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

These are a couple of my favourites but f3.2 rather than f1.4 as at f1.4 I'd have had no DoF at this range.

5D and Siggy.

F3b7Fuy.jpg


jliT9sj.jpg


I used to use f5 a lot but this f4.

L4FYsxu.jpg


Ah, what did say? Back to f5 for this one :D

8KmUj61.jpg


This was always one of my favourites. I was legless on Russian Vodka but still managed to take this at f1.4 and 1/30 at ISO 3,200.

TdF6Bpw.jpg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Thanks, I’ll have a gnader at your flickr at some point. What’s your username? As I said, the rendering has always looked nice to me. Of course, in and ideal world I’d have the 35mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM as they both render beautifully.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't have flickr as I'm a luddite these days :D

You should really read up on the two lenses, look at examples and make your own mind up. If you can get a Canon that doesn't suffer iffy focus I suppose any differences between the two are going to be sharpness across the frame and bokeh at the wider apertures. At the time AFAIK and from what I read the Sigma was considered to be the better lens but there might be something about the look the Canon gives at wider apertures.
 
woof woof said:
Sorry I don't have flickr as I'm a luddite these days :D

You should really read up on the two lenses, look at examples and make your own mind up. If you can get a Canon that doesn't suffer iffy focus I suppose any differences between the two are going to be sharpness across the frame and bokeh at the wider apertures. At the time AFAIK and from what I read the Sigma was considered to be the better lens but there might be something about the look the Canon gives at wider apertures.
Click to expand...
AF’s not really an issue as it’s for static subjects, neither is sharpness across the frame. The main thing for me is nice rendering (subjective), plenty of pop/3D, and almost a Brenizer type look.
 
snerkler said:
AF’s not really an issue as it’s for static subjects, neither is sharpness across the frame. The main thing for me is nice rendering (subjective), plenty of pop/3D, and almost a Brenizer type look.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I don't think you'll get all that from one of these old 50mm f1.4's.

I'm tempted by the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 but I really don't like the bulk and weight of these lenses and feel too self conscious point big kit at people and things. A more compact way of getting wide apertures and nicer bokeh could be to look at the f1.2 E mount Voigtlanders but these are obviously MF. I have the 40mm f1.2 which was the first one they did but they're since brought out the 35 and 50mm f1.2's and now have SE (Stills addition) options which lack the declick option to make them a touch more compact. If these had all come out at the same time I don't know which I'd have gone for but I think it's worth restricting yourself to just one :D

In your place and if AF speed isn't an issue I'd take a sideways look at the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 SE. It may not give you quite the smoothness of bokeh as the Sony 50mm f1.2 but it's a fraction of the size. There's a massive review on Fred Miranda, actually he's reviewed all these lenses as has Philip Reeve.
 
woof woof said:
I may be wrong but I don't think you'll get all that from one of these old 50mm f1.4's.

I'm tempted by the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 but I really don't like the bulk and weight of these lenses and feel too self conscious point big kit at people and things. A more compact way of getting wide apertures and nicer bokeh could be to look at the f1.2 E mount Voigtlanders but these are obviously MF. I have the 40mm f1.2 which was the first one they did but they're since brought out the 35 and 50mm f1.2's and now have SE (Stills addition) options which lack the declick option to make them a touch more compact. If these had all come out at the same time I don't know which I'd have gone for but I think it's worth restricting yourself to just one :D

In your place and if AF speed isn't an issue I'd take a sideways look at the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 SE. It may not give you quite the smoothness of bokeh as the Sony 50mm f1.2 but it's a fraction of the size. There's a massive review on Fred Miranda, actually he's reviewed all these lenses as has Philip Reeve.
Click to expand...
Interesing, I find that the older lenses have more character and often more pop. I used to love the look the cheap and cheerful Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8 gave. The voigtlander’s starting to get into the too expensive category for me (y)
 
snerkler said:
Interesing, I find that the older lenses have more character and often more pop. I used to love the look the cheap and cheerful Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8 gave. The voigtlander’s starting to get into the too expensive category for me (y)
Click to expand...

As you know I have some old MF lenses including lots of 50's from f1.2 to f2.8 and they are nice lenses and they do give a different look but those old MF lenses tend to have funky bokeh at wide apertures with busy scenes.

I don't remember seeing that funkiness with that much newer AF Sigma f1.4, I'll have a look. I remember it as being quite smooth and maybe it's that these older DSLR days lenses start off as softer than the latest generation that helps a little here.

I think the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 SE is £849. A snip really. If compared to the Sony :D

Good luck choosing.
 
@snerkler

Toby. I’m sitting in my garden with the A1 and 50 GM. Shutter at 1/50th. Aperture f5.6.
Super High Speed 20 fps no blackout.
Note. This is the highest FPS available at slow. ie below 1/250 shutter.
 
Last edited:
trevorbray said:
@snerkler

Toby. I’m sitting in my garden with the A1 and 50 GM. Shutter at 1/50th. Aperture f5.6.
Super High Speed 20 fps no blackout.
Note. This is the highest FPS available at slow. ie below 1/250 shutter.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. I don't get blackout either, however if you pan you get a slideshow/lag type experience. Obviously you won't notice it if you're shooting statically (y)
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for this. I don't get blackout either, however if you pan you get a slideshow/lag type experience. Obviously you won't notice it if you're shooting statically (y)
Click to expand...
Get a kind of smearing. Not really distracting.
 
trevorbray said:
Get a kind of smearing. Not really distracting.
Click to expand...
Thanks, maybe I'll get to try one at some point. With the A9-II it's difficult as there's a moment's kind of pause before the 'slideshow' starts meaning that you kind of have to play catch up with the images. Hard to explain, but when you're trying to get tack sharp images at 1/20 etc it makes it tricky.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The only 50 that is going to do that is the 50GM.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing ;))

This is probably the best 'pop' I managed with the 45mm[

A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Compared with this taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 a few years back

NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr




Actually side by side there's not as much in it as I thought
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The only 50 that is going to do that is the 50GM.
Click to expand...

Or the 55f1.8, if you can live with the smaller max aperture.

I use my later Sony version of the A mount 50 f1.4 and it really doesn't pop - it's all about the smoothness and gentle softness. You can make it appear to pop if you're brutal with the clarity and contrast, but that's a waste
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Or the 55f1.8, if you can live with the smaller max aperture.

I use my later Sony version of the A mount 50 f1.4 and it really doesn't pop - it's all about the smoothness and gentle softness. You can make it appear to pop if you're brutal with the clarity and contrast, but that's a waste
Click to expand...

My missus has the 55 f/1.8 it was the first Sony lens we bought and we have used it a lot, millions of frames.

It does not have a 3d pop that @snerkler ia looking for.

No other 50 does really you either need a longer lens like the 85f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 but even then you don’t get that same look the way you do with the 50 f/1.2.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
My missus has the 55 f/1.8 it was the first Sony lens we bought and we have used it a lot, millions of frames.

It does not have a 3d pop that @snerkler ia looking for.

No other 50 does really you either need a longer lens like the 85f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 but even then you don’t get that same look the way you do with the 50 f/1.2.
Click to expand...
Some 50’s have it tbf, but only on certain shots. I’ve fancied trying the Mitakon f0.95 for a while but it’s too expensive to take a punt on.

I don’t like the 55mm, no character to my eyes.
 
f/2.8 said:
My missus has the 55 f/1.8 it was the first Sony lens we bought and we have used it a lot, millions of frames.

It does not have a 3d pop that @snerkler ia looking for.

No other 50 does really you either need a longer lens like the 85f/1.4 or the 135 f/1.8 but even then you don’t get that same look the way you do with the 50 f/1.2.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we see pop differently, but I agree that it doesn't separate a subject from the background like and 85 f1.4 etc.
 
The Sony 55mm's biggest issue for me is that it isn't 50mm. It's just something that bothers me. I admit I can get a bit, fixated. Maybe this doesn't bother other people.

I don't know why they went for 55mm rather than 50.
 
snerkler said:
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing ;))

This is probably the best 'pop' I managed with the 45mm[

A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Compared with this taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 a few years back

NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr




Actually side by side there's not as much in it as I thought
Click to expand...

Honestly just get the 50GM.

Am sure you prob have some other stuff you could get rid of to make up the difference.

There isn’t really anything else comparable available for Sony.

Yeah it’s not cheap but most good things aren’t and even at the ridiculous price its actually worth it.
 
woof woof said:
The Sony 55mm's biggest issue for me is that it isn't 50mm. It's just something that bothers me. I admit I can get a bit, fixated. Maybe this doesn't bother other people.

I don't know why they went for 55mm rather than 50.
Click to expand...
There is a technical reason why it’s 55 rather than 50, I remember reading a long winded explanation of it some time ago but can’t remember the details. Something to do with light transmission.
 
f/2.8 said:
Honestly just get the 50GM.

Am sure you prob have some other stuff you could get rid of to make up the difference.

There isn’t really anything else comparable available for Sony.

Yeah it’s not cheap but most good things aren’t and even at the ridiculous price its actually worth it.
Click to expand...
I’m still trying to find stuff to sell to make up for buying the 70-200mm let alone the 50. Besides, for the times I use a 50mm I just can’t justify that kind of money, will only get used a handful of times a year at most.
 
snerkler said:
Some 50’s have it tbf, but only on certain shots. I’ve fancied trying the Mitakon f0.95 for a while but it’s too expensive to take a punt on.

I don’t like the 55mm, no character to my eyes.
Click to expand...
Quite like the FE55 myself. Renders rather nicely with really nice colours and micro-contrast. Not to mention is small, really sharp, decent AF, no coma so it's great for astro.

I just don't use 50mm much so I sold it but it'd probably be my pick of 50mm lenses.
Haven't used the 50GM, but seems like that's an incredible lens too reading reviews but it costs like 4x more.

If you don't mind the size the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 is pretty nice too. There is one in sales. Renders rather nicely too (at to my eyes anyway)
 
Last edited:
Thinking about this again, the old Sammy 50 f1.4 had the kind of separation you're looking for in spades, but the AF isn't as good, and it's not quite as sharp as a GM.
 
nandbytes said:
Quite like the FE55 myself. Renders rather nicely with really nice colours and micro-contrast. Not to mention is small, really sharp, decent AF, no coma so it's great for astro.

I just don't use 50mm much so I sold it but it'd probably be my pick of 50mm lenses.
Haven't used the 50GM, but seems like that's an incredible lens too reading reviews but it costs like 4x more.

If you don't mind the size the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 is pretty nice too. There is one in sales. Renders rather nicely too (at to my eyes anyway)
Click to expand...

The 55 is sharp and does have good a.f speed, considering it's small size.

It doesn't render nicely though to my eyes, It also has quite bad C.A in backlit situations. Always find that photos taken with it need more work, were as the 50GM everything is just so damn good S.O.C.

My missus loves it, mainly because of it's small size but I would love to replace with something that compares more favourably with the 50GM, but that just does not exist at the moment. She won't let me just buy another 50GM as she doesn't want to carry it around all day. I have been hoping for a while that Sony would give us a replacement for the 50 f/1.8 maybe a G version would be good or that Sigma would update the 50mm art. It seems that Sigma are gonna be launching a new 50 f/1.2 but it will be the size of a tank, so not an option and even the newer Samyang 50 f/1.4 has very poor a.f accuracy.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I’m still trying to find stuff to sell to make up for buying the 70-200mm let alone the 50. Besides, for the times I use a 50mm I just can’t justify that kind of money, will only get used a handful of times a year at most.
Click to expand...

You might find if you have one that you would use it a lot more than you would think. I certainly have, for a start it completely replaced my 85mm. I hardly use the 85mm any more at all, I also use my 35mm a lot less than I did previously as well.

Before I had the 50 GM according to Lightroom for a wedding I was using my 35mm about 60%, my 85mm 30% and others 10%. After getting the 50 G.M it now shows 50mm about 60%, 35mm 30% and others 10%.
 
snerkler said:
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing ;))

This is probably the best 'pop' I managed with the 45mm[

A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Compared with this taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 a few years back

NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr




Actually side by side there's not as much in it as I thought
Click to expand...


Love the first shot, my AF 45mm is my most used lens think it's a cracker for my jazz shots.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Thinking about this again, the old Sammy 50 f1.4 had the kind of separation you're looking for in spades, but the AF isn't as good, and it's not quite as sharp as a GM.
Click to expand...
it certainly has somewhat unique "softer dreamy" rendering you don't get with many other lenses. Reminds of the EF 50mm f1.2.
The word on the street is that it's closer to a f1.3 lens than a f1.4 lens.
AF isn't great on either :p

There is a new samyang 50mm f1.4, not sure how good or bad that is. looks to be a completely different optical formula.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
There is a new samyang 50mm f1.4, not sure how good or bad that is. looks to be a completely different optical formula.
Click to expand...

The new one renders nicely as well although not as nice as the older version.

A.F is quicker than the old one but a.f can't be relied upon and eye a.f basically just doesn't work at all.
 
@snerkler Can honestly say if it weren’t for the GM primes and particularly the 50mm I would probably have gone back to Nikon with Z9
 
nandbytes said:
it certainly has somewhat unique "softer dreamy" rendering you don't get with many other lenses. Reminds of the EF 50mm f1.2.
The word on the street is that it's closer to a f1.3 lens than a f1.4 lens.
AF isn't great on either :p

There is a new samyang 50mm f1.4, not sure how good or bad that is. looks to be a completely different optical formula.
Click to expand...
I may well pick up an old 50 for the rendering. The AF was usable and very much like my old D610 and 50 f1.8D, but with more critical requirements.
 
f/2.8 said:
There is a technical reason why it’s 55 rather than 50, I remember reading a long winded explanation of it some time ago but can’t remember the details. Something to do with light transmission.
Click to expand...

That may be what someone said but it just doesn't seem believable to me when Sony make a couple of compact 50mm one of them being a f1.8 and so does just about everyone else. I suppose it is possible that they started out to make a 50mm, screwed up somewhere and made it a 55mm to save face rather than starting again. I'd believe that rather than them having some unique issue that no one else seems to have had. There have of course been 55mm lenses in the past and I do have another one.

I do think it's a good lens and easily the best AF 50/55mm I've ever owned but I think on balance I preferred the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 for it's overall look despite it not being able to compete technically across the frame. The occasional ca with the 55mm some scenes isn't really that much of a problem for me as usually it's a tiny proportion of the image which no one I show pictures to will ever notice. My ideal would be the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo with AF.
 
trevorbray said:
@snerkler Can honestly say if it weren’t for the GM primes and particularly the 50mm I would probably have gone back to Nikon with Z9
Click to expand...

I can't really get all that excited about cameras but I do like the Panasonic GM5. Other than that I'm much more interested in lenses as the differences between bodies are mostly not going to matter to me but I can see how people pushing what's possible will need the fast AF of some bodies, animal and bird AF, high mp counts and silent and even blackout free shooting. I think photography wise we're living in the best time yet :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top