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

robj20 said:
Treated myself to a 35mm GM been fancying one for ages. Should come in very handy for lowlight stuff.
Click to expand...
Such a great lens.
 
snerkler said:
Such a great lens.
Click to expand...
I hope so, I love my 35 f2.8.
Took me a long time to decide so many options for 35 f1.2 or f1.4 lenses. But the GM seems overall the best when you take image quality, AF, size and weight into consideration. The Viltrox looked good also.
 
f/2.8 said:
This might be interesting

Viltrox officially confirms their first (35-50mm f/1.4?) zoom lens is in development! | sonyalpharumors

Viltrox has done an Ask me anything on Reddit. And when asked about the development of zoom lenses this is what they said: About the zoom lens, we're actively working on it. About the macro lenses, there won’t be any in the near future. Back in August, I mentioned that several Chinese optical...
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
What will be the Size and weight though!
Just saw a reel about the sigma 28-45/1.8 and it was the size of the tamron 35-150/2-2.8.
These super fast zoom lenses are all good until you see the size and weight.
 
pmac said:
What will be the Size and weight though!
Just saw a reel about the sigma 28-45/1.8 and it was the size of the tamron 35-150/2-2.8.
These super fast zoom lenses are all good until you see the size and weight.
Click to expand...

I think that's usually the case. Great focal lengths and apertures but the size and weight are the negatives. I guess the argument is it still might be lighter than carrying both a 35GM and 50GM but still.....

That's the result though of wanting a fast zoom over an f/2.8 zoom.
 
nog said:
@LeeRatters

Think the ivy colour would have been have been lovely sometime after you were there and before I was there :rolleyes: :)
DSC05306.jpg by Keith, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Yes. Typical. Still nice shots from us both though. We ideally wanted to go early October but the wife (still sounds weird saying that :ROFLMAO: ) couldn't get that time off of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nog
robj20 said:
I hope so, I love my 35 f2.8.
Took me a long time to decide so many options for 35 f1.2 or f1.4 lenses. But the GM seems overall the best when you take image quality, AF, size and weight into consideration. The Viltrox looked good also.
Click to expand...
There's something special in the 35mm GM rendering that appeals to me.
 
pmac said:
What will be the Size and weight though!
Just saw a reel about the sigma 28-45/1.8 and it was the size of the tamron 35-150/2-2.8.
These super fast zoom lenses are all good until you see the size and weight.
Click to expand...
Yeah for sure it will be big but it will weigh less than carrying the 35 f/1.4 on one body and the 50 f/1.2 on another as I do now.
 
snerkler said:
There's something special in the 35mm GM rendering that appeals to me.
Click to expand...
Do you think so?

Pretty much every wedding photographer tha shoots Sony has one and most dislike the rendering and SOOC colours. It’s probably the most gurned about lens in the system and most just have it over the other options because of the a.f performance.

The Viltrox 35 f/1.2 has much nicer colours and rendering but lacks the same a.f performance.
 
f/2.8 said:
Do you think so?

Pretty much every wedding photographer tha shoots Sony has one and most dislike the rendering and SOOC colours. It’s probably the most gurned about lens in the system and most just have it over the other options because of the a.f performance.

The Viltrox 35 f/1.2 has much nicer colours and rendering but lacks the same a.f performance.
Click to expand...
I've heard nothing but praise for it and it's rendering, however none of it's relevant as I like it (y)
 
nandbytes said:
I like the 35GM too but the new Sigma 35/1.2ii is calling my name :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I did consider it but thought it would be too big and heavy as a lens I'd want to carry around all the time.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I wish the Sigma 35 f1.2 mkI was as small and light as the sony 50 f1.2 (and had the same AF performance).
Click to expand...
Your wish has been answered with 2nd version :D

robj20 said:
I did consider it but thought it would be too big and heavy as a lens I'd want to carry around all the time.
Click to expand...

It's bigger for sure. That's also my main concern. Plus I've had 35GM since release and I am not keen on losing a ton of money buying another new lens and selling mine in used condition.
 
What advantages does the Sigma 35mm offer over the Sony GM?

Although the 40mm has taken over from everything for me I could go back to 35mm if there was a mini G 35mm of the same build and optical quality as the mini G's. I can't see myself getting one of these larger lenses though as I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 if I want a wider aperture,
 
woof woof said:
What advantages does the Sigma 35mm offer over the Sony GM?

Although the 40mm has taken over from everything for me I could go back to 35mm if there was a mini G 35mm of the same build and optical quality as the mini G's. I can't see myself getting one of these larger lenses though as I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 if I want a wider aperture,
Click to expand...
F1.2 vs. F1.4 :D
Purely bokeh whoring and GAS, nothing more :ROFLMAO:
 
Ah. In that case I wouldn't bother. For me these differences are only really visible in side by side comparisons of brokeh ball size.
 
woof woof said:
What advantages does the Sigma 35mm offer over the Sony GM?

Although the 40mm has taken over from everything for me I could go back to 35mm if there was a mini G 35mm of the same build and optical quality as the mini G's. I can't see myself getting one of these larger lenses though as I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 if I want a wider aperture,
Click to expand...

For me. None :ROFLMAO:
 
LeeRatters said:
For me. None :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Back in my Canon DSLR days I bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because it was f1.4 and I'd never had one but since then every faster than f1.8 lens I've bought other than cheap film era lenses has been bought because I thought it was a nice lens and not because it was wider than f1.8. I think I've only struggled hand held in low light twice, once with the Sony 35mm f2.8 and once with the Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I don't believe that lens is f1.4, I don't know what it really is.

I can see the gas appeal though and good luck to those who want to swap an f1.4 for an f1.2.
 
woof woof said:
Back in my Canon DSLR days I bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because it was f1.4 and I'd never had one but since then every faster than f1.8 lens I've bought other than cheap film era lenses has been bought because I thought it was a nice lens and not because it was wider than f1.8. I think I've only struggled hand held in low light twice, once with the Sony 35mm f2.8 and once with the Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I don't believe that lens is f1.4, I don't know what it really is.

I can see the gas appeal though and good luck to those who want to swap an f1.4 for an f1.2.
Click to expand...

For me, it's been a mix of qualities. I've owned a Sony A mount 50 f1.4 for a long time, and although it has much to recommend it, optically its heavily flawed. I went straight for the 50 f1.2 because there's no graduation process and it's an obvious tool to use.
 
woof woof said:
Back in my Canon DSLR days I bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because it was f1.4 and I'd never had one but since then every faster than f1.8 lens I've bought other than cheap film era lenses has been bought because I thought it was a nice lens and not because it was wider than f1.8. I think I've only struggled hand held in low light twice, once with the Sony 35mm f2.8 and once with the Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I don't believe that lens is f1.4, I don't know what it really is.

I can see the gas appeal though and good luck to those who want to swap an f1.4 for an f1.2.
Click to expand...

For me, the 35GM is for the light gathering for night skies and subject separation and its performance wide open. . A Sigma f/1.2 wouldn't make any sense to swap to at all.
 
woof woof said:
Back in my Canon DSLR days I bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4 because it was f1.4 and I'd never had one but since then every faster than f1.8 lens I've bought other than cheap film era lenses has been bought because I thought it was a nice lens and not because it was wider than f1.8. I think I've only struggled hand held in low light twice, once with the Sony 35mm f2.8 and once with the Pergear 35mm f1.4 but I don't believe that lens is f1.4, I don't know what it really is.

I can see the gas appeal though and good luck to those who want to swap an f1.4 for an f1.2.
Click to expand...

indoors is certainly challenge with kids and such. normally i need to main at least 1/60s to avoid motion blur.

LeeRatters said:
For me, the 35GM is for the light gathering for night skies and subject separation and its performance wide open. . A Sigma f/1.2 wouldn't make any sense to swap to at all.
Click to expand...

actually night skies is the only reason i can see for the f1.2. the sigma coma is pretty well corrected too.
I don't think people would see the difference in subject separation unless comparing side by side as woof woof said.

ancient_mariner said:
For me, it's been a mix of qualities. I've owned a Sony A mount 50 f1.4 for a long time, and although it has much to recommend it, optically its heavily flawed. I went straight for the 50 f1.2 because there's no graduation process and it's an obvious tool to use.
Click to expand...

I had the 50mm f1.2 (think i may have sold it to you?). I really loved that lens just not so much a 50mm fan. Prefer a 35/85 combo.

I am thinking of swapping 20-70+50-300mm for the sigma 20-200mm and swap 35GM for sigma 35/1.2ii.
 
nandbytes said:
indoors is certainly challenge with kids and such. normally i need to main at least 1/60s to avoid motion blur.



actually night skies is the only reason i can see for the f1.2. the sigma coma is pretty well corrected too.
I don't think people would see the difference in subject separation unless comparing side by side as woof woof said.



I had the 50mm f1.2 (think i may have sold it to you?). I really loved that lens just not so much a 50mm fan. Prefer a 35/85 combo.

I am thinking of swapping 20-70+50-300mm for the sigma 20-200mm and swap 35GM for sigma 35/1.2ii.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have your old lens.
 
nandbytes said:
indoors is certainly challenge with kids and such. normally i need to main at least 1/60s to avoid motion blur.
Click to expand...

As I can't stop myself pixel peeping I'll be at 1/125 if at all possible for anything likely to move but for static stuff the electronic shutters of my A7III and A7cII allow double digit shutter speeds handheld and I do have a lot at 1/40 and there abouts.

Since I stopped shooting at gigs with ISO 1,600 film and a Nikon kit lens at f3.5 I've been spoilt for low light and todays kit and NR are very nice. I don't often take pictures in genuinely low light and when I do I'm conscious of the lack of depth wide open and will probably stop down a bit for depth if possible and accept the extra noise. When I have an f1.2/f1.4 lens on the camera I do usually take some pictures wide open because I can't stop myself :D

This is the only picture I remember taking in recent years and being disappointed with the size of the bokeh balls, f2.5 with the Sony 40mm but bokeh balls aren't something I'm usually too bothered about.

1-DSC01113.jpg

f1.2 v f1.4 v f1.7 (the lens didn't have f1.8) I have to be honest and say that the differences in both dof and low light use are probably only going to matter to me when I'm having a really bad ocd day.

1-1.2.jpg

1-1.4.jpg

1-1.8.jpg

Of these 3 I think I prefer the bokeh balls in the f1.7 picture as they're more defined. If I had a Sony 35 f1.4 I don't think I'd swap it for an f1.2 unless there was something else than the aperture making it better. I don't think I'd even bother with a compact 35mm f1.4 as I have the f1.8 and it's good enough for me but if Sony brought out a 50mm f1.4 only slightly bigger than the 55mm f1.8 I'd probably buy it because I've never really got used to the 55mm not being 50mm.

I'm still making my mind up about my Voigtlanders. I'm not using them so I should sell them but then I might miss them. I've probably taken more pictures with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 than any other lens I've had, I'd probably regret it if I sold it.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
As I can't stop myself pixel peeping I'll be at 1/125 if at all possible for anything likely to move but for static stuff the electronic shutters of my A7III and A7cII allow double digit shutter speeds handheld and I do have a lot at 1/40 and there abouts.

Since I stopped shooting at gigs with ISO 1,600 film and a Nikon kit lens at f3.5 I've been spoilt for low light and todays kit and NR are very nice. I don't often take pictures in genuinely low light and when I do I'm conscious of the lack of depth wide open and will probably stop down a bit for depth if possible and accept the extra noise. When I have an f1.2/f1.4 lens on the camera I do usually take some pictures wide open because I can't stop myself :D

This is the only picture I remember taking in recent years and being disappointed with the size of the bokeh balls, f2.5 with the Sony 40mm but bokeh balls aren't something I'm usually too bothered about.

View attachment 466292

f1.2 v f1.4 v f1.7 (the lens didn't have f1.8) I have to be honest and say that the differences in both dof and low light use are probably only going to matter to me when I'm having a really bad ocd day.

View attachment 466296

View attachment 466297

View attachment 466298

Of these 3 I think I prefer the bokeh balls in the f1.7 picture as they're more defined. If I had a Sony 35 f1.4 I don't think I'd swap it for an f1.2 unless there was something else than the aperture making it better. I don't think I'd even bother with a compact 35mm f1.4 as I have the f1.8 and it's good enough for me but if Sony brought out a 50mm f1.4 only slightly bigger than the 55mm f1.8 I'd probably buy it because I've never really got used to the 55mm not being 50mm.

I'm still making my mind up about my Voigtlanders. I'm not using them so I should sell them but then I might miss them. I've probably taken more pictures with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 than any other lens I've had, I'd probably regret it if I sold it.
Click to expand...
Definitely f1.2 for me, however if you showed me these as standalone images I doubt I’d be able to tell you whether it was shot at f1.2 or f1.4 etc
 
woof woof said:
As I can't stop myself pixel peeping I'll be at 1/125 if at all possible for anything likely to move but for static stuff the electronic shutters of my A7III and A7cII allow double digit shutter speeds handheld and I do have a lot at 1/40 and there abouts.

Since I stopped shooting at gigs with ISO 1,600 film and a Nikon kit lens at f3.5 I've been spoilt for low light and todays kit and NR are very nice. I don't often take pictures in genuinely low light and when I do I'm conscious of the lack of depth wide open and will probably stop down a bit for depth if possible and accept the extra noise. When I have an f1.2/f1.4 lens on the camera I do usually take some pictures wide open because I can't stop myself :D

This is the only picture I remember taking in recent years and being disappointed with the size of the bokeh balls, f2.5 with the Sony 40mm but bokeh balls aren't something I'm usually too bothered about.

View attachment 466292

f1.2 v f1.4 v f1.7 (the lens didn't have f1.8) I have to be honest and say that the differences in both dof and low light use are probably only going to matter to me when I'm having a really bad ocd day.

View attachment 466296

View attachment 466297

View attachment 466298

Of these 3 I think I prefer the bokeh balls in the f1.7 picture as they're more defined. If I had a Sony 35 f1.4 I don't think I'd swap it for an f1.2 unless there was something else than the aperture making it better. I don't think I'd even bother with a compact 35mm f1.4 as I have the f1.8 and it's good enough for me but if Sony brought out a 50mm f1.4 only slightly bigger than the 55mm f1.8 I'd probably buy it because I've never really got used to the 55mm not being 50mm.

I'm still making my mind up about my Voigtlanders. I'm not using them so I should sell them but then I might miss them. I've probably taken more pictures with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 than any other lens I've had, I'd probably regret it if I sold it.
Click to expand...

on a general level even the f1.7 is pretty nice, most folks I share pictures with will be hard pressed to the tell the difference
f1.4 is helpful in low-light astro situations. As you mentioned you'll need a decent shutter speed for people.
but f1.2 is definitely mostly all GAS :D
 
One of the nice things about an f1.2 lens is taking pictures when it's dark. We went to a party in the spring, and I photographed the guests and general goings on. With no flash, the pictures kept the atmosphere, and I didn't need super-high ISO to manage.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
on a general level even the f1.7 is pretty nice, most folks I share pictures with will be hard pressed to the tell the difference
f1.4 is helpful in low-light astro situations. As you mentioned you'll need a decent shutter speed for people.
but f1.2 is definitely mostly all GAS :D
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that :D
 
Id have expected Sony GM lenses to not have something like this wrong with them. Normally dust doesn't really bother me but this seems excessive for brand new.

1000023401.jpg
 
The annoying thing is dust in lenses doesn't even make a difference to photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top