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

mstphoto said:
Me too although I have never seen Puffins there
Click to expand...
We went a few years ago and saw them, however they didn't come close so had to crop almost 1:1 using a 600mm. I think they're only there at certain times of the year then migrate further north IIRC.
 
snerkler said:
We went a few years ago and saw them, however they didn't come close so had to crop almost 1:1 using a 600mm. I think they're only there at certain times of the year then migrate further north IIRC.
Click to expand...
Actually scrap that, I've been getting posts confused. I thought they were taken at Bempton for some reason, that's where I went not Troup Head :facepalm: I've got a feeling that's where the Puffin's migrate to from Bempton, but could be wrong.
 
woof woof said:
1st AF lens from TTartisan...

This 32mm f/2.8 FE lens will be the first autofocus lens from TTartisan | sonyalpharumors

This lens will be announced tomorrow. What's interesting is that this is their first autofocus lens. Here are the specs: Format: full size Mount: Sony E, Nikon Z, Fuji X, Canon RF Focal length: 32mm Aperture value: F2.8-F16 Aperture blade: 7 pieces Lens configuration: 9 elements in 6 groups...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I wonder how good it'll be.
Click to expand...

Unless it's superb, it's hard to see them getting much traction for Sony, though if it fits other makes then maybe it'll still have a niche.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Unless it's superb, it's hard to see them getting much traction for Sony, though if it fits other makes then maybe it'll still have a niche.
Click to expand...

There seem to be a few choices around 30 odd mm and f2.8 or so but this lens might offer something if it has good performance or a good look at a reasonable price.
 
woof woof said:
There seem to be a few choices around 30 odd mm and f2.8 or so but this lens might offer something if it has good performance or a good look at a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

As you know I have the 35 f2,8 Sammy, which is *extraordinarily* good value and tiny. I've wondered about the 35 f1.8, but ask why I'd want it when it's much larger without offering a great advantage in terms of bokeh/depth of field. There's lots of other 35s too. I'll be interested in seeing what this brings to the table - if it did the nice rendering of the Sigma f2.8 at the price of the Samyang then it might have something.
 
I bought the Sony 35mm f2.8 years back when it was the only choice but I also bought the f1.8 when it came out as although f2.8 is usually enough for me in low light f1.8 will help plus the f1.8 will focus closer and that's good for me as I often take close up pictures when out walking. The downsides are that it's bigger, has CA in some scenarios and the bokeh is IMO par for the course and no better. I haven't used it anywhere near as much as I thought I would though and of my three Sony mount 35mm lenses I've use the Sony f2.8 the most, then the Voigtlander f1.4 and the Sony f1.8 hardly gets used but I have taken some pictures I really like with it.

I can't see me buying another 35-ish lens unless someone brings out a compact f2 just a smidgen bigger than the f2.8 and with nice bokeh and I doubt that'll happen.
 
Last edited:
I'm very tempted to sell most of my lenses and buy the 50 f1.2 - there's something really special about that lens, like my old Sony A mount 50 f1.4, but sharp, cntrasty & detailed.
 
Yes, it's a lovely thing and so is the 35mm f1.4 but I wouldn't be happy carrying, using or pointing such big lenses at people. I know it's just me, but I do like the smaller kit which can hopefully pass as almost invisible to other people, sometimes. If I do want f1.2 I have the Voigtlander 40mm.

There's no doubt that these new lenses are very good. The only downside with some of them is that they're bigger.
 
Just seen the price of the 50 f1.2.

For an amateur, that's a spendy piece of glass, even at grey prices.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Just seen the price of the 50 f1.2.

For an amateur, that's a spendy piece of glass, even at grey prices.
Click to expand...
We all have our justifications ;) It's odd, I can't justify that on a prime yet I've just spent more than that on a 70-200mm. In my head the 70-200mm is better value for money, which is probably complete nonsense but that's how my brain works :lol:
 
snerkler said:
We all have our justifications ;) It's odd, I can't justify that on a prime yet I've just spent more than that on a 70-200mm. In my head the 70-200mm is better value for money, which is probably complete nonsense but that's how my brain works :LOL:
Click to expand...

I would be the exact opposite, can't see a reason why I would ever need a 70-200 and don't want one either having spent years carting one around,.

I wouldn't take a 70-200 for free but I happily paid the price of the 50 f/1.2 because its absolutely magical.
 
My company pension has made a difference to my day to day finances as I haven't had to withdraw any money from any of my savings accounts for 10 or 11 months now and in fact because of that and not spending all my pension my money is inching up for the first time in years, since the interest rate plummeted. But this has come at a time that I seem to have lost a bit of interest in buying stuff as there doesn't seem to be anything I want so the extra money can go towards a new car rather than lenses sometime in the future.
 
woof woof said:
My company pension has made a difference to my day to day finances as I haven't had to withdraw any money from any of my savings accounts for 10 or 11 months now and in fact because of that and not spending all my pension my money is inching up for the first time in years, since the interest rate plummeted. But this has come at a time that I seem to have lost a bit of interest in buying stuff as there doesn't seem to be anything I want so the extra money can go towards a new car rather than lenses sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

There is nothing currently available that I want to buy either.

If they ever become available I would buy these though.

A9III with 33-36 million pixel sensor.

35 f/1.2 GM.

10 or 12mm fisheye.

45mm tilt shift.

50mm f/1.4 needs to be lighter and smaller than the 50 f/1.2, to suit my missus. Hoping that Sigma refresh there’s the way they did with the 35 and 85 art.
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm pretty happy kit wise right now.

35GM and Tamron 70-180mm for the majority of stuff I shoot.
20G mainly just for night skies.
FE85 just because it's a good one and not really worth selling.
Click to expand...
Did you sell the other lenses then?
 
Eventually I'll have to buy a new camera as my A7 wont last forever and is already 7 or 8 years old.

Lens wise I've even lost interest in buying old film era lenses and have been thinking of offloading maybe most of them.

The thing that stops me buying a 35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2 is that I don't like the bigger kit because I don't like carrying it and feel self conscious using it. The 35mm f2.8 and Sony f1.8's I have suit me better and for the happy snapping I do they're more than adequate as no one but me and you lot will notice the CA in backlit scenes or the slightly rough bokeh which are the main issues with these lenses.

My kit.
A7, obviously :D
20, 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8, 24, 35mm f2.8 and the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6.

If Sony brought out a 50mm f1.8 that'd focus reliably on my A7 I could swap my 55mm for it or even the 50mm f2.5.

Voigtlander 35mm f1.4, 40mm f1,2 and 50mm f2 and I've thought about selling one or two of those.
 
Walking around the harbour at Scarborough, we came across this little feller (A65 / Tamron 16-300)

Seagull in Scarborough A65 DSC02814.JPG
 
f/2.8 said:
I would be the exact opposite, can't see a reason why I would ever need a 70-200 and don't want one either having spent years carting one around,.

I wouldn't take a 70-200 for free but I happily paid the price of the 50 f/1.2 because its absolutely magical.
Click to expand...
The new 70-200mm actually feels pretty light tbh. But yes we all have our different wants and needs etc (y)
 
f/2.8 said:
I would be the exact opposite, can't see a reason why I would ever need a 70-200 and don't want one either having spent years carting one around,.

I wouldn't take a 70-200 for free but I happily paid the price of the 50 f/1.2 because its absolutely magical.
Click to expand...

I would use it MUCH more than a 70-210 too. I like a 50, but mu most used lens when not travelling is probably my 85 f1,4 because of the look it gives - nothing else comes close.
 
Sorry guys, not sure what is going on. I always share on here via Flickr at 2048 on the long edge but I am having to share these at even lower resolution 1600 long edge otherwise I get red X
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would use it MUCH more than a 70-210 too. I like a 50, but mu most used lens when not travelling is probably my 85 f1,4 because of the look it gives - nothing else comes close.
Click to expand...

I stopped using my 85GM after getting the 50 f/1.2. It’s a much more interesting lens.
 
Crane operator taking a break. (A65 / Tamron 16~300mm)

Crane operator at bus station construction site Exeter A65 DSC03443.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top