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

wezza13 said:
The IQ on those looks pretty great tbh. I downloaded DxO PureRaw a couple of weeks ago and am currently trialling it.

Is this the one you're using? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL100400GM-100-400-F4-5-5-6-Telephoto/dp/B071RFR318?th=1

I'd need 2.8 for evening games as the floodlights are very poor.
Click to expand...

Yes I use that one, also the 70-200 2.8 sometimes - depending on light and sport.

a 400mm 2.8 would be awesome, but I'm not sure it'd work well for me - it's all school sports, there's a lot of running between pitches to capture 20+ matches of different sports across a 2-3+ hour period, so there's the weight of it to consider. The zoom gives me a variety of options in the short amount of time I usually get.

The schools haven't needed outdoor evening sport photographed
 
Qs for the owners - past and present - of the Tamron 17-28/2.8:
  1. Did you find the zoom range a bit limited/frustrating in real-world use?
  2. If you sold it on, why and do you miss it?
I'm torn between this and the Sony 16-35/4. (I don't know anything about the Sigma equivalent.) I'm leaning towards the fast+light benefits of the Tamron.
 
goldtop said:
Qs for the owners - past and present - of the Tamron 17-28/2.8:
  1. Did you find the zoom range a bit limited/frustrating in real-world use?
  2. If you sold it on, why and do you miss it?
I'm torn between this and the Sony 16-35/4. (I don't know anything about the Sigma equivalent.) I'm leaning towards the fast+light benefits of the Tamron.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason that you need the wide aperture such as astrophotography? If not I find the 16-35mm f4 a very good lens indeed. Obviously not as good as the 16-35mm f2.8 GM, but then it's not in the same price bracket ;)
 
goldtop said:
Qs for the owners - past and present - of the Tamron 17-28/2.8:
  1. Did you find the zoom range a bit limited/frustrating in real-world use?
  2. If you sold it on, why and do you miss it?
I'm torn between this and the Sony 16-35/4. (I don't know anything about the Sigma equivalent.) I'm leaning towards the fast+light benefits of the Tamron.
Click to expand...
I have owned a fair bunch of the UWA lenses Inc. 16-35mm f4 and 17-28mm f2.8

I found the range a wee bit short but it's a great lens still. I have owned the lens twice. In the end just decided to go with Sony 16-35mm f2.8 to complement my future tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you value f2.8 more or the 16mm and 35mm ends. For me I really value having f2.8 for shooting stars and nighttime. YMMV.

With the 17-28mm I really miss the small size and non extending design.
The 16-35mm f4 renders really nicely though.
 
Last edited:
goldtop said:
Qs for the owners - past and present - of the Tamron 17-28/2.8:
  1. Did you find the zoom range a bit limited/frustrating in real-world use?
  2. If you sold it on, why and do you miss it?
I'm torn between this and the Sony 16-35/4. (I don't know anything about the Sigma equivalent.) I'm leaning towards the fast+light benefits of the Tamron.
Click to expand...

I had the 16-35 f/4 and replaced it with the Tamron when it launched. Was never really happy with the 16-35 f/4.

The 16-35 f/4 is an old design and isn’t that sharp. The Tamron is a much better lens, later on down the line we got a second one for my wife as well.

Never had an issue with it not being 16mm at the wide end and never really use it at the long end so the focal length has never really been a problem. Like @nandbytes said it’s small size is a nice bonus too. It also focuses quite close which for a wide lens can make for interesting compositions.

My use will be different than most though as we mainly just use for the dancing at weddings and as a get me out of trouble lens when we need something wide.

Also have the 14mm GM lens for this years weddings so this might replace the Tamron will have to see how we go, 14mm may be too wide.
 
snerkler said:
Is there a reason that you need the wide aperture such as astrophotography? If not I find the 16-35mm f4 a very good lens indeed. Obviously not as good as the 16-35mm f2.8 GM, but then it's not in the same price bracket ;)
Click to expand...
Wide for creative reasons, occasional landscape but mostly for flexibility in city mooching - including into the night. Astro ... never tried, might be fun, but not a priority. I can't justify the 16-35/2.8 on costs and weight, really.

nandbytes said:
I have owned a fair bunch of the UWA lenses Inc. 16-35mm f4 and 17-28mm f2.8

I found the range a wee bit short but it's a great lens still. I have owned the lens twice. In the end just decided to go with Sony 16-35mm f2.8 to complement my future tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you value f2.8 more or the 16mm and 35mm ends. For me I really value having f2.8 for shooting stars and nighttime. YMMV.

With the 17-28mm I really miss the small size and non extending design.
The 16-35mm f4 renders really nicely though.
Click to expand...
I'd have something longer with me, too (24-105, 28-200, not sure), so it's the 2.8 aperture which is the draw. I was out with the 28mm/2.8 manual Vivitar on the A7S last weekend, and it was fast enough, with 2.8 and aperture priority set on the camera. The 16-35/4 seems to be slightly sharper in the YT reviews, but I'm trying to be swayed less by the pixels anyway. The 16/17 difference, I think I could live with - widest I've ever shot is 18mm, and that seemed plenty enough for me.
 
Buying the 28-200mm for a 2 lens solution seems to have awakened my GAS. Because the Tamron is so good I am also thinking about the 17-28mm and selling the Tokina 20mm, Sony 35mm and 85mm lenses. I have never been a prime shooter (apart from macro obviously) so it would make a lot of sense to just have 3 zooms.
 
Last edited:
I suppose there are three advantages to primes, image quality which is less of an issue for me as zooms are easily good enough for me and many people, aperture and size and weight and it's the smaller size and weight that appeal to me most. That new 24mm f2.8 G has been a little revelation to me and the 35mm f2.8 is always going to be a favourite of mine.
 
woof woof said:
That's easy for you to say but we need proof. We need you to post pictures and we need you to moan about the menu being too complicated and how much better Canon colours are :D
Click to expand...
Haha. Those menus. Still struggle to find format every time I insert a card.
 
goldtop said:
I'd have something longer with me, too (24-105, 28-200, not sure), so it's the 2.8 aperture which is the draw. I was out with the 28mm/2.8 manual Vivitar on the A7S last weekend, and it was fast enough, with 2.8 and aperture priority set on the camera. The 16-35/4 seems to be slightly sharper in the YT reviews, but I'm trying to be swayed less by the pixels anyway. The 16/17 difference, I think I could live with - widest I've ever shot is 18mm, and that seemed plenty enough for me.
Click to expand...
Not sure the difference in sharpness matters too much unless you have ideas of buying A7R bodies.

Well sounds like 17-28mm is the lens for you.

Mike.P said:
Buying the 28-200mm for a 2 lens solution seems to have awakened my GAS. Because the Tamron is so good I am also thinking about the 17-28mm and selling the Tokina 20mm, Sony 35mm and 85mm lenses. I have never been a prime shooter (apart from macro obviously) so it would make a lot of sense to just have 3 zooms.
Click to expand...
Until recently I had a similar setup
17-28mm, 28-200mm, 200-600mm, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4.

Plan on moving to just using 3 lenses for my trips 16-35mm/2.8, 35-150mm and 200-600mm.
I'll keep the two primes for other stuff but they won't travel very far with me.
 
Last edited:
Talking of pictures, as it's quiet. A few from the park the other day, creeker and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. f5.6 for the first and f2 for the others.

5XQbnL6.jpg


EdD3dm3.jpg


0yX6v7D.jpg
 
It has to be max 1,000 pixels on the longest edge.

CW9p09P.jpg


Post using the button with the hill in it above... or from s hosting site. I use IMGUR which is free.

PS.
Be aware that sometime you'll post a picture here and wont look as sharp as on your pc, that's what happens to me sometimes anyway.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Not sure the difference in sharpness matters too much unless you have ideas of buying A7R bodies.

Well sounds like 17-28mm is the lens for you.


Until recently I had a similar setup
17-28mm, 28-200mm, 200-600mm, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4.

Plan on moving to just using 3 lenses for my trips 16-35mm/2.8, 35-150mm and 200-600mm.
I'll keep the two primes for other stuff but they won't travel very far with me.
Click to expand...
17-28 & 28-200 have been a great pairing for me as they pretty much cover everything I need on a day out. Recently sold my A7III though so need to decide if I'm sticking with a crop sensor and part with some lenses or maybe get an A7C .
 
Matttemp said:
Hi everyone. New here. Shooting with my a7riii
Click to expand...

Welcome, just put things you use regularly in the quick menu section, then you will pretty much never need to enter the full menu again.
 
Last edited:
Matttemp said:
Haha. Those menus. Still struggle to find format every time I insert a card.
Click to expand...
Set up your most used settings in the mymenu list, much easier to find things. I've then set up a button as a short cut to my menu.
Matttemp said:
Question how do we add a photo to a post?
Click to expand...
You can do it as shown above, however it does seem to degrade the image quality quite a bit, you know, with this being a photography forum and all :lol:

I tend to link from Flickr, and whilst it still degrades the IQ it doesn't appear to do so as much as a direct upload.
 
dancook said:
Instead the Q2/Q2M/M9 - I took a pair of Sony A1 last night, along with 24GM/35GM/50ZA/85GM/135GM - my back was not thankful.

Full set (40 photos)
danielcookphotography.pixieset.com

GT Britannia

Photo collection by Daniel Cook Photography
danielcookphotography.pixieset.com danielcookphotography.pixieset.com

View attachment 344354View attachment 344355View attachment 344356View attachment 344357View attachment 344358View attachment 344362View attachment 344359View attachment 344360View attachment 344361
Click to expand...


Very nice set of shots, the 24mm GM is bang on for me now for shots like these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top