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

Saw a couple of the 35mm arts on eBay earlier. Paired with the Australian discount code there is for 10% off I was dead tempted but decided I don’t need 3 35mm in my set up
 
JustJoe said:
Whats the general opinion of the Samyang 35mm f2.8 AF?

I just have the 50mm f1.8 on the A7 at the moment, moving on from the x100s I really miss the wider angle.
Click to expand...

It's a really sharp small lens with a slightly audible AF-noise which makes it unusable for video with AF.
 
nandbytes said:
Not surprising, expected as much for a wide angle that's so small.
Click to expand...

Of the old 24's I have the Zuiko is the smallest, tiny really, and vignetting isn't a problem so I'd expect a modern design to be acceptable too.
 
woof woof said:
Of the old 24's I have the Zuiko is the smallest, tiny really, and vignetting isn't a problem so I'd expect a modern design to be acceptable too.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the flange on OM is one of the largest. Think that makes a difference to the design. So if you factor that in i.e. factor in size of the OM adapter this lens is tiny.
 
jonneymendoza said:
It does still.poor for tracking and af anything that moves
Click to expand...

I think it is the same with Sony. DPAF is the best AF live view for video in the market at the moment. :)

Dave Semmens said:
I don't care about Canon V Nikon anymore - I have a Sony :D
Click to expand...

Only when both Giants announcing competitive ML then it will be relevant, thou shall wait :D
 
And when Canon does release one, you know it will be reliable, won’t overheat and don’t need firmware updates. This quality control, so to speak, seems to be holding them back.
 
robinsslee said:
I think it is the same with Sony. DPAF is the best AF live view for video in the market at the moment. :)



Only when both Giants announcing competitive ML then it will be relevant, thou shall wait :D
Click to expand...

I think that both Nikon and Canon have their work cut out with releasing a mirrorless camera. I think they will make a good job of it - eventually.

I also think that to get to the same level as Sony are now will take time and Sony will also move forward in that time.

As an overall system for landscape photography the Sony is going to take some beating in the near term (and for some other types of photography).

I am done with waiting for things that may or may not happen when a solid solution is already available NOW for what I photograph.

Life is short and I am missing sunrises :)
 
robinsslee said:
How many MPH wind the lens created? :eek:
Click to expand...

Gale force winds lmao

In all seriousness though, my findings so far between the 35, 50 and 85 is that the autofocus seems faster on the 50 and 85.

Are they know to have more powerful AF motors?
 
Raymond Lin said:
And when Canon does release one, you know it will be reliable, won’t overheat and don’t need firmware updates. This quality control, so to speak, seems to be holding them back.
Click to expand...
Mind you, Nikon are terrible with QC and its only canon that gets it right.

Sony not too bad nowadays
 
F/1.4 said:
Gale force winds lmao

In all seriousness though, my findings so far between the 35, 50 and 85 is that the autofocus seems faster on the 50 and 85.

Are they know to have more powerful AF motors?
Click to expand...

And even those are slower than the Zeiss 55/1.8 according to Thatcameraguy on YouTube.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I think that both Nikon and Canon have their work cut out with releasing a mirrorless camera. I think they will make a good job of it - eventually.
Click to expand...

I think the latest rumor is that Canon are releasing an APS-C CSC this September and both Canon and Nikon releasing a FF second quarter next year. Sony will have sold a lot of MKIII bodies by then. It'll be interesting to see what Sony do in APS-C, I'd like to see an APS-C RF style body with dials front and back for aperture and shutter and a compensation dial rather than the one dial and back wheel arrangement. I think they could also do a mini SLR style APS-C for those who prefer that layout.
 
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
 
My 35mm lenses :D

P1000248.jpg

P1000249.jpg

Interesting to see the Sony f2.8 with the Voigtlander f1.4 and Zuiko f2.8. I took those pictures with a 17mm f1.8 Oly on my GX9 so I suppose that's another 35mm FoV lens :D

I was going to take a picture of my 50mm lenses but obviously they wouldn't all fit on the top there.
 
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

The bodies are a bit smaller and I think a bit lighter too so you are always going to save a bit of weight there even if the lenses were the same size and weight.

I suppose it depends what lenses you're interested in, I only have the kit lens, 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 and they are IMO small for "FF" lenses and there are other compact and light primes and zoom lenses too so you're best off looking at the spec of the bodies and lenses you're interested in and comparing the weights. You'll probably save some bulk and some weight by going Sony over a DSLR so the question will then be is it enough?

PS.
I suppose the biggest saving will be if you can limit yourself to a camera and just one or two lenses. For example an A7x and Sony 35mm f2.8 would do me nicely and would I guess be about the same size and weight as your Fuji and a 23mm.
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

Stick to F4 lenses zooms and you'll be okay. Avoid wide angle Auto focus primes.
 
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

we'd be able to advice better if you mentioned the kind of lenses you care about.

for proper weight saving without sacrificing much quality I'd suggest the vanilla A7R with small primes, CV10/12/15, samyang 24mm/2.8, samyang 35mm/2.8 or sony 35mm/2.8, sony FE 55mm, Sony FE 85mm.
 
F/1.4 said:
First impression is that it blows the samyang away. Not even comparable
Click to expand...
F/1.4 said:
Gale force winds lmao

In all seriousness though, my findings so far between the 35, 50 and 85 is that the autofocus seems faster on the 50 and 85.

Are they know to have more powerful AF motors?
Click to expand...

The sony zeiss is pretty awesome and doesn't miss a beat. The question is how well the this 35mm ART compares? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
I guess I know the answer to this but for those landscape photographers who have changed from a DSLR to a Sony, have you found any difference in weight on your trips.

Basically I mainly use a Nikon 850 with the typical Landscape lenses, however, following a bad car crash a year or so ago and a couple of recent falls when out on the mountains I seem to have done my back in.

I'm on pain killers at the moment but the Doc advises it's best not to carry the type of weight I usually do on my back, and it will be months before it's better.

I have a Fuji X-T2 that I could use but really don't like that for landscapes. So I'm thinking maybe of getting an A7RIII but I have a feeling any weight gain will be minimal due to the lenses.

So time to decide, either change my camera, put up with the X-T2 (which I love just not for landscapes/main camera) or knock it all on the head :(

Jase
Click to expand...

Jase - I am not sure what focal range you currently take out with you but as has already been mentioned above the F4 lenses do save on weight and money.

If I was looking to travel light but still retain excellent quality I would choose the A7R3 with the 16-35 2.8GM and the 24-105 F4G.

The 16-35GM is utterly superb and reviews are saying the same about the 24-105.

That will give you 16 to 105mm - I rarely shoot over 100mm with the 70-200 I carry but your usage may vary.

You will save weight in the body and I think the 16-35 2.8 GM is actually the same weight as the Nikon 16-35 F4.

Dave..
 
Last edited:
The Batis lenses are lightish and seem to match the cameras in that respect; and produce good IQ.
 
Gave the 35 a good run through

Af is perfect which is my main concern. Razor sharp, even done a brick wall test lmao

Great at achieving sharp focus even on long range which I was happy with. In AFS mode it never done aswell in the distance tests

Ill know tomorrow more when I shoot a wedding with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top