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

Amazon have a load of photo offers on I got a Samyang 75mm there for £254 to complete the trilogy from hell of 18,45,75 :p

IMG_9841.jpeg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I do think this is a very good lens and easily the best 50/55 AF lens I've used but I do just wish it was 50mm :D
The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is IMO better but no AF.
Click to expand...
So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...
 
ecniv said:
So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...
Click to expand...

I bought a Sony 50mm f2.8 macro but unfortunately the focus was just all over the place on my ancient A7 so it went back. At the time I was really keen on the idea of an auto focus 50mm macro but these days if I want a macro the only one I have is a film era Sigma 50mm f2.8 which TBH is IMO a nice lens and it is a true 1:1 macro.
 
ecniv said:
So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...
Click to expand...
That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof? :thinking:
 
mav said:
I use the same . I use a canon 400 on the sony now and again and its too short without a converter , Id try the 200-600 to see if its too heavy , i manage ok with mine walk around all day with it.
Click to expand...
That’s encouraging, thank you. Will definitely try one out over the next few weeks.
 
snerkler said:
That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof? :thinking:
Click to expand...
If you click your username in that quote it goes to one of your posts replying to ecniv so I wonder if they've meant to quote you, then quoted woof woof and made an edit which has mixed them up? I'm quoting your post here and seem to be working as expected
 
f/2.8 said:
Did a take the dog to work day today, so I could let the pup have a run around while I shot some engagement photos. She brought half of the forest home with her. :ROFLMAO:

View attachment 417841
Click to expand...
Haha, our Staffie used to bring the biggest sticks she could find, may as well have been branches :LOL:
 
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA
 
Brazo said:
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA
Click to expand...

Up above the Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro was being talked about. Worth a look?
 
Brazo said:
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA
Click to expand...
Used Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro?
 
Brazo said:
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!

I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.

I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!

I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.

I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.

TIA
Click to expand...

Why do you need a.f for macro?

Can’t think of anything other than the Tamron at that money which isn’t supposed to be very good.

I have the Sony 90mm but can’t remember a time I used the a.f.
 
f/2.8 said:
Why do you need a.f for macro?

Can’t think of anything other than the Tamron at that money which isn’t supposed to be very good.

I have the Sony 90mm but can’t remember a time I used the a.f.
Click to expand...
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.
 
tamro
Brazo said:
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual
Click to expand...
Brazo said:
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.
Click to expand...
used tamron macro 90mm and sigma mc11 adapter. would do the Job
 
Brazo said:
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.
Click to expand...

Aggh right I see.

Someone mentioned using the MC-11 and one of the old Tamron 90mm. That would be a good shout to be fair. Those old Tamron 90mm lenses were razor sharp even by today’s standards. Buying used might get you in and around your budget. You should be able to pick up the MC-11 for around £100 and a Canon mount Tamron pretty cheap.
 
The OP requesteda non-adapted lens, but the Tamron SP90 and an adapter are an excellent combination. I have one with an EA4 adapter and it's a really nice lens for an older design.
 
ancient_mariner said:
The OP requesteda non-adapted lens, but the Tamron SP90 and an adapter are an excellent combination. I have one with an EA4 adapter and it's a really nice lens for an older design.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me back ;)

I’d just rather not have the faff and given I need a lens that can just focus a bit closer rather than a true macro lens I think I’d prefer to go directly mounted and given a Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 can be had for £180 second hand, adapted may not even be (much) cheaper.
 
Last edited:
9wQR3Uq.jpg
 
Brazo said:
Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me back ;)

I’d just rather not have the faff and given I need a lens that can just focus a bit closer rather than a true macro lens I think I’d prefer to go directly mounted and given a Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 can be had for £180 second hand, adapted may not even be (much) cheaper.
Click to expand...

Given the application etc, I can say that the Tamron+ adapter focus much more reliably that one of Sony's budget 50mm lenses with native mount. But if quality is less of an issue then that 35 may be a good buy.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Given the application etc, I can say that the Tamron+ adapter focus much more reliably that one of Sony's budget 50mm lenses with native mount. But if quality is less of an issue then that 35 may be a good buy.
Click to expand...
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.
 
Looking through lightroom the Tamron 35 2.8 is my most used lens. Very happy with the results and the half macro is excellent.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20240313_223102_519.jpg
    IMG_20240313_223102_519.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 11
Brazo said:
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

To be fair I haven’t used the Tamron, I know a couple of people that have and they weren’t happy with it but there experience may be different than yours.

The main complaints were the very slow a.f and less than great image quality. Don’t know if the issue was resolved or not as this was a while back but this lens also had a fault were it switched to manual focus only when being used for video. The whole range was a bit of a mess in truth.
 
Brazo said:
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!

Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

I was only parroting Tommy, assuming he had experience, although I *thought* I had remembered it not reviewing well. This is how false information starts! Better check out for yourself because it might be a fine lens after all.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I was only parroting Tommy, assuming he had experience, although I *thought* I had remembered it not reviewing well. This is how false information starts! Better check out for yourself because it might be a fine lens after all.
Click to expand...

All I said was that it isn’t supposed to be very good. :ROFLMAO:
 
I guess that is how false info spreads!!

Sharpness is remarkable. Contrast is excellent, flare is minimal, bokeh is pleasant, chromatic aberration is all but invisible, and the small amount of vignetting is easily corrected in post. Even wide open, this lens is fairly crisp, improving at f/4 as you’d expect. I’m not one for criticizing corner sharpness, but the Tamron performs very well throughout the aperture range. I’ll spare you the ten all-but identical photographs of a wall — just take my word on it.


fstoppers.com

Fstoppers Reviews the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Lens

Following on from the success of its f/2.8 standard and wide-angle zoom lenses for Sony, Tamron is in the process of launching a selection of primes. I’ve been using the 35m f/2.8 Di III OSD M 1:2 for the last couple of weeks, and it’s proven fun and surprising. 35mm f/2.8 sits in a slightly odd...
fstoppers.com fstoppers.com
 
As good as it is ;)… I’d still rather something around the 50mm mark I think so my search will go on…. Whistles Titanic tune.
 
Brazo said:
As good as it is ;)… I’d still rather something around the 50mm mark I think so my search will go on…. Whistles Titanic tune.
Click to expand...

It really isn't :ROFLMAO: Even the review you posted mentions the poor a.f performance.

From your review

Sitting in my (still-unfinished) office, I immediately checked the autofocus and found it to be oddly slow. Remembering the firm twist required to initially attach the lens, I wondered if all of the connections were lined up, and so removed and reattached the lens: same tickly scrape, same slow autofocus. Here are the results of some tests comparing the Tamron 35mm with my Samyang 35mm AF f/2.8. As you will notice, the Tamron 35mm doesn’t do well.
Click to expand...


A quick look on google shows that every review mentions how poor the autofocus performance is both in terms of focus speed and issues with hunting, Pretty much all the reviews also mention how bad it is with focus breathing as well. So, it really isn't very good, unless you use manual focus and the experience for that is quite poor as well according to several reviews. Pretty much all the reviews mention the awful motor noise when using a.f as well. The a.f is that bad in the review you posted the guy says he thought he hadn't connected the lens correctly to his body. :ROFLMAO:

It is hilarious the tripe people post on forums to justify an opinion.

I have recently bought some sub par cheapo lenses in the Noodle maker trilogy of doom with the Samyang 18,45 and 75. I won't pretend they are good, when they aren't though, to justify buying them. :ROFLMAO: They are what they are crap lenses, but have the advantage of being small.

The Tamron is what it is, a cheap lens according to every review that is very poor in terms of autofocus but has the advantage of nearly providing macro capability.

Then of course there are the other issues with the lens in terms of video were a.f can't used with the A7IV and other newer models.

Tbf you can buy for £175 brand new from the grey market. Like with most things in life you get what you pay for. Being able to buy any lens for that sort of money brand new will seem a bit of a bargain.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Thanks, it’s just a little North of what I’m prepared to pay. I suppose I’m kinda hoping for a little known lens that offers a close up option!
Click to expand...
I thought your budget was £300?
 
f/2.8 said:
It really isn't :ROFLMAO: Even the review you posted mentions the poor a.f performance.




A quick look on google shows that every review mentions how poor the autofocus performance is both in terms of focus speed and issues with hunting, Pretty much all the reviews also mention how bad it is with focus breathing as well. So, it really isn't very good, unless you use manual focus and the experience for that is quite poor as well according to several reviews. Pretty much all the reviews mention the awful motor noise when using a.f as well. The a.f is that bad in the review you posted the guy says he thought he hadn't connected the lens correctly to his body. :ROFLMAO:

It is hilarious the tripe people post on forums to justify an opinion.

I have recently bought some sub par cheapo lenses in the Noodle maker trilogy of doom with the Samyang 18,45 and 75. I won't pretend they are good, when they aren't though, to justify buying them. :ROFLMAO: They are what they are crap lenses, but have the advantage of being small.

The Tamron is what it is, a cheap lens according to every review that is very poor in terms of autofocus but has the advantage of nearly providing macro capability.

Then of course there are the other issues with the lens in terms of video were a.f can't used with the A7IV and other newer models.

Tbf you can buy for £175 brand new from the grey market. Like with most things in life you get what you pay for. Being able to buy any lens for that sort of money brand new will seem a bit of a bargain.
Click to expand...
Very poor in autofocus is very subjective, I suspect it beats hands down many lenses that yesteryear had ‘excellent’ autofocus. At least you’ve read a review though now so you can actually post an opinion :thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top