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

NewBeetle said:
Thanks, Canon 200mm f/2.8L USMii, everytime the adapted focus annoys me and I think about moving it on it goes and surprises me with its lovely image quality. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
It's a stunning lens that, renders beautifully imo.
 
snerkler said:
It's a stunning lens that, renders beautifully imo.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, so small and light too compared to a 70-200 2.8. (which I find I shoot at 200mm 90% of the time anyway)
 
NewBeetle said:
Yes I agree, so small and light too compared to a 70-200 2.8. (which I find I shoot at 200mm 90% of the time anyway)
Click to expand...
Stop it, you're tempting me :lol:
 
GeordieStew said:
I'm really fancying a long tele for my a7R IV. Not even sure why.

100-400 Sigma or Sony
200-600 Sony
150-500 Tamron

Hmmm

I think I'm steering towards 200-600.
Click to expand...

Sony 200-600mm is biggest ones is the lot with internal zoom but also longest. It's the best one if you want to prioritise longest reach.

100-400mm is the sharpest one of the lot with the best AF. But also the most expensive. Gives you best IQ and AF (not that 200-600mm is bad but 100-400mm does have dual motors that makes focus acquisition faster)

Sigma 100-400mm is the cheapest one of the lot, smallest and nearly as sharp as 100-400GM. AF is worst than Sony lenses and you get "only" 15fps with A9 style bodies.

Tamron is mostly untested at the moment. It seems to be a middle ground between 100-400mm and 200-600mm. I imagine two Sony lenses will still be better at AF.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
Unfortunately I have had to dispose of my collection of manual lenses, my Voigtlanders and Loxia, as my eyes can no longer be relied on due to the start of cataracts. Some days it's fine, other days not so. Even my eyesight through prescription specs varies day-by-day, and often hour-by-hour. The only interim solution is to use my polarized prescription sun-glasses, which can ease the effects of cataracts. Of course, I still have my adapted lenses to play with, as they are worth very little, comparatively speaking.
Click to expand...

That's a shame but here's hoping you can still enjoy photography for many years to come.
 
woof woof said:
That's a shame but here's hoping you can still enjoy photography for many years to come.
Click to expand...
Oh, I certainly will. Now I know my limitations, and have an excuse for when they’re out-of-focus. Besides, it’s nowhere near bad enough to even consider corrective surgery. :)
 
WoWza.

Tamron has patented a new 16-70mm f/4 Full Frame zoom | sonyalpharumors

We know 17-70mm lenses are common in the APS-C world so it's rather unusual to see this focal length applied on Full Frame cameras. But some of you might love to have standard zoom with that additional extra wide angle! via hi-lows-note
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"Patented" doesn't mean it'll be hitting the shops anytime soon though.

Wild rumours...

WILD RUMORS: New Fast FE 100mm F1.4 GM and a unknown FE 70mm G (seems like the compact f/2.8?) | sonyalpharumors

I got wild rumors about two lenses that might be announced in May: 100mm f/1.4 GM 70mm G (f/2.8 macro?) I hope trusted sources can tell me more about those lenses by contacting me using their "nickname" using this contact form.
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
WoWza.

Tamron has patented a new 16-70mm f/4 Full Frame zoom | sonyalpharumors

We know 17-70mm lenses are common in the APS-C world so it's rather unusual to see this focal length applied on Full Frame cameras. But some of you might love to have standard zoom with that additional extra wide angle! via hi-lows-note
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"Patented" doesn't mean it'll be hitting the shops anytime soon though.

Wild rumours...

WILD RUMORS: New Fast FE 100mm F1.4 GM and a unknown FE 70mm G (seems like the compact f/2.8?) | sonyalpharumors

I got wild rumors about two lenses that might be announced in May: 100mm f/1.4 GM 70mm G (f/2.8 macro?) I hope trusted sources can tell me more about those lenses by contacting me using their "nickname" using this contact form.
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Time will tell.
Click to expand...
A focal length range seems a strange thing to be able to patent. Unless I’m missing something. It’s a useful range for a go-anywhere lens though.
 
I don't think they'll be patenting the focal length as such but the lens design that just happens to be that focal length.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be APS-C :D
 
As it's quiet.

A7 and Takumar 28mm f3.5.

bk5lxt1.jpg


JL7XuqX.jpg
 
woof woof said:
You've got me googling that lens.

Me! Googling a zoom lens!
Click to expand...
Yes, I did it under the bed clothes. But I like it. Light and not bulky, doesn’t extend when zoomed.
 
I have the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 but I've only used it a few times. Once I used it thinking it was the 85mm f1.8 and only spotted something was up when I couldn't select f1.8.

I think I could use a 17-28mm more. I think I could go out with that and a 35 or 50mm.

I've just read a review which mentioned colour cast in the corners, distortion and non linear focusing. Of those any colour cast would worry me the most but I can't see anything too bad in the samples...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD - phillipreeve.net

The Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 Di III RXD is the lightest ultra wide angle zoom for Sony E-mount, but is it as good as the 28-75mm standardzoom?
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

Have you seen any colour cast in the corners and other that that what do you think of the lens?
 
woof woof said:
I have the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 but I've only used it a few times. Once I used it thinking it was the 85mm f1.8 and only spotted something was up when I couldn't select f1.8.

I think I could use a 17-28mm more. I think I could go out with that and a 35 or 50mm.

I've just read a review which mentioned colour cast in the corners, distortion and non linear focusing. Of those any colour cast would worry me the most but I can't see anything too bad in the samples...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD - phillipreeve.net

The Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 Di III RXD is the lightest ultra wide angle zoom for Sony E-mount, but is it as good as the 28-75mm standardzoom?
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

Have you seen any colour cast in the corners and other that that what do you think of the lens?
Click to expand...
Well, it only arrived yesterday and today I only took half-a-dozen shots with it. But in my view it's a keeper. There's certainly no colour casts in the corners (at 17mm) nor indeed anywhere and if there was distortion I couldn't see it. It does have a profile in Lightroom. But then I don't go shooting test charts or brick walls head-on - I only shoot meaningful subjects. I've just sat it on my A7C and it's surprisingly comfortable on there also.
 
NewBeetle said:
Thanks, Canon 200mm f/2.8L USMii, everytime the adapted focus annoys me and I think about moving it on it goes and surprises me with its lovely image quality. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I wish Sony would make a 200mm F2.8. The Canon is such a good lens and for me would be my go to Dog lens taking over from the 135mm. I guess most 70-200mm spend a majority of their time at 200mm and the Tamron 70-180 when zoom is needed combined with a 200mm prime would be a great combo and probably be around the price of the GM
 
woof woof said:
I have the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 but I've only used it a few times. Once I used it thinking it was the 85mm f1.8 and only spotted something was up when I couldn't select f1.8.

I think I could use a 17-28mm more. I think I could go out with that and a 35 or 50mm.

I've just read a review which mentioned colour cast in the corners, distortion and non linear focusing. Of those any colour cast would worry me the most but I can't see anything too bad in the samples...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD - phillipreeve.net

The Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 Di III RXD is the lightest ultra wide angle zoom for Sony E-mount, but is it as good as the 28-75mm standardzoom?
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

Have you seen any colour cast in the corners and other that that what do you think of the lens?
Click to expand...

17-28mm is an excellent lens. There is some vignetting but LR seems to deal with it no issues.

In Roger Cicala's words - "The 17-28mm, in particular, is about as close to magically violating the “price, size, optical quality” pyramid as you’re likely to get."

www.lensrentals.com

MTF Tests of the Tamron 17-28mm and 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lenses

Tamron has a nice set of three f/2.8 zooms for Sony E mount cameras. Today I'm putting out MTF results for the 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD and the 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD. They offer a reasonably priced alternative to Sony-branded lenses, and Tamron has been making good products lately. I'll admit...
www.lensrentals.com

If you are interested I am considering selling mine.
 
wookie6262 said:
I wish Sony would make a 200mm F2.8. The Canon is such a good lens and for me would be my go to Dog lens taking over from the 135mm. I guess most 70-200mm spend a majority of their time at 200mm and the Tamron 70-180 when zoom is needed combined with a 200mm prime would be a great combo and probably be around the price of the GM
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the perfect lens for posed animal and people portraits, but with the MC-11 it's pretty useless for action of any kind in all honesty.
 
Can anyone tell me how I can resize an image to a limited size so that when on Flickr it doesn't zoom to fill the screen? I've got a photo that I've processed but because it was a night time shot there's areas that were really dark. I've relit parts of those with the radial filter which gives a nice effect but are incredibly noisy even after using topaz when zoomed in. It's not really noticeable up to a certain size. On export from lightroom, I tried resizing in inches to 8" x 6" but it still zooms fully on flickr and fills the entire screen.
 
woof woof said:
WoWza.

Tamron has patented a new 16-70mm f/4 Full Frame zoom | sonyalpharumors

We know 17-70mm lenses are common in the APS-C world so it's rather unusual to see this focal length applied on Full Frame cameras. But some of you might love to have standard zoom with that additional extra wide angle! via hi-lows-note
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"Patented" doesn't mean it'll be hitting the shops anytime soon though.

Wild rumours...

WILD RUMORS: New Fast FE 100mm F1.4 GM and a unknown FE 70mm G (seems like the compact f/2.8?) | sonyalpharumors

I got wild rumors about two lenses that might be announced in May: 100mm f/1.4 GM 70mm G (f/2.8 macro?) I hope trusted sources can tell me more about those lenses by contacting me using their "nickname" using this contact form.
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I'd love a 16-70mm lens, assuming it's not going to be huge. I've been saying for a while I'd like an 18-50mm FF lens, but this is even better, IF it ever even happens.
 
nandbytes said:
17-28mm is an excellent lens. There is some vignetting but LR seems to deal with it no issues.

In Roger Cicala's words - "The 17-28mm, in particular, is about as close to magically violating the “price, size, optical quality” pyramid as you’re likely to get."

www.lensrentals.com

MTF Tests of the Tamron 17-28mm and 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lenses

Tamron has a nice set of three f/2.8 zooms for Sony E mount cameras. Today I'm putting out MTF results for the 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD and the 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD. They offer a reasonably priced alternative to Sony-branded lenses, and Tamron has been making good products lately. I'll admit...
www.lensrentals.com

If you are interested I am considering selling mine.
Click to expand...

There's no profile for this lens in CS5 and it continues to fail to download updates. There is a page on workarounds and fixes but I just don't understand a word of it. I have tried to download the creative cloud version but that too persistently fails to install.

On the lens, I haven't decided if I want one but as it's available for just over £600 I don't think I could offer you an acceptable price for yours. Obviously good luck if you decide to sell it.

PS.
Adobe are crop, but with an a. IMO.
 
snerkler said:
I'd love a 16-70mm lens, assuming it's not going to be huge. I've been saying for a while I'd like an 18-50mm FF lens, but this is even better, IF it ever even happens.
Click to expand...

I don't know if or when we'll ever see this lens but I think if the quality is even half way acceptable for an amateur and the price is ok they'll sell a lot.
 
woof woof said:
There's no profile for this lens in CS5 and it continues to fail to download updates. There is a page on workarounds and fixes but I just don't understand a word of it. I have tried to download the creative cloud version but that too persistently fails to install.

On the lens, I haven't decided if I want one but as it's available for just over £600 I don't think I could offer you an acceptable price for yours. Obviously good luck if you decide to sell it.

PS.
Adobe are crop, but with an a. IMO.
Click to expand...

If I do sell it I'd be for the last sold price on the forum (£560). Simples.
 
Merlin5 said:
Can anyone tell me how I can resize an image to a limited size so that when on Flickr it doesn't zoom to fill the screen? I've got a photo that I've processed but because it was a night time shot there's areas that were really dark. I've relit parts of those with the radial filter which gives a nice effect but are incredibly noisy even after using topaz when zoomed in. It's not really noticeable up to a certain size. On export from lightroom, I tried resizing in inches to 8" x 6" but it still zooms fully on flickr and fills the entire screen.
Click to expand...

Resize your image by the number of pixels on the long edge - not by inches (which is a nonsense measurement, meaningless on a computer monitor). 8x6 on a typical 24" widescreen will be around 640px on the long edge, although I'd suggest resizing to *at least* 800, preferably 1024 or the basic image quality is going to suck.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Resize your image by the number of pixels on the long edge - not by inches (which is a nonsense measurement, meaningless on a computer monitor). 8x6 on a typical 24" widescreen will be around 640px on the long edge, although I'd suggest resizing to *at least* 800, preferably 1024 or the basic image quality is going to suck.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll have a go at that. I'm tempted to go out tomorrow (and probably will) to go into town and reshoot the scene at blue hour which I believe is just when artificial lights come on. I'll get less noise and still have an evening shot.
 
Mike.P said:
We had to have ours put down a couple of months ago ... always used to say, it's only a dog.

Miss him every day, still look for him when I come down for work at 4.30am every morning.
Click to expand...
So sorry to hear that. They are never “just” dogs. :(
 
Mike.P said:
Like that a lot.

We had to have ours put down a couple of months ago ... always used to say, it's only a dog.

Miss him every day, still look for him when I come down for work at 4.30am every morning.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear. We lost Budd last April through old age. Millie is about 12 I think.


*** by Lee, on Flickr

Stephen L said:
Great photo. Wish I could get our JRT to pose, or even sit still.
Click to expand...

It's very rare I can tell you!! So rare I switched to continuous shooting!! :ROFLMAO:
 
LeeRatters said:
Sorry to hear. We lost Budd last April through old age. Millie is about 12 I think.


*** by Lee, on Flickr



It's very rare I can tell you!! So rare I switched to continuous shooting!! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
That’s a belter (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top