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

A7 - 20G

Milky Way core season is almost with us!!

I'm ready for it this year! Pretty much got the camping gear. Car is about 75% finished for sleeping in!


*** by Lee, on Flickr

On an additional gear related note. I'm pretty happy so far with the Tamron 70-180mm with limited use. I also didn't realise it can focus so close either! I think it's going to do me well!
 
LeeRatters said:
A7 - 20G

Milky Way core season is almost with us!!

I'm ready for it this year! Pretty much got the camping gear. Car is about 75% finished for sleeping in!


*** by Lee, on Flickr

On an additional gear related note. I'm pretty happy so far with the Tamron 70-180mm with limited use. I also didn't realise it can focus so close either! I think it's going to do me well!
Click to expand...

Stunning. Apart from the beautiful stardust, I like the unusual leaning building, the bits of red inside the windows and doorway, and that sort of ethereal light at the left side.
 
Merlin5 said:
Stunning. Apart from the beautiful stardust, I like the unusual leaning building, the bits of red inside the windows and doorway, and that sort of ethereal light at the left side.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's on top of a small mound so any further back and you drop in height. It's one of those where you have to embrace the lean and the distant light pollution!
 
Quick question for you guy's

I have a £500 credit with WEX and fancy getting a walkabout/ scenery type lens for an up and coming holiday on Anglesey Nth Wales :)

I will use one of my full frame bodies on the APS-C mode- hence this list of E mount lenses

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ £429

2. Sony 18- 105mm f4 @ £449

3. Sony 18-135mm f3.5 - f5.6 @£499

I am of course open to suggestion under £500 E or FE lenses ( from WEX of course)


Thanks in advance


Les :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lez325 said:
Quick question for you guy's

I have a £500 credit with WEX and fancy getting a walkabout/ scenery type lens for an up and coming holiday on Anglesey Nth Wales :)

I will use one of my full frame bodies on the APS-C mode- hence this list of E mount lenses

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ £429

2. Sony 18- 105mm f4 @ £449

3. Sony 18-135mm f3.5 - f5.6 @£499

I am of course open to suggestion under £500 E or FE lenses ( from WEX of course)


Thanks in advance


Les :)
Click to expand...
Ooh, did you win the AVF competition? I'm not sure why you would use an APS-C lens on a FF body? Sure as a last resort if you already own an APS-C and can't afford the FF lens, but I personally wouldn't buy an APS-C lens specifically to use on a FF body. So I'd either look at an E lens to use on an APS-C body, or FE lens to use on a FF body.

If you can add funds to the £500 I'd look at the 24-105mm f4, if not then despite some negative reviews in the past I've always been happy with my copy of the 24-70mm f4. I did some tests a while ago and centre sharpness is 98% as good as the 24-105mm and corner sharpness is 90-95% as good as the 24-105mm, so overall very good imo. I do appreciate that there is sample variation, but if you can get a newer lens then I believe that it will be better as it's been said that Sony has 'secretly' improved the lens over the years. How true this is I don't know though. I can't find my test shots at the moment, but if I find them I'll post examples of the 24-105mm vs 24-70mm.
 
snerkler said:
Ooh, did you win the AVF competition? I'm not sure why you would use an APS-C lens on a FF body? Sure as a last resort if you already own an APS-C and can't afford the FF lens, but I personally wouldn't buy an APS-C lens specifically to use on a FF body. So I'd either look at an E lens to use on an APS-C body, or FE lens to use on a FF body.

If you can add funds to the £500 I'd look at the 24-105mm f4, if not then despite some negative reviews in the past I've always been happy with my copy of the 24-70mm f4. I did some tests a while ago and centre sharpness is 98% as good as the 24-105mm and corner sharpness is 90-95% as good as the 24-105mm, so overall very good imo. I do appreciate that there is sample variation, but if you can get a newer lens then I believe that it will be better as it's been said that Sony has 'secretly' improved the lens over the years. How true this is I don't know though. I can't find my test shots at the moment, but if I find them I'll post examples of the 24-105mm vs 24-70mm.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your input - I am not wanting to add to my WEX £500 fund just take it to zero - so a FF lens, unless its 28 or 35mm ( which I already own) is little out of my reach just now having paid for a new roof - thanks to the recent storms :(

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lez325 said:
Thank you for your input - I am not wanting to add to my WEX £500 fund - so a FF lens, unless its 28 or 35mm ( which I already own) is little out of my reach just now having paid for a new roof - thanks to the recent storms :(

Les
Click to expand...

Can you use the voucher in store as well?

My local WEX always has a section of used bargains generally better priced than used equipment on the WEX website. You might be lucky enough to find a used Tamron 28-75 or a Sony or Sigma 35mm for under £500.

Actually there are a couple of used lenses on the WEX website that might suit.

www.wexphotovideo.com

USED Sony FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar Carl Zeiss T* Lens | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com





Oops just read that you already have a 35mm, why not just use that?
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Oops just read that you already have a 35mm, why not just use that?
Click to expand...
I really wanted a compact zoom to be honest and yes I have a Store credit of £500 so could drive the 45 mils to Bristol and see what they have :)

I may point out my FF bodies ( 2x ArRiv's) are 61mp FF and 26mp crop so I can still achieve usable images at 26mp - for landscapes - general wandering about hence the 3 lenses I put in my original post :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lez325 said:
I really wanted a compact zoom to be honest and yes I have a Store credit of £500 so could drive the 45 mils to Bristol and see what they have :)

I may point out my FF bodies ( 2x ArRiv's) are 61mp FF and 26mp crop so I can still achieve usable images at 26mp - for landscapes - general wandering about hence the 3 lenses I put in my original post :)
Click to expand...
Yep 26mp is indeed useable however you're reducing IQ as you're enlarging the image more (y)
 
Lez325 said:
Quick question for you guy's

I have a £500 credit with WEX and fancy getting a walkabout/ scenery type lens for an up and coming holiday on Anglesey Nth Wales :)

I will use one of my full frame bodies on the APS-C mode- hence this list of E mount lenses

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ £429

2. Sony 18- 105mm f4 @ £449

3. Sony 18-135mm f3.5 - f5.6 @£499

I am of course open to suggestion under £500 E or FE lenses ( from WEX of course)


Thanks in advance

Les :)
Click to expand...
I would consider a FF lens as mentioned above but would generally stay away from the suggested 24-70mm f4.
If you want really compact something like 28-60mm could come in handy. Its rather sharp and sharper than 24-70/4, very small and also weathersealed (which 24-70mm f4 is not).
There is a used one at wex for £274
www.wexphotovideo.com

USED Sony FE 28-60mm f4-5.6 Lens | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com
But I wouldn't advice buying it at new price. even the used price is slightly high but since you have credit it may be ok for you.

If you are willing to top-up I could suggest the tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6. It is a really good lens for walkaround and also sharper than 24-70mm (and faster too).
There is a used one at wex too.

snerkler said:
I'm not sure why you would use an APS-C lens on a FF body? Sure as a last resort if you already own an APS-C and can't afford the FF lens, but I personally wouldn't buy an APS-C lens specifically to use on a FF body. So I'd either look at an E lens to use on an APS-C body, or FE lens to use on a FF body.
Click to expand...
In general I agree with this but sometimes I have considered buying APS-C lens for size benefit. For example the sony 70-350mm G is really good and very good size.
Would be a very good travel lens compared to taking my 200-600mm or even a 100-400mm around.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I would consider a FF lens as mentioned above but would generally stay away from the suggested 24-70mm f4.
If you want really compact something like 28-60mm could come in handy. Its rather sharp and sharper than 24-70/4, very small and also weathersealed (which 24-70mm f4 is not).
Click to expand...
The 24-70mm is weather sealed (y)
 
snerkler said:
The 24-70mm is weather sealed (y)
Click to expand...
yes according to Sony's claim at the time, but it doesn't even have rubber gasket around the mount.
I wouldn't trust to be honest with you. Its the same as Zeiss 55mm and 35mm lenses. Sony at the time claimed their bodies and lenses were sealed but a lot reviews and teardown showed there was not much sealing going on at the time.

For anyone else have a look at the review here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVqL8aP4Wuc


Its not a great lens tbh. Its just a small.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
yes according to Sony's claim at the time, but it doesn't even have rubber gasket around the mount.
I wouldn't trust to be honest with you. Its the same as Zeiss 55mm and 35mm lenses. Sony at the time claimed their bodies and lenses were sealed but a lot reviews and teardown showed there was not much sealing going on at the time.

For anyone else have a look at the review here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVqL8aP4Wuc


Its not a great lens tbh. Its just a small.
Click to expand...
I really don't get the hate for this lens tbh, but we all have our opinion. I've used many a 24-70mm type lens and this holds up well against them from my experience.

What's your opinion on this? Not the greatest photo by any means, but a good shot to test detail for me. Sure there's a bit of corner softness, but not as bad as the Nikon 18-35mm (which is highly regarded for sharpness, or was at least), Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon 24-120mm f4.

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I really don't get the hate for this lens tbh, but we all have our opinion. I've used many a 24-70mm type lens and this holds up well against them from my experience.

What's your opinion on this? Not the greatest photo by any means, but a good shot to test detail for me. Sure there's a bit of corner softness, but not as bad as the Nikon 18-35mm (which is highly regarded for sharpness, or was at least), Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon 24-120mm f4.

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
Click to expand...

Shot is at 24mm and f8. Seems to match CF's review in terms of performance. Its not terrible but not exactly very sharp either you can clearly see the lack of details in the tree trunk on the top right side. Tamron 28-200mm can probably match that sharpness at f4 if not f2.8.
70mm is where it gets even worst on Zeiss 24-70/4.

not many 24-70mm f4 lenses are that good tbh. the Nikon F 24-120mm f4 wasn't that good past 70-80mm either.
The only good 24-70mm f4 I know of is the canon EF version which is actually a fair bit bigger than other similar options. Probably why its optically excellent.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Shot is at 24mm and f8. Seems to match CF's review in terms of performance. Its not terrible but not exactly very sharp either you can clearly see the lack of details in the tree trunk on the top right side. Tamron 28-200mm can probably match that sharpness at f4 if not f2.8.
70mm is where it gets even worst on Zeiss 24-70/4.

not many 24-70mm f4 lenses are that good tbh. the Nikon F 24-120mm f4 wasn't that good past 70-80mm either.
The only good 24-70mm f4 I know of is the canon EF version which is actually a fair bit bigger than other similar options. Probably why its optically excellent.
Click to expand...
Ahh that's maybe where we're looking at it differently. I'm comparing it to other similar lenses as I think that's a fairer reflection. Obviously these lenses are never going to be the absolute best, but they're more than good enough for me. It's a bit murky today but I'll do another 24-70mm vs 24-105mm comparison when the weather's better as to my eyes there's not 'that' much difference yet the 24-105mm is highly regarded and the 24-70mm gets bad reviews which I find a bit odd :thinking: People on the Sony UK site seem to like it :lol:
 
snerkler said:
Ahh that's maybe where we're looking at it differently. I'm comparing it to other similar lenses as I think that's a fairer reflection. Obviously these lenses are never going to be the absolute best, but they're more than good enough for me. It's a bit murky today but I'll do another 24-70mm vs 24-105mm comparison when the weather's better as to my eyes there's not 'that' much difference yet the 24-105mm is highly regarded and the 24-70mm gets bad reviews which I find a bit odd :thinking: People on the Sony UK site seem to like it :LOL:
Click to expand...
like everything its a compromise between size and quality. Sony's picked size for this lens. Canon for example picked quality. Sony probably did what they did to fit in with the "small FF" marketing at the time.
 
nandbytes said:
like everything its a compromise between size and quality. Sony's picked size for this lens. Canon for example picked quality. Sony probably did what they did to fit in with the "small FF" marketing at the time.
Click to expand...
Yep always a compromise. The fact it's comparable to other lenses in the same market is fine by me, although I don't think Sony did themselves any favours with the original price as it would suggest the lens is better than it is. Picking up an as new for under £500 is much more like it.

For me it's a shame the Tamron 28-75mm isn't a 24-70mm as it'd be much more appealing if it was 24mm at the wide end.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Yep always a compromise. The fact it's comparable to other lenses in the same market is fine by me, although I don't think Sony did themselves any favours with the original price as it would suggest the lens is better than it is. Picking up an as new for under £500 is much more like it.

For me it's a shame the Tamron 28-75mm isn't a 24-70mm as it'd be much more appealing if it was 24mm at the wide end.
Click to expand...
A 24mm lens or one that starts are 24mm is harder to design optically than 28mm. Roger from lensrentals claims so anyway.
He also says this is why 24mm primes are generally the softer ones in the lineup and why he though 24GM was truly special because it managed over come some of that complexity in the design.
So it would make the lens larger than the 28-75mm. I guess its the same reason why 28-200mm starts at 28mm because by giving up that 24mm end they can make fairly compact, fast-ish decent superzoom.

you can also see the difference between the sigma 24-70 and 28-70. Sigma art 24mm f1.4 was the least sharp of the art series.
 
nandbytes said:
A 24mm lens or one that starts are 24mm is harder to design optically than 28mm. Roger from lensrentals claims so anyway.
He also says this is why 24mm primes are generally the softer ones in the lineup and why he though 24GM was truly special because it managed over come some of that complexity in the design.
So it would make the lens larger than the 28-75mm. I guess its the same reason why 28-200mm starts at 28mm because by giving up that 24mm end they can make fairly compact, fast-ish decent superzoom.

you can also see the difference between the sigma 24-70 and 28-70. Sigma art 24mm f1.4 was the least sharp of the art series.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, I just like to live in my little idealistic world ;)
 
The new 16-35mm is rumoured to have a powerzoom. Clearly aimed at video peeps and instantly rules out the lens for me.
 
I've got a tiny white spec of dust on one of my Sigma lenses but can't shift it.

I don't think it'll affect my images but would be nice to clear it. I think it might be on the inside of the glass?

20220315_124320.jpg

20220317_143151.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20220315_115649.jpg
    20220315_115649.jpg
    98.3 KB · Views: 4
Merlin5 said:
I've got a tiny white spec of dust on one of my Sigma lenses but can't shift it.

I don't think it'll affect my images but would be nice to clear it. I think it might be on the inside of the glass?

View attachment 347278

View attachment 347277
Click to expand...
I had something like this that I thought was a chunk of dust but then it started crawling around and it was a tiny white bug. I'd just bought the lens so sent it back but apparently I could've just put the lens in a plastic bag with the lens caps off and it would eventually crawl out.

Yours looks like it might be a chunk of dust though and if so you'd need to take the front element off to clean it which I recommend letting a professional do.
 
Merlin5 said:
I've got a tiny white spec of dust on one of my Sigma lenses but can't shift it.

I don't think it'll affect my images but would be nice to clear it. I think it might be on the inside of the glass?

View attachment 347278

View attachment 347277
Click to expand...

All lenses have a certain amount of dust inside them even when brand new.

Sigma zooms do seem to be a bit more prone to sucking in dust but if it's not effecting images I wouldn't worry about it.

The cost of sending it to Sigma to have the front element removed, cleaned and reinstalled wouldn't be far of the cost of a new lens, it will come back again at some point anyway.
 
Thanks for the advice guys. (y) Yeah, I was thinking the same, that it wouldn't be worthwhile sending it for cleaning. I can live with it.
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks for the advice guys. (y) Yeah, I was thinking the same, that it wouldn't be worthwhile sending it for cleaning. I can live with it.
Click to expand...
I’ve never had a lens cleaned for dust, just not worth it and it’s never affected IQ.
 
Merlin5 said:
I've got a tiny white spec of dust on one of my Sigma lenses but can't shift it.

I don't think it'll affect my images but would be nice to clear it. I think it might be on the inside of the glass?

View attachment 347278

View attachment 347277
Click to expand...
For starters every lens has dust in it, if you can't see it just means you need a more powerful torch ;)

It won't affect your images and if you own a lens long enough you'll eventually end to with some dust it in.
 
nandbytes said:
For starters every lens has dust in it, if you can't see it just means you need a more powerful torch ;)

It won't affect your images and if you own a lens long enough you'll eventually end to with some dust it in.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's good to know it's a common thing and that the dust won't affect the IQ. :)
 
dancook said:
I used the 50GM last night for over 4 hours of theatre and back stage shenanigans - the difference over the 50 ZA is notable, I'm very happy with it! Everything so crisp, clear, sharp and popping from the background.
Click to expand...
Good to hear Dan - glad you're happy with it mate :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top