Feeling that full frame itch again

twist said:
Nope, thats an APSC E mount lens NOT a FF lens. FE is FF E mount. The Nikon lens is 1.8 NOT 2.8 like the FE Zeiss. So its not an accurate size comparison. My 50mm size comparison is far more accurate.
Click to expand...
Oh cock. Why is camera size showing the wrong lenses. Glad you spotted that.
 
dejongj said:
Oh cock. Why is camera size showing the wrong lenses. Glad you spotted that.
Click to expand...

:) They work but only in crop mode on the A7 models so you lose lots of pixels and generally they look a bit soft, its misleading though as there arent that many lenses available. Make sure any lenses you look at are FE. Theres also the Zeiss Loxia and Batis models on the way.

FE 16-35mm f4 ZA OSS Vario-Sonnar T* Lens £1288.99
FE 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 OSS Lens £829.00
FE 24-70mm f4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens £809.00
FE 28-135mm f4 G PZ OSS Lens £1899.00
FE 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 OSS Lens £288.11
FE 28mm f2 Lens £369.00
FE 35mm f1.4 Distagon T* ZA Lens £1099.00
FE 35mm f2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens £570.52
FE 55mm f1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Lens £698.99
FE 70-200mm f4 G OSS Lens £1099.00
FE 90mm f2.8 Macro G OSS Lens £979.00
 
dejongj said:
Actually this is a sonar fe 35mm f2 lens. Isn't that a full frame one?
Click to expand...
Lol scrap that. Camera size got that wrong as well.
 
Ouch, well theres a reason to avoid Sony if ever I saw one - 28-135 f4 for £1899!!!
 
Lol Nikon D610 and D750 start to look very interesting. Or dare anyone to go for a secondhand D600, superb value.
 
JohnN said:
Yes, the body is, but once you add a lens (see link - here), all roughly 70-200 f4's as Sony don't have a 2.8 in that range as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

In this one you have the Nikon 200mm Macro lens fitted to the body. Would have been nice to had the Nikon 70-200mm F4 lens fitted, as this would have given a fairer comparison. I cant see it on the drop down list. @ twist maybe able to help.?
 
dejongj said:
Lol Nikon D610 and D750 start to look very interesting. Or dare anyone to go for a secondhand D600, superb value.
Click to expand...
No, what research I have done leads me to think I'd become a sensor cleaning expert within the week ;)
 
Swanseajack said:
In this one you have the Nikon 200mm Macro lens fitted to the body. Would have been nice to had the Nikon 70-200mm F4 lens fitted, as this would have given a fairer comparison. I cant see it on the drop down list. @ twist maybe able to help.?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misclicked I thought I had done the 70-200!!

This any better - link (edit: damn, thats the 2.8 - not really fair, I'll find the f4 and relink) - Edit 2, okay its not listed but its the same length as the Sony one :)

BTW what are the Nikon references about - AF-S, AF, AF DX, PC-E, AF Micro.... Its bad enough keeping track of third part name changes without the main brand having shed loads too!! How do you guys manage not to by crop lenses?
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Sorry, I misclicked I thought I had done the 70-200!!

This any better - link (edit: damn, thats the 2.8 - not really fair, I'll find the f4 and relink) - Edit 2, okay its not listed but its the same length as the Sony one :)

BTW what are the Nikon references about - AF-S, AF, AF DX, PC-E, AF Micro.... Its bad enough keeping track of third part name changes without the main brand having shed loads too!! How do you guys manage not to by crop lenses?
Click to expand...

Experience or see above, thats how ;)
 
JohnN said:
Sorry, I misclicked I thought I had done the 70-200!!

This any better - link (edit: damn, thats the 2.8 - not really fair, I'll find the f4 and relink) - Edit 2, okay its not listed but its the same length as the Sony one :)

BTW what are the Nikon references about - AF-S, AF, AF DX, PC-E, AF Micro.... Its bad enough keeping track of third part name changes without the main brand having shed loads too!! How do you guys manage not to by crop lenses?
Click to expand...

AFS is: Auto focus with Silent Wave Motor, theres a built in motor, in the lens.

AF is: Auto focus, no focus motor in lens so would be manual focus on the D3300, D5200 etc. The D750, D610 have a motor in the body to auto focus the lens, as do the more advanced bodies like the D300, D7100 etc.......

AF DX is: Auto focus for DX bodies, ie crop bodies like the D300, D7100 etc.......

PC-E is: The tilt shift lens I think?

AF Micro is: Auto focus for the Micro lenses, Nikon call them Micro everyone else calls them Macro lenses.


Off the top of my head I think thats about it, somebody will advise if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Sorry, I misclicked I thought I had done the 70-200!!

This any better - link (edit: damn, thats the 2.8 - not really fair, I'll find the f4 and relink) - Edit 2, okay its not listed but its the same length as the Sony one :)

BTW what are the Nikon references about - AF-S, AF, AF DX, PC-E, AF Micro.... Its bad enough keeping track of third part name changes without the main brand having shed loads too!! How do you guys manage not to by crop lenses?
Click to expand...
For Nikon it is actually easy. Just avoid anything with DX in the title :) but then again I've had those for a long time.

Af-s means that the focus motor is in the lens, af-d means it is in the body. In the lens is more modern and quieter, however you can snap up absolute bargains for an in body motorised lens. I got my 24-120 for less than £100 a few years ago. And the 50mm f1.8 is dirt cheap as well.
 
The old 24-120 is a pile of doggy plop compared to the current model, JP.

AFAIK, all Nikon FF bodies have AF motors built in so work properly (in terms of AF) with any Nikon F mount AF lenses. They'll also work with AF-S lenses and can be set to drop into crop sensor mode automatically when Dx lenses (or similarly specced 3rd party lenses) are mounted. FAIK, Canon (and others) might have the same features!
 
It maybe compared to the current F4 one, but I am not talking about the previous AF-S. I was talking about the original AF-D street sweeper. That one was pretty good! Well, good enough for me in comparison to my 24-70 and 70-200 lenses.
 
lol, okay so not as bad as I thought - in short DX is good (great shock there) anything else is okay too as its got a motor - I love that they drop to DX if its DX, Canon doesn't do that - they have different dots on the mount to say which is which, but if you do mount a EFS (Canon only have EF or EFS) you run the risk of the lens hitting the shutter, or at the very least very pronounced vignetting.
 
JohnN said:
lol, okay so not as bad as I thought - in short DX is good (great shock there) anything else is okay too as its got a motor - I love that they drop to DX if its DX, Canon doesn't do that - they have different dots on the mount to say which is which, but if you do mount a EFS (Canon only have EF or EFS) you run the risk of the lens hitting the shutter, or at the very least very pronounced vignetting.
Click to expand...

You mean FX!
 
JohnN said:
Ouch, well theres a reason to avoid Sony if ever I saw one - 28-135 f4 for £1899!!!
Click to expand...

You're being a bit unfair though as this isn't a kit lens it's a bit of a specialist jobbie and is AFAIK designed for 4k video and such lenses can run into the 10's of £K. The Sony might actually be a stunning bargain :D
 
It was just the one that caught my eye, perhaps theyre all special, there certainly were a fair few more in that list with what appear from the name alone to be silly prices.
 
Easily handheld on your A7 o_O

Sony-FE-28-135mm.jpg
 
JohnN said:
It was just the one that caught my eye, perhaps theyre all special, there certainly were a fair few more in that list with what appear from the name alone to be silly prices.
Click to expand...

Some of those lenses are amongst the best you can buy for mass market consumer cameras. You can't compare some of the best kit on sale to the masses to lower end stuff. It's like saying a Bentley Continental is expensive because a Kia Ceed is cheap... yes, it's a true statement but each are aimed at different markets.

For example you can buy a Canon 50mm f1.8 for £80 so why would anyone want to pay £600 for a Sony 55mm f1.8? Simples, the Sony is a much better lens.

Yes you can buy lenses that'll fit your camera for peanuts but as you move up the quality scale things soon get expensive. There are diminishing returns of course so it's worth thinking about what your own quality threshold is and what quality will be visible in your final images.
 
Last edited:
JYC said:
Easily handheld on your A7 o_O
Click to expand...

If anyone interested wants to Google reviews they'll probably see it mounted on video cameras or even on an A7 and very possibly in/on some kind of rig.
 
Last edited:
I really doubt it's that much better. Some of the best glass I've used have been on the Olympus, but they didn't feel the need to get silly. Anyway enough of this nonsense, it's certainly not what the thread was about and looks like it's about to get viscous.
 
JohnN said:
I really doubt it's that much better. Some of the best glass I've used have been on the Olympus, but they didn't feel the need to get silly. Anyway enough of this nonsense, it's certainly not what the thread was about and looks like it's about to get viscous.
Click to expand...

er, you're kidding me, right? Go and read some reviews :D

Which Olympus lens will fit on a FF camera and match the best Sony / Zeiss lenses?

I have a drawer full of old Zuiko FF lenses and they don't get near. I also have some very nice Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses but they don't match the build quality and they're not FF, they're MFT.
 
Is that just elitist talk, if you're planning on saying that then just call all full frame lenses rubbish too because they're not medium format.

The resolving power and quality of the 12-40 pro surpassed anything I'd used on Canon, why the hell would it be full frame on MFT?
 
JohnN said:
Is that just elitist talk, if you're planning on saying that then just call all full frame lenses rubbish too because they're not medium format.

The resolving power and quality of the 12-40 pro surpassed anything I'd used on Canon, why the hell would it be full frame on MFT?
Click to expand...
I doubt it want intended to even suggest they are rubbish. It is merely a case of physics, on MFT they can be a lot smaller, as such they can be cheaper as well. Now considering the prices of some of the lenses and the size I do think they are silly.

It never bothered me as the quality was superb but let's not kid ourselves the good ones cost a lot of money.
 
Probably the D750 with 24-120 kit + the 85 1.8G, I've been getting prices on my Canon kit and will be posting something up soon, but the thought of posting out however many items and keeping track is daunting, not to mention figuring out what price I should put them in at... and then all the pictures and questions :(

That and I'm just hoping that its not too heavy, plus I just figured out last night I have golfers elbow!

EDIT - All stuff no listed (here) **Shameless plug alerts :) **
 
Last edited:
Well I always had a little bit of Nikon envy (grass being greener and all that) and as I tried the 5D3, which bar for the 1Dx is about as good as it gets I thought it time to try the dark side as I'd broken any emotional ties, that and at last I'd be rid of those damn white lenses!
 
Why do white lenses put you off, everyone knows if you have a white lenses your pictures will be better.
 
lol, its true, I saw an article once where to improve sharpness, handling and just plain quality all you had to add was a red rubber band, so you can only imagine how much better they are when they're white too! ;)
 
Last edited:
I got one a wee way back, love the D750 - thanks for the offer though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top