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

LeeRatters said:
@woof woof I shot a few of my Snowdonia landscapes at f/1.4 :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

And why not? I do still have some f1.4/1.2 lenses and I do take pictures at wider apertures but for the sort of pictures I've just posted when there are things close to the camera f4 or even f5.6 isn't going to get front to back depth if that or something like it is what I'm going for.

50mm @ f1.2.

1-DSC08057.jpg

This is 35mm @ f1.8 but I can't remember why.

1-DSC00661.jpg

I think wider than f2.5/f2.8 apertures are maybe only something like 5% of my pictures, if that. Some days I'll take quite a few and then none for weeks. Just depends what look I want and the lens I have. This next one would have benefitted from f1.2 to make the bokeh balls bigger but all I had was f2.5.

1-DSC01113.jpg
 
Last edited:
I remember buying my first f1.4, it was an APS-C Sigma 30mm f1.4 for my Canon 20D I guess. I remember being shocked that you get an f1.4. Back in those days I didn't read photography magazines and I doubt the internet was as a big thing then so I didn't know. I just saw it in a shop and was amazed so I bought it. I think my first FF f1.x lens was a Sigma 50mm f1.4. Before that 30mm f1.4 Sigma all I'd had was a 28-70mm f3.5 or f4-f5.6 Nikon kit lens.

When I went mirrorless I wanted an f1.x lens but some of my f.1x lenses have been bought not because I wanted f1.2 or f1.4 but because I wanted a nice lens and the aperture just came with it and I'd have bought it if it'd been f1.8 or f2.

f8 is generally as small as I normally go, I generally only go to f11 or smaller if there's something very close to the camera or if I want a longer shutter speed exposure.

24mm at f11 because I wanted those foreground bubbles and the distance.

DSC01218.jpg

f16 at ISO 50 for the shutter speed.

DSC05259.JPG

Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 at f1.6 not because it's relevant but because I've just seen it and I love this picture :D

DSC02282.jpg
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
I sometimes shot wide open at f/1.4 or f/1.2 to remind myself of why I spent so much money on the lens :)

I don't shoot as wide open as I used to I don't think. But I certainly shoot nearer to wide open than I do f/11
Click to expand...
Landscapes etc normally f8 for me, most other things wide open.
 
But, this was f/11 though :)

5 shot 35GM panoramic [which was very rushed] when the rainbow appeared..... Probably still quicker and safer to shoot the pano than swap lenses in the rain though :ROFLMAO:


*** by Lee, on Flickr

I wanted this image even though it's been done to death!! I wasn't expecting to get something like this though whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....
 
LeeRatters said:
But, this was f/11 though :)

5 shot 35GM panoramic [which was very rushed] when the rainbow appeared..... Probably still quicker and safer to shoot the pano than swap lenses in the rain though :ROFLMAO:


*** by Lee, on Flickr

I wanted this image even though it's been done to death!! I wasn't expecting to get something like this though whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....
Click to expand...
whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....

Great picture but love the story
Think the tarmac path is just the other side of the multi storey car park :)
 
LeeRatters said:
But, this was f/11 though :)

5 shot 35GM panoramic [which was very rushed] when the rainbow appeared..... Probably still quicker and safer to shoot the pano than swap lenses in the rain though :ROFLMAO:


*** by Lee, on Flickr

I wanted this image even though it's been done to death!! I wasn't expecting to get something like this though whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....
Click to expand...
Stunningly good (or lucky depending on which way you look at it!)
 
LeeRatters said:
But, this was f/11 though :)

5 shot 35GM panoramic [which was very rushed] when the rainbow appeared..... Probably still quicker and safer to shoot the pano than swap lenses in the rain though :ROFLMAO:


*** by Lee, on Flickr

I wanted this image even though it's been done to death!! I wasn't expecting to get something like this though whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....
Click to expand...
Stunning
 
This has made Flickr Explore, I'm still not sure what the algorithms are but I'll take it :)


A1_06043-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
nog said:
whilst hiking up in the dark, bushwhacking my way through bracken trying to find an invisible path.....

Great picture but love the story
Think the tarmac path is just the other side of the multi storey car park :)
Click to expand...

It was much easier on the way down when I could see what was further in front of me! Thanks :)

Gold said:
Stunningly good (or lucky depending on which way you look at it!)
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll take either! We had a lot of sun/showers and rainbows whilst up there tbh Didn't get a decent sunset, but the rest of the weather was awesome.

snerkler said:
Stunning
Click to expand...

Thank you mate It was one of those panic moments when I caught sight of the rainbow.
 
It's a quite miserable day today.

A7cII and Sony 40mm.

Looking out to sea.

1-DSC00619.jpg

Looking towards Saltburn. I was at Redcar.

1-DSC00624.jpg

The flags are out though.

1-DSC00631.jpg

The tide was coming in fast. I took a few pictures and suddenly my feet were wet. I wonder is she made it wherever she was going without getting wet.
 
Last edited:
Lets see if anyone comes and puts it right before the council come and take it down. There seem to be more and more of them. Mrs WW says we should get one but we don't have a lamppost.
 
Sigma 85mm f1.2 coming?

Sigma patented a fast 85mm f/1.2 Full Frame lens design | sonyalpharumors

A newly published Sigma patent reveals the design of three fast f/1.2 prime lenses. Two are already on the market — the 50mm f/1.2 and 35mm f/1.2 — while the third points to an unreleased 85mm f/1.2 portrait lens. I’m convinced Sigma will make this a reality very soon! via Asobinet
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
 
woof woof said:
Sigma 85mm f1.2 coming?

Sigma patented a fast 85mm f/1.2 Full Frame lens design | sonyalpharumors

A newly published Sigma patent reveals the design of three fast f/1.2 prime lenses. Two are already on the market — the 50mm f/1.2 and 35mm f/1.2 — while the third points to an unreleased 85mm f/1.2 portrait lens. I’m convinced Sigma will make this a reality very soon! via Asobinet
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
Could be interesting, my worry with it being Sigma is that it'll be over a kilo :oops: :$
 
During my recent portrait shoots I’ve been finding swapping lenses a pain, and I got to thinking as I’m shooting at f8 do I really need to be shooting with primes or would a zoom suffice.

Apart from sharpness can you see differences in the way lenses render an image when shooting f8 in a studio with controlled strobe lighting? I know some lenses have better micro contrast, more of a 3D rendering etc. but would you see this in a studio scenario?
 
snerkler said:
During my recent portrait shoots I’ve been finding swapping lenses a pain, and I got to thinking as I’m shooting at f8 do I really need to be shooting with primes or would a zoom suffice.

Apart from sharpness can you see differences in the way lenses render an image when shooting f8 in a studio with controlled strobe lighting? I know some lenses have better micro contrast, more of a 3D rendering etc. but would you see this in a studio scenario?
Click to expand...

Only one way to find out. Time for the Lab Coat Toby.
 
I think once you get to f8 just about anything will probably do the job.

For people shots I'd guess that a lot of the nasties which might be present at wide aperture will be long gone by f8 and any distortion which might be visible in a brick wall or straight line test with less good lenses probably wont be an issue with people pictures. Zooms for me could introduce too much choice but I suppose thinking about the perspective you want will make the distance and focal length decisions for you and what's left could be just you feeling comfortable and not having to change lenses.

Another thing. Back when I had Canon DSLR's I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and I remember taking a picture of my then GF and thinking that a lens can be too sharp and too revealing for a picture of your GF. More modern lenses are probably even sharper and more revealing. I think that's all something to think about.
 
woof woof said:
I think once you get to f8 just about anything will probably do the job.

For people shots I'd guess that a lot of the nasties which might be present at wide aperture will be long gone by f8 and any distortion which might be visible in a brick wall or straight line test with less good lenses probably wont be an issue with people pictures. Zooms for me could introduce too much choice but I suppose thinking about the perspective you want will make the distance and focal length decisions for you and what's left could be just you feeling comfortable and not having to change lenses.

Another thing. Back when I had Canon DSLR's I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and I remember taking a picture of my then GF and thinking that a lens can be too sharp and too revealing for a picture of your GF. More modern lenses are probably even sharper and more revealing. I think that's all something to think about.
Click to expand...
Yep most modern lenses are too sharp for portraits, but I was thinking more about rendering and ‘pop’. Obviously most of the depth/3D should come from the lighting but I don’t know how much influence (if any) the lens has in this regards in a studio setting at f8 :thinking:
 
I'd guess that the composition, perspective and lighting are 99.9% with the lens only mattering if it's going to spoil the look you want. I've never used any serious artificial lighting and I don't think I ever will but I do believe that generally in photography the light is the thing unless your attachment to the subject over rides everything else.

Looking at the picture above I think the detail and contrast in the whatever she's on contrasts with the soft almost featureless look of the model and her clothing, that's the thing that jumps out at me and my eye keeps getting drawn to the right. I wouldn't give micro contrast or pop in the model and her clothing a moments thought in that picture. I'd be looking to soften the background. Not that I know anything about a studio shoot but I do look at women :D
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Yep most modern lenses are too sharp for portraits, but I was thinking more about rendering and ‘pop’. Obviously most of the depth/3D should come from the lighting but I don’t know how much influence (if any) the lens has in this regards in a studio setting at f8 :thinking:
Click to expand...

No pop from my 24-105, or from most zooms - it's not a zoom characteristic generally.
 
ancient_mariner said:
No pop from my 24-105, or from most zooms - it's not a zoom characteristic generally.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my findings from the short/mid range zooms too except maybe the f2.8 ones at 70mm, however I wonder how much that matters in a studio. I'm going to have to experiment ;)
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, that's my findings from the short/mid range zooms too except maybe the f2.8 ones at 70mm, however I wonder how much that matters in a studio. I'm going to have to experiment ;)
Click to expand...

Experiment. You !!
 
snerkler said:
During my recent portrait shoots I’ve been finding swapping lenses a pain, and I got to thinking as I’m shooting at f8 do I really need to be shooting with primes or would a zoom suffice.

Apart from sharpness can you see differences in the way lenses render an image when shooting f8 in a studio with controlled strobe lighting? I know some lenses have better micro contrast, more of a 3D rendering etc. but would you see this in a studio scenario?
Click to expand...

The 24-70 GMII is as sharp as any prime lens I have ever used. it also renders beautifully. At smaller apertures I probably prefer it over any of my other lenses. However I rarely shoot at smaller apertures. Apparently the newer Sigma 24-70 is supposed to be very good as well.
 
f/2.8 said:
The 24-70 GMII is as sharp as any prime lens I have ever used. it also renders beautifully. At smaller apertures I probably prefer it over any of my other lenses. However I rarely shoot at smaller apertures. Apparently the newer Sigma 24-70 is supposed to be very good as well.
Click to expand...
I have considered the 24-70mm, I'm going to try my 20-70mm first as I'd like not to spend any more money if I don't have to (y)
 
snerkler said:
Yep most modern lenses are too sharp for portraits, but I was thinking more about rendering and ‘pop’. Obviously most of the depth/3D should come from the lighting but I don’t know how much influence (if any) the lens has in this regards in a studio setting at f8 :thinking:
Click to expand...
You are allowed to shoot at apertures other than F/8 in the studio :) (though you may be limited by how wide you can go if there's not a lot of adjustment on the strobes you are working with)
 
Faldrax said:
You are allowed to shoot at apertures other than F/8 in the studio :) (though you may be limited by how wide you can go if there's not a lot of adjustment on the strobes you are working with)
Click to expand...
Yep true, but on the events I go to you’re generally at ISO 100, 1/160, f8. As you’re working in groups of 3 there’s not a lot of scope to alter the power that much without throwing everyone else’s settings off.
 
Far from the most scientific test but these were shot on the 20-70mm f4 and 50mm f1.2, both at f8 using bounced flash. I'm struggling to see much difference in terms of 3D/depth :thinking:


A1_06702 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

A1_06704 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
pmac said:
Bottom looks sharper that’s all and I’ve not checked which is which
Click to expand...
They look nigh on identical to me tbh

Edit: Although this direct uload has destroyed the sharpness anyway :lol:


Screenshot 2025-10-06 at 14.08.48.jpg
 
snerkler said:
They look nigh on identical to me tbh

Edit: Although this direct uload has destroyed the sharpness anyway :LOL:


View attachment 464921
Click to expand...
Top-left ,bottom-right
Again maybe it’s my phone but these look different the right is more contrasty and the lighting shadow seems better.
Both of these sets that’s me zooming in on screen.
 
pmac said:
Top-left ,bottom-right
Again maybe it’s my phone but these look different the right is more contrasty and the lighting shadow seems better.
Both of these sets that’s me zooming in on screen.
Click to expand...
You've clearly got better eyes than me ;)

I can't even see on this example, these expensive lenses are wasted on me :ROFLMAO:

Screenshot 2025-10-06 at 15.00.10.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top