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

[LeeRatters]

I've had it since the earlier days and although I have used it a few times it's mostly sat unused.

I don't know how many 50/55's I have at the mo without running upstairs and counting but it's in the region of 15 or so (and I have sold some) but of course I only have the one AF 50-ish lens and it's this Sony 55mm f1.8.

I used to use my film era lenses sort of in rotation and I've recently decided to do the same with my native lenses. Native lens wise I've used the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and Sony 35mm f2.8 the most but I'm going to try and use the Sony lenses more, the Sony 55 and 35mm f1.8's and the 28mm f2 but the 20mm f1.8, 24mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.8 will probably remain little used special use lenses. I think I've decided to sell the 28-60mm and keep the 28-70mm kit lens because contrary to popular opinion I actually think the old kit lens is the better lens although the new one is collapsible and that's attractive.

I did advertise most of my Nikon film era lenses here but only managed to sell one. I'll put most of my Rokkor, Zuiko and FD lenses up for sale here and see what sells and then I'll ring a dealer and see if I can pass most on. I plan on keeping a Nippon Kogaku, either the 50mm f1.4 or f2 and I'll keep my Rokkor 55mm f1.7 and possibly a couple or three Zuiko's and that's it.

It was the first E mount lens I bought at the very beginning - 2015 sometime. But the same as you, I just didn't get on with the focal length difference which is pretty silly for 5mm!!

The other week in North Devon, I actually used the 24GM more than normal for beach/coastal photos - which I guess is to be expected. And I also pulled off some nice shots at Lynmouth on the way home with the T70-180mm too. I used the 35GM a bit (and the X100f) and the FE85 once when I just wanted to use the messenger bag and not lug around the Tamron.

 

[Micro-four-thirds]

Hi @mav I’m using the Sony a7riv.
I had considered the 500mm prime but I think I would prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens.

 

[f/1.2]

Amazon have a load of photo offers on I got a Samyang 75mm there for £254 to complete the trilogy from hell of 18,45,75

 

[ecniv]

I do think this is a very good lens and easily the best 50/55 AF lens I've used but I do just wish it was 50mm
The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is IMO better but no AF.

So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...

 

[ecniv]

Sony A7RM5 + 50mm Sony f2.8

 

[woof woof]

So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...

I bought a Sony 50mm f2.8 macro but unfortunately the focus was just all over the place on my ancient A7 so it went back. At the time I was really keen on the idea of an auto focus 50mm macro but these days if I want a macro the only one I have is a film era Sigma 50mm f2.8 which TBH is IMO a nice lens and it is a true 1:1 macro.

 

[snerkler]

So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...

That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?

 

[mav]

Hi @mav I’m using the Sony a7riv.
I had considered the 500mm prime but I think I would prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens.

I use the same . I use a canon 400 on the sony now and again and its too short without a converter , Id try the 200-600 to see if its too heavy , i manage ok with mine walk around all day with it.

 

[Micro-four-thirds]

I use the same . I use a canon 400 on the sony now and again and its too short without a converter , Id try the 200-600 to see if its too heavy , i manage ok with mine walk around all day with it.

That’s encouraging, thank you. Will definitely try one out over the next few weeks.

 

[JohnMcL7]

That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?

If you click your username in that quote it goes to one of your posts replying to ecniv so I wonder if they've meant to quote you, then quoted woof woof and made an edit which has mixed them up? I'm quoting your post here and seem to be working as expected

 

[woof woof]

That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?

Everyone wants to be ME!

 

[ecniv]

quote in a quote .. sorry

 

[f/1.2]

Did a take the dog to work day today, so I could let the pup have a run around while I shot some engagement photos. She brought half of the forest home with her.

 

[snerkler]

Did a take the dog to work day today, so I could let the pup have a run around while I shot some engagement photos. She brought half of the forest home with her.

View attachment 417841

Haha, our Staffie used to bring the biggest sticks she could find, may as well have been branches

 

[f/1.2]

Haha, our Staffie used to bring the biggest sticks she could find, may as well have been branches

At one point she was literally trailing a tree around.

 

[Brazo]

Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA

 

[woof woof]

Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA

Up above the Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro was being talked about. Worth a look?

 

[snerkler]

Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA

Used Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro?

 

[Brazo]

Used Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro?

Thanks, it’s just a little North of what I’m prepared to pay. I suppose I’m kinda hoping for a little known lens that offers a close up option!

 

[f/1.2]

Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA

Why do you need a.f for macro?

Can’t think of anything other than the Tamron at that money which isn’t supposed to be very good.

I have the Sony 90mm but can’t remember a time I used the a.f.

 

[Brazo]

Why do you need a.f for macro?

Can’t think of anything other than the Tamron at that money which isn’t supposed to be very good.

I have the Sony 90mm but can’t remember a time I used the a.f.

Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Tamron 28-200: Maximum magnification ratio: 0.32x (W) 0.26x (T)

£488 from e-infinity.

 

[mav]

tamro

Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual

Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.

used tamron macro 90mm and sigma mc11 adapter. would do the Job

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Why do you need a.f for macro?

Seriously?! I really don't think an explanation is needed for The Obvious

 

[f/1.2]

Seriously?! I really don't think an explanation is needed for The Obvious

Tell me you use a.f for macro like a complete newbie?

Do you use P for professional as well?

 

[f/1.2]

Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.

Aggh right I see.

Someone mentioned using the MC-11 and one of the old Tamron 90mm. That would be a good shout to be fair. Those old Tamron 90mm lenses were razor sharp even by today’s standards. Buying used might get you in and around your budget. You should be able to pick up the MC-11 for around £100 and a Canon mount Tamron pretty cheap.

 

[ancient_mariner]

The OP requesteda non-adapted lens, but the Tamron SP90 and an adapter are an excellent combination. I have one with an EA4 adapter and it's a really nice lens for an older design.

 

[Redspider]

Kite surfing.

DSC07343-1 by Andy Williams, on Flickr
DSC07380-1 by Andy Williams, on Flickr
DSC07479-1 by Andy Williams, on Flickr

 

[Brazo]

The OP requesteda non-adapted lens, but the Tamron SP90 and an adapter are an excellent combination. I have one with an EA4 adapter and it's a really nice lens for an older design.

Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me back

I’d just rather not have the faff and given I need a lens that can just focus a bit closer rather than a true macro lens I think I’d prefer to go directly mounted and given a Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 can be had for £180 second hand, adapted may not even be (much) cheaper.

 

[Raymond Lin]

 

[ancient_mariner]

Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me back

I’d just rather not have the faff and given I need a lens that can just focus a bit closer rather than a true macro lens I think I’d prefer to go directly mounted and given a Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 can be had for £180 second hand, adapted may not even be (much) cheaper.

Given the application etc, I can say that the Tamron+ adapter focus much more reliably that one of Sony's budget 50mm lenses with native mount. But if quality is less of an issue then that 35 may be a good buy.

 

[Brazo]

Given the application etc, I can say that the Tamron+ adapter focus much more reliably that one of Sony's budget 50mm lenses with native mount. But if quality is less of an issue then that 35 may be a good buy.

Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.

 

[Hogboy]

Looking through lightroom the Tamron 35 2.8 is my most used lens. Very happy with the results and the half macro is excellent.

 

[f/1.2]

Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.

To be fair I haven’t used the Tamron, I know a couple of people that have and they weren’t happy with it but there experience may be different than yours.

The main complaints were the very slow a.f and less than great image quality. Don’t know if the issue was resolved or not as this was a while back but this lens also had a fault were it switched to manual focus only when being used for video. The whole range was a bit of a mess in truth.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.

I was only parroting Tommy, assuming he had experience, although I *thought* I had remembered it not reviewing well. This is how false information starts! Better check out for yourself because it might be a fine lens after all.

 

[f/1.2]

I was only parroting Tommy, assuming he had experience, although I *thought* I had remembered it not reviewing well. This is how false information starts! Better check out for yourself because it might be a fine lens after all.

All I said was that it isn’t supposed to be very good.

 

[Brazo]

I guess that is how false info spreads!!

Sharpness is remarkable. Contrast is excellent, flare is minimal, bokeh is pleasant, chromatic aberration is all but invisible, and the small amount of vignetting is easily corrected in post. Even wide open, this lens is fairly crisp, improving at f/4 as you’d expect. I’m not one for criticizing corner sharpness, but the Tamron performs very well throughout the aperture range. I’ll spare you the ten all-but identical photographs of a wall — just take my word on it.

Fstoppers Reviews the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Lens

Following on from the success of its f/2.8 standard and wide-angle zoom lenses for Sony, Tamron is in the process of launching a selection of primes. I’ve been using the 35m f/2.8 Di III OSD M 1:2 for the last couple of weeks, and it’s proven fun and surprising. 35mm f/2.8 sits in a slightly odd...

fstoppers.com

 

[Brazo]

As good as it is … I’d still rather something around the 50mm mark I think so my search will go on…. Whistles Titanic tune.

 

[f/1.2]

As good as it is … I’d still rather something around the 50mm mark I think so my search will go on…. Whistles Titanic tune.

It really isn't Even the review you posted mentions the poor a.f performance.

From your review

Sitting in my (still-unfinished) office, I immediately checked the autofocus and found it to be oddly slow. Remembering the firm twist required to initially attach the lens, I wondered if all of the connections were lined up, and so removed and reattached the lens: same tickly scrape, same slow autofocus. Here are the results of some tests comparing the Tamron 35mm with my Samyang 35mm AF f/2.8. As you will notice, the Tamron 35mm doesn’t do well.

A quick look on google shows that every review mentions how poor the autofocus performance is both in terms of focus speed and issues with hunting, Pretty much all the reviews also mention how bad it is with focus breathing as well. So, it really isn't very good, unless you use manual focus and the experience for that is quite poor as well according to several reviews. Pretty much all the reviews mention the awful motor noise when using a.f as well. The a.f is that bad in the review you posted the guy says he thought he hadn't connected the lens correctly to his body.

It is hilarious the tripe people post on forums to justify an opinion.

I have recently bought some sub par cheapo lenses in the Noodle maker trilogy of doom with the Samyang 18,45 and 75. I won't pretend they are good, when they aren't though, to justify buying them. They are what they are crap lenses, but have the advantage of being small.

The Tamron is what it is, a cheap lens according to every review that is very poor in terms of autofocus but has the advantage of nearly providing macro capability.

Then of course there are the other issues with the lens in terms of video were a.f can't used with the A7IV and other newer models.

Tbf you can buy for £175 brand new from the grey market. Like with most things in life you get what you pay for. Being able to buy any lens for that sort of money brand new will seem a bit of a bargain.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks, it’s just a little North of what I’m prepared to pay. I suppose I’m kinda hoping for a little known lens that offers a close up option!

I thought your budget was £300?