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

G.K.Jnr. said:
Two very nice motorcycle shots Trevor, absolutely love the Goldie.

"I've actually still got a 500cc Goldie that belonged to my Pa, he bought it new many, many moons ago and occasionally I still give it spin. I love the way the exhaust twitters/whistles on overrun because of the valves overlapping" :) :)
Click to expand...
Thanks George. The owner of this one has had it from new also. 1961
 
woof woof said:
Ken Rockwell has "reviews" of the little Sony 24 f2.8 and 40mm and 50mm f2.5 lenses. His reviews and comments are sometimes maybe questionable but the facts and figures and even the reviews may be interesting.




I do keep looking at these but as I have the old Sony 35mm f2.8 maybe there's no point.
Click to expand...

I was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
 
Lemaildetom said:
I was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
Click to expand...
Should be £150 ;)
 
Hi all
Does getting a a6000 with a sigma 30mm 1.4 make sense. A6000 seem to be going for good money and the 30mm gets good write ups. This is for a 17 year old who wants to get into photography. I've currently got a Fuji xt1 but dont think this would be the best for newbies and can see him getting a bit put off by the dials. Also with the sony eco system he has more of a upgrade path than I have on Fuji.
Cheers all
 
matt b said:
Hi all
Does getting a a6000 with a sigma 30mm 1.4 make sense. A6000 seem to be going for good money and the 30mm gets good write ups. This is for a 17 year old who wants to get into photography. I've currently got a Fuji xt1 but dont think this would be the best for newbies and can see him getting a bit put off by the dials. Also with the sony eco system he has more of a upgrade path than I have on Fuji.
Cheers all
Click to expand...
The A6000 is a great little camera.
The Sigma is a nice lens, but personally I opted for the Sony 35 f/1.8 OSS instead, as the A6000 lacks IBIS and in low light I gain more from the slower shutter speeds OSS allows than I would by going to f/1.4 over f/1.8.
I'd also consider getting the 16-50 kit lens - it's a lot better than many will claim (particularly if you use it stopped down a touch, and use lens profiles to correct distortion, etc), is very small and light, gives a decent amount of flexibility in focal length, and is very cheap when bought as a kit!
 
Faldrax said:
The A6000 is a great little camera.
The Sigma is a nice lens, but personally I opted for the Sony 35 f/1.8 OSS instead, as the A6000 lacks IBIS and in low light I gain more from the slower shutter speeds OSS allows than I would by going to f/1.4 over f/1.8.
I'd also consider getting the 16-50 kit lens - it's a lot better than many will claim (particularly if you use it stopped down a touch, and use lens profiles to correct distortion, etc), is very small and light, gives a decent amount of flexibility in focal length, and is very cheap when bought as a kit!
Click to expand...
It was the kit we were looking at getting cheers. I'll have a look at the Sony 35mm today.
 
Lemaildetom said:
I was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
Click to expand...

Because its small or because it's f2.5 or because the optical quality isn't there? Or all of these?

I don't know if the lens is worth £629 or not and there are I suppose few small 24/40/50mm's to measure them against other than the lottery that Samyang seem to be and the similar Sigma DN DG lenses that are a shade cheaper than the Sonys. One thing I think we need to get away from is the thought that only f1.2 or f1.4 lenses should cost £600+. The first lens that made me think about this was the 55mm f1.8 when at the time people couldn't understand why a 55mm f1.8 should be expensive when traditionally 50/55mm f1.8's have been the cheap option, sometimes below £100. The fact that these sub £100 lenses were often relatively poor and the new 55mm was relatively rather good escaped them.

So, I think these lenses should be looked at as relatively nicely made compact and light lenses with aperture rings and we should then asses their image quality and decide if the price point is justified to us. I think the 35mm f2.8 is still round about £600. Is that lens £300 over priced? Maybe when you can get a Sigma f1.4 for just a stretch more but that lens will be a relatively big fat honker whereas these Sony f2.x lenses are compact and light with decent optical quality and that combination will appeal to some people even at over £600.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Because its small or because it's f2.5 or because the optical quality isn't there? Or all of these?

I don't know if the lens is worth £629 or not and there are I suppose few small 24/40/50mm's to measure them against other than the lottery that Samyang seem to be and the similar Sigma DN DG lenses that are a shade cheaper than the Sonys. One thing I think we need to get away from is the thought that only f1.2 or f1.4 lenses should cost £600+. The first lens that made me think about this was the 55mm f1.8 when at the time people couldn't understand why a 55mm f1.8 should be expensive when traditionally 50/55mm f1.8's have been the cheap option, sometimes below £100. The fact that these sub £100 lenses were often relatively poor and the new 55mm was relatively rather good escaped them.

So, I think these lenses should be looked at as relatively nicely made compact and light lenses with aperture rings and we should then asses their image quality and decide if the price point is justified to us. I think the 35mm f2.8 is still round about £600. Is that lens £300 over priced? Maybe when you can get a Sigma f1.4 for just a stretch more but that lens will be a relatively big fat honker whereas these Sony f2.x lenses are compact and light with decent optical quality and that combination will appeal to some people even at over £600.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct but it is very difficult to get into that mindset, especially when you are so accustomed to the nifty fifty. I still baulk at the price of the 35mm f2.8 and I can't see this ever changing, however I do appreciate that it is a good lens. I got a good price on a used one, however even after owning one I struggled to see why it is a £600+ lens.
 
snerkler said:
You are of course correct but it is very difficult to get into that mindset, especially when you are so accustomed to the nifty fifty. I still baulk at the price of the 35mm f2.8 and I can't see this ever changing, however I do appreciate that it is a good lens. I got a good price on a used one, however even after owning one I struggled to see why it is a £600+ lens.
Click to expand...

I suppose my only exposure to nifty fifties was in my time with Canon DSLR's and at the time I wrote both the Canon 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 off because they were widely regarded as being a bit rubbish. At the time I went for the Sigma 50mm f1.4.

I do see that these lenses cost a lot and a f1.4 could be yours for maybe £150 more but I think you have to try and judge how good they are and how they sit price point wise against the competition and with these lenses the competition is what? Samyang and Sigma and after that I'm struggling, is there a Tamron? I don't know. After that we're into the more usual larger f1.8 and f1.4 lenses. Some wont look at Samyang because of quality issues and the compact Sigma lenses are maybe £100 cheaper than the Sonys so maybe the Sony lenses are a little expensive? Possibly, but you often pay more for the camera branded lenses and I think we're being very hopeful if we expect lenses of this type and quality to cost £300 as even Sigma don't price them at that.
 
My 200-600mm is a lovely lens twinned with the a7Riv

One from yesterday

Lone Avocet on the Estuary

xPbU8gu.jpg
 
T_J_G said:
Been eyeing up the 50mm 1.2 GM recently but not sure I can drop £2k on a lens!
Click to expand...

Yeah, its not cheap but it is ridiculously good.

Since I got mine according to Lightroom I have used it for just under 70% of all of my wedding photos. :oops: :$

50mm can pretty much do everything, you can use it for getting ready, ceremony, portraits and the dancing. It has pretty much replaced everything that I used to use my 35/85 for.

Have been using 35/50 for quite some time now. First wedding I went 24/50 but 35/50 just seemed to suit me more. At my last wedding I only used 35/50 apart from 3 photos using the macro. Even the 35 which is also excellent only really gets used when 50 is just a little too tight.

I haven't used my 85 hardly at all over the last few months, only on a couple of occasions when I needed a longer lens for speeches.

I don't regret getting mine one bit and that is coming from someone who always struggled with 50mm focal length. When I shot Nikon I had every 50mm option including the 58mm and couldn't get on with any of them. This 50 is special.

I have taken tens of thousands of frames with mine at this point and every single time it blows me away. The rendering is superb and having the option of shooting at f/1.2 lets me get images that I have always been aiming for style wise. Some of my favourite wedding photographers have always had f/1.2 lenses and I have always been envious.
 
Last edited:
Not Sony, Zeiss. I must have missed this.

www.dpreview.com

Zeiss ZX1 review

We've just completed our full review of the Zeiss ZX1. With a 37MP full-frame sensor, minimalist controls and Lightroom Mobile built in, it remains a refreshing – if quirky – take on the smartphone-meets-camera concept.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
f/2.8 said:
Yeah, its not cheap but it is ridiculously good.

Since I got mine according to Lightroom I have used it for just under 70% of all of my wedding photos. :oops: :$

50mm can pretty much do everything, you can use it for getting ready, ceremony, portraits and the dancing. It has pretty much replaced everything that I used to use my 35/85 for.

Have been using 35/50 for quite some time now. First wedding I went 24/50 but 35/50 just seemed to suit me more. At my last wedding I only used 35/50 apart from 3 photos using the macro. Even the 35 which is also excellent only really gets used when 50 is just a little too tight.

I haven't used my 85 hardly at all over the last few months, only on a couple of occasions when I needed a longer lens for speeches.

I don't regret getting mine one bit and that is coming from someone who always struggled with 50mm focal length. When I shot Nikon I had every 50mm option including the 58mm and couldn't get on with any of them. This 50 is special.

I have taken tens of thousands of frames with mine at this point and every single time it blows me away. The rendering is superb and having the option of shooting at f/1.2 lets me get images that I have always been aiming for style wise. Some of my favourite wedding photographers have always had f/1.2 lenses and I have always been envious.
Click to expand...

I may try and rent one for a wedding and see how I go. I've moved to 24/85 this year rather than 35mm. I do love the wider shots. so 24/50 may suit me. Using the 85mm for group shots can be a pain, to get that look. I do love the Sigma 85mm thought, it's ridiculously good.
 
T_J_G said:
I may try and rent one for a wedding and see how I go. I've moved to 24/85 this year rather than 35mm. I do love the wider shots. so 24/50 may suit me. Using the 85mm for group shots can be a pain, to get that look. I do love the Sigma 85mm thought, it's ridiculously good
Click to expand...


Be warned shooting at f/1.2 is very addictive. :ROFLMAO:
 
I keep toying with the Mitakon 50mm 0.95 as a poor man's alternative as I'd only be shooting static things with it. That's still not cheap though, especially for something that'll be barely used.
 
snerkler said:
I keep toying with the Mitakon 50mm 0.95 as a poor man's alternative as I'd only be shooting static things with it. That's still not cheap though, especially for something that'll be barely used.
Click to expand...
Its a lens I always wanted to try but never found a good deal on one. they are rather rare to come by in the used market.
plus now that we are out of the single market the chance of finding one is even less.
 
woof woof said:
Because its small or because it's f2.5?
Click to expand...

A bit of both really for me a compact 50mm f/2.5 sounds like a cheap and cheerful lens. And £630 doesn't sound cheap and cheerful to my wallet.

It's probably just the way things are going. Only a few years ago only some pro photographer would get something like a canon 5d mark iii (launch price of £3k). An amateur would be more than happy with a canon 6d or Nikon D750 both around near the £1.5k mark.

Nowadays a lot of amateurs seems to buy sony a9 mk ii at £4k or sony a1 a £6.5k. So maybe it is normal that sony can charge £630 for a compact 50mm f/2.5. I think you don't really get much for your money but really the price is only dictated by how much money people are ready to spend.
 
Lemaildetom said:
A bit of both really for me a compact 50mm f/2.5 sounds like a cheap and cheerful lens. And £630 doesn't sound cheap and cheerful to my wallet.

It's probably just the way things are going. Only a few years ago only some pro photographer would get something like a canon 5d mark iii (launch price of £3k). An amateur would be more than happy with a canon 6d or Nikon D750 both around near the £1.5k mark.

Nowadays a lot of amateurs seems to buy sony a9 mk ii at £4k or sony a1 a £6.5k. So maybe it is normal that sony can charge £630 for a compact 50mm f/2.5. I think you don't really get much for your money but really the price is only dictated by how much money people are ready to spend.
Click to expand...

There are other examples of f2.x and higher prices, like Leica. Some of their moderate aperture lenses cost a bomb.

I don't tend to like bigger kit so these lenses do interest me but as I already have the 35mm f2.8 I can't see myself buying one. If that 35mm f2.8 didn't exist I'd have one of these new compact lenses or a Sigma alternative in a flash. The 35mm f2.8 is by far my most used AF lens.
 
woof woof said:
There are other examples of f2.x and higher prices, like Leica. Some of their moderate aperture lenses cost a bomb.

I don't tend to like bigger kit so these lenses do interest me but as I already have the 35mm f2.8 I can't see myself buying one. If that 35mm f2.8 didn't exist I'd have one of these new compact lenses or a Sigma alternative in a flash. The 35mm f2.8 is by far my most used AF lens.
Click to expand...

Probably a part of the sense of poor value comes from memory that a 35mm f2.8 design has been around forever, and it's hard to justify spending so much on what's essentially an old style lens. Now if reviewers were raving about astonishing sharpness and contrast coupled to super smooth bokeh wide open then it might be different. But I don't hear anyone raving about these rather budgety looking yet quite expensive lenses.

Leica can charge a bit more because all their kit has that expensive red spot attached. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Probably a part of the sense of poor value comes from memory that a 35mm f2.8 design has been around forever, and it's hard to justify spending so much on what's essentially an old style lens. Now if reviewers were raving about astonishing sharpness and contrast coupled to super smooth bokeh wide open then it might be different. But I don't hear anyone raving about these rather budgety looking yet quite expensive lenses.

Leica can charge a bit more because all their kit has that expensive red spot attached. ;)
Click to expand...
I have a number of film era 35mm f2.8's and the Sony 35mm f2.8 is far better than any of them. Ditto those nifty 50's of the past with few if any of them being thought of as anything other than poor in comparison with modern lenses.

I can see I'm in a minority on this one but I do also think some of you are living in the past and have unreal expectations. I don't think a f2.x has to be a budget lens and the competition that exists, the similar Sigma range, isn't significantly cheaper plus not all those 35mm f2.8's were exactly bargains even back then once you adjust for inflation.

As above. If I didn't have the 35mm f2.8 I'd have one of these new compact f2.x's either from Sony or Sigma as they transform the system from something I'd think was sometimes too intrusive and too bulky to bother with into something that I'll be happy to use more often.
 
Faldrax said:
Great Set, the second (quoted) is my personal favorite of them.
Click to expand...

Cloudforest said:
Lovely set Ant. First is my favourite.
Click to expand...

G.K.Jnr. said:
Very nice set of Dog shots Ant, liking all of these very much.
Click to expand...

Cheers guys, only regret is not taking her harness off but the beach was pretty busy and while she is very friendly her recall isn't the best and not every one appreciates her over friendly attitude, slobber, water and wet sand :ROFLMAO:
 
woof woof said:
I have a number of film era 35mm f2.8's and the Sony 35mm f2.8 is far better than any of them. Ditto those nifty 50's of the past with few if any of them being thought of as anything other than poor in comparison with modern lenses.

I can see I'm in a minority on this one but I do also think some of you are living in the past and have unreal expectations. I don't think a f2.x has to be a budget lens and the competition that exists, the similar Sigma range, isn't significantly cheaper plus not all those 35mm f2.8's were exactly bargains even back then once you adjust for inflation.

As above. If I didn't have the 35mm f2.8 I'd have one of these new compact f2.x's either from Sony or Sigma as they transform the system from something I'd think was sometimes too intrusive and too bulky to bother with into something that I'll be happy to use more often.
Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't have to be a budget lens, but there's nothing clever about making a small f2.8 lens, and at that price with the compromise in aperture it should be out-matching the 55f1.8 on resolution etc. If the only USP is being normal size then that's not enough to justify a premium price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top