post was a little tongue in cheek tbh. Having fibromyalgia does give me a different perspective on what's light, and a travel setup etc etc though

 

[Stephen L]

but 3rd parties do make some excellent lenses for Sony. I have come like and use a lot of them.

and that’s a real plus point for moving to Sony.

 

[f/1.2]

The only review that matters

View: https://youtu.be/Uy0Uzd-4Gc8

 

[woof woof]

Yes! I forgot him

I agree with him about zero dof portraits but I can see a use for f1.2 at longer full body plus distances.

The dof tables I've had for years only go to f1.4.

 

[woof woof]

Nice short read on prints sizes here...

Madonna and Helmut (Jeff Markus)

I didn't want anyone to miss this great comment, about print size. Jeff Markus writes: "When I was assisting and printing for Norman Seeff his standard print was 16x20, from 35mm Panatomic-X negs. Image size came in at about 13x19....

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

 

[snerkler]

Yes! I forgot him

I agree with him about zero dof portraits but I can see a use for f1.2 at longer full body plus distances.

The dof tables I've had for years only go to f1.4.

I'm not so interested in wafer thin DOF but then never take portraits that close. I like the pop/subject isolation you get from full body shots, or when taking pictures of bikes and cars. The closer I can get to the brenizer look without having to got to the faff of actually doing the brenizer technique the better That's why I keep looking at the Mitakon 50mm f0.95.

 

[woof woof]

I've only done the Brenizer thing a few times but I have seen some lovely examples.

Without spending too much time googling have you got any examples of the look you like for cars and bikes?

 

[snerkler]

I've only done the Brenizer thing a few times but I have seen some lovely examples.

Without spending too much time googling have you got any examples of the look you like for cars and bikes?

This is one of my attempts at Brenizer

Harley Davidson Road King by TDG-77, on Flickr

I've always liked the look and pop from this image too, and was 'only' taken with a 50mm f1.8. I'm not sure why it's got as much pop as it has and I've never managed to recreate the look to that extent since with that lens (although some were reasonably close), so I can only assume it was the light.

NZ7_1291 by TDG-77, on Flickr

And the first one I came across with the Mitakon 50mm f0.95

A7RII + Mitakon Dark Knight II 50mm F0.95 by Matt's Crazy Lens Adventures, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

Yes, I like those too and yours is very very nice. Thanks for posting

I think if going for that sort of look I'd want something 35-50 as the longer the lens the greater the chance that backing up could bring problems like bumping into things and people walking between the camera and the subject.

Although I have the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 I have been tempted to swap it for a 50mm but I don't know about that or this new Sony f1.2. I don't know what direction my little hobby will or can go in as all I seem to have time for now is an hour or so at the beach or on a walk while waiting for something. For me this 50mm f1.2 would be a luxury buy but I still have my conscience to deal with (£2k on a camera lens? Really?) and the fact that after the honeymoon period I'll probably be just as happy with what I have now. For the sort of picture I mostly take I suppose the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 would make more sense as it's much cheaper and I probably don't need the speed AF would bring.

 

[snerkler]

Yes, I like those too and yours is very very nice. Thanks for posting

I think if going for that sort of look I'd want something 35-50 as the longer the lens the greater the chance that backing up could bring problems like bumping into things and people walking between the camera and the subject.

Although I have the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 I have been tempted to swap it for a 50mm but I don't know about that or this new Sony f1.2. I don't know what direction my little hobby will or can go in as all I seem to have time for now is an hour or so at the beach or on a walk while waiting for something. For me this 50mm f1.2 would be a luxury buy but I still have my conscience to deal with (£2k on a camera lens? Really?) and the fact that after the honeymoon period I'll probably be just as happy with what I have now. For the sort of picture I mostly take I suppose the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 would make more sense as it's much cheaper and I probably don't need the speed AF would bring.

I'll take a look at the voigtlander f1.2, does it need an adapter?

 

[woof woof]

I'll take a look at the voigtlander f1.2, does it need an adapter?

There are I think M mount and e mount versions. The e mount is the one to go for IMO as it'll perform better on a Sony and you don't need an adapter. There'll be a thread about it on Fred Miranda's site and probably a review on Philip Reeve. I'd post links but sorry, I have to head off now.

I'm happy with my e mount 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 but I do fancy a 50mm.

 

[Stephen L]

I'll take a look at the voigtlander f1.2, does it need an adapter?

I've got two Voigtlanders in E mount, and a Zeiss Loxia. Apart from them not needing adapters, being native mount transmits the EXIF, allows the camera's IBIS to be suitable, and switches to enlarged focus when the focus ring is touched, if that is enabled in-body. I no longer use peaking - I find it too intrusive.

 

[woof woof]

One thing I keep meaning to do is take several series of shots at f1.2 to maybe f5.6. I did this some time ago and convinced myself that the point at which the differences in dof mattered to me was somewhere like f2.8 so this convinced me that f2 or larger was what I wanted for the shots I took at wide apertures rather than f2.8. This all ignores the implications for ISO of course. This was all some time ago so I think I do need to convince myself again that I don't really need f1.2 or maybe not f1.4 for that matter. I'll need to use the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 for this little test.

Of the modern lenses I have faster than f1.8, the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2, the apertures weren't really the clinching points as all I wanted was compact well made modern lenses with apertures wider than f2.8.

If I'm still happy with f2 then my Voigtlander 50mm f2 will do and I can forget about the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 and for AF my Sony 55mm f1.8 will do instead of this tempting but bigger and more expensive 50mm f1.2.

Snerkler,

If you want to read about the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 and look at pictures see the following.

Review: Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 Nokton E - phillipreeve.net

The Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 E is a native E-mount lens with good bokeh and sharpness, is this the best 50mm lens for E-mount despite

phillipreeve.net

Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 Nokton Review

[s]Update: Both 50/1.2 E-mount and VM mount are now in stock![/s][list]Voigtlander 50/1.2 E-mount:[aurl=[aurl=https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...

www.fredmiranda.com

 

[woof woof]

I've got two Voigtlanders in E mount, and a Zeiss Loxia. Apart from them not needing adapters, being native mount transmits the EXIF, allows the camera's IBIS to be suitable, and switches to enlarged focus when the focus ring is touched, if that is enabled in-body. I no longer use peaking - I find it too intrusive.

Probably prompted by you I was actually looking at a reasonably priced Loxia 50mm f2 on line yesterday and then I remembered I have the Voigtlander 50mm f2

 

[snerkler]

There are I think M mount and e mount versions. The e mount is the one to go for IMO as it'll perform better on a Sony and you don't need an adapter. There'll be a thread about it on Fred Miranda's site and probably a review on Philip Reeve. I'd post links but sorry, I have to head off now.

I'm happy with my e mount 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 but I do fancy a 50mm.

I've got two Voigtlanders in E mount, and a Zeiss Loxia. Apart from them not needing adapters, being native mount transmits the EXIF, allows the camera's IBIS to be suitable, and switches to enlarged focus when the focus ring is touched, if that is enabled in-body. I no longer use peaking - I find it too intrusive.

Thanks, definitely would go for the e-mount then, silly not to

 

[woof woof]

Thanks, definitely would go for the e-mount then, silly not to

The M mount ones do have one advantage as you can probably take them away and mount them on something else easier than you can a Sony lens, but I think that the Sony mount ones do perform a bit better on Sony cameras and you get the exif if that's important.

 

[Stephen L]

The M mount ones do have one advantage as you can probably take them away and mount them on something else easier than you can a Sony lens, but I think that the Sony mount ones do perform a bit better on Sony cameras and you get the exif if that's important.

I have read somewhere that some of the E mount Voigtlanders are slightly redesigned to match with Sony’s sensor, something to do with angle of light strike.

 

[woof woof]

I have read somewhere that some of the E mount Voigtlanders are slightly redesigned to match with Sony’s sensor, something to do with angle of light strike.

They've certainly optimised them for the Sony mount. I think I read that one of the biggies is the sensor stack thickness. There was certainly quite a difference between my M mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and the Sony mount one, the latter being much better and from the samples on the Fred Miranda site the e mount 40mm f1.2 does look to be quite a bit better on the Sony than the M mount one.

 

[snerkler]

The M mount ones do have one advantage as you can probably take them away and mount them on something else easier than you can a Sony lens, but I think that the Sony mount ones do perform a bit better on Sony cameras and you get the exif if that's important.

Just had a look, not cheap are they

 

[woof woof]

Just had a look, not cheap are they

No not cheap if looked at in isolation but compared to a Leica or even the Sony 50mm f1.2 (I think the Voigtlander is maybe half the price?) they're a relative bargain and they should last a lifetime with maybe just a clean every 50 years or so.

I think we're a bit far apart but if passing my area (east Cleveland) you'd be welcome to take any of my Voigtlanders for a test drive although the one closest to the 50mm f1.2 and therefore of more interest will obviously be the 40mm f1.2.

 

[Stephen L]

No not cheap if looked at in isolation but compared to a Leica or even the Sony 50mm f1.2 (I think the Voigtlander is maybe half the price?) they're a relative bargain and they should last a lifetime with maybe just a clean every 50 years or so.

I think we're a bit far apart but if passing my area (east Cleveland) you'd be welcome to take any of my Voigtlanders for a test drive although the one closest to the 50mm f1.2 and therefore of more interest will obviously be the 40mm f1.2.

Ditto me, North Yorkshire (south Dales).

Once you’ve handled one nothing else will do.

 

[snerkler]

No not cheap if looked at in isolation but compared to a Leica or even the Sony 50mm f1.2 (I think the Voigtlander is maybe half the price?) they're a relative bargain and they should last a lifetime with maybe just a clean every 50 years or so.

I think we're a bit far apart but if passing my area (east Cleveland) you'd be welcome to take any of my Voigtlanders for a test drive although the one closest to the 50mm f1.2 and therefore of more interest will obviously be the 40mm f1.2.

Ditto me, North Yorkshire (south Dales).

Once you’ve handled one nothing else will do.

Thanks guys, a little too far I'm afraid. I do actually know someone who receives returns and sells them on, I'm 90% sure they said they deal with voigtlander so may see what they can do

 

[Gandalf]

So Guys, I was advised to post in here rather than start a separate thread. I am after another lens but am having issues deciding... I started last week wanting more reach so looked at the 200-600mm, then watching the reviews on YouTube they started comparing with the 100-400... Argggh. Then fast forward to this week and I'm also looking at a 135mm lens.

I'm leaning towards the 100-400 and MPB have one reserved for me after I traded my final Fuji Lenses to concentrate on one system. I suppose my pondering is because I've never purchased from them before. I want something with a little reach to capture the wee birds and as I live in Newmarket I want to try and take some Horse pictures. I'm presuming I need something with reach as I don't want to spook them. Any advise would be welcome, I need to purchase something before 1st April as the money currently burning a hole in my pocket will be directed somewhere else if not.

 

[Stephen L]

So Guys, I was advised to post in here rather than start a separate thread. I am after another lens but am having issues deciding... I started last week wanting more reach so looked at the 200-600mm, then watching the reviews on YouTube they started comparing with the 100-400... Argggh. Then fast forward to this week and I'm also looking at a 135mm lens.

I'm leaning towards the 100-400 and MPB have one reserved for me after I traded my final Fuji Lenses to concentrate on one system. I suppose my pondering is because I've never purchased from them before. I want something with a little reach to capture the wee birds and as I live in Newmarket I want to try and take some Horse pictures. I'm presuming I need something with reach as I don't want to spook them. Any advise would be welcome, I need to purchase something before 1st April as the money currently burning a hole in my pocket will be directed somewhere else if not.

Can’t advise about the lens, but I’ve never been disappointed with MPB.

 

[Stephen L]

Just had a look, not cheap are they

There are a few used ones at Ffordes.

 

[f/1.2]

New 24-40mm and 50mm FE lenses coming next.

About time the 50 was replaced 24-40mm zoom though?

Aggh turns out that was an error next new lenses are 24mm, 40mm & 50mm that makes more sense.

[UPDATED] Sony FE 24mm FE40mm and FE 50mm Coming Next | sonyalpharumors

The next lenses that Sony will announce, are according to nokis***a the following ones: "The next lens that Sony will announce is a compact G lens, which will be FE24, 40mm and FE50mm" UPDATE: Nokis***a corrected its tweet and now says: The next lens that Sony will announce is a compact G lens...

www.sonyalpharumors.com