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

rob-nikon said:
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
Click to expand...
Like you I'm price limited for long primes so the 100-400GM is the lens I've settled on for wildlife. With the 1.4x TC the extension to 560mm is not shabby and I cannot notice any significant degradation in quality. I use the A7R3 and the low light focus I find to be good and the 42 megapixel sensor gives me ample scope for cropping. I regularly can produce images at 10,000 ISO that I do not consider record shots only.
44753229045_106934a647_b.jpg

Palm Warbler
1/500th F8 560mm ISO10,000
shot in low light in Central Park, NYC. Cropped image.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
Thought I would ask you all about Sony mirrorless as I’m toying with the idea of moving over. it’s likely to be the future, and now Nikon have laid out their hand there are likely to be lens changes in the future whatever manufacturer I’m with. I shoot landscapes and wildlife. For landscapes I know it would be excellent especially the lighter weight and EVF to see the image/DoF etc before taking it. For wildlife I’m not so sure about it due to concerns over low light AF (most likely it’s probably not a concern but would be great to know either way) but also the current line up of available lenses. The lack of telephoto lenses is currently a concern but I’m sure that would improve over time. Currently the 100-400 f5.6 looks like the only option for wildlife (400 f2.8 is way out of my price range a when a 300 f2.8 comes it will likely be too much too). Anyone have any experience of that lens? Other lenses I would be looking are likely to be the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4. Not sure what camera I would be looking at, probably an A7RII or A7RIII but not sure if that’s really the right camera for both wildlife and landscapes.

So what advice would anyone have?
Click to expand...

I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
Click to expand...
So are you changing your name to f/4?:D
 
jonneymendoza said:
Make room as I'll probably move to mainland Europe ;)
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

There's worse things than Brexit. Life under the dream team of Corbyn and Diane Abbott springs to mind. We're really going to need our sense of humour then. Thailand here we come... at least they have a good old military dictatorship. You know where you are with a good old military dictatorship.
 
footman said:
Like you I'm price limited for long primes so the 100-400GM is the lens I've settled on for wildlife. With the 1.4x TC the extension to 560mm is not shabby and I cannot notice any significant degradation in quality. I use the A7R3 and the low light focus I find to be good and the 42 megapixel sensor gives me ample scope for cropping. I regularly can produce images at 10,000 ISO that I do not consider record shots only.
44753229045_106934a647_b.jpg

Palm Warbler
1/500th F8 560mm ISO10,000
shot in low light in Central Park, NYC. Cropped image.
Click to expand...
That would’ve the combo I’m leaning towards. The mk3 looks a good improvement on the mk2 especially with wildlife in mind. My only worry is the variable f4.5-f5.6 aperture of the 100-400 A’s I’ve been used to f2.8 and f4 lenses for many years. If it’s possible to bump up ISO that does negate that issue slightly. Do you have any more images online anywhere?

f/2.8 said:
I have a 70-200 f/4 it's a lens that has surprised me. It's much better then I thought it would be, very sharp even at the long end and the a.f is very fast. Thought I would miss not having a 70-200 f/2.8 but haven't at all. It isn't a range I use often which is why I went for f/4 version. The lighter weight means I take it with me a lot more than I would have done with the f/2.8 version.
Click to expand...
A friend has the f4 lens, it looks to be good. The only downside I can see so far is that the f4 version isn’t compatible with teleconverters. I think I would prioritise the lighter weight over using teleconverters if I could also have a longer telephoto lens.
 
woof woof said:
Good luck with that.

There's worse things than Brexit. Life under the dream team of Corbyn and Diane Abbott springs to mind. We're really going to need our sense of humour then. Thailand here we come... at least they have a good old military dictatorship. You know where you are with a good old military dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Corbyn and Abbot better comedy than Abbot and Costello :ROFLMAO:
 
rob-nikon said:
That would’ve the combo I’m leaning towards. The mk3 looks a good improvement on the mk2 especially with wildlife in mind. My only worry is the variable f4.5-f5.6 aperture of the 100-400 A’s I’ve been used to f2.8 and f4 lenses for many years. If it’s possible to bump up ISO that does negate that issue slightly. Do you have any more images online anywhere?

.
Click to expand...
Have a look at my Flickr, link in my sig. I think I’ve even got some at 12800.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The rumor site has a size comparison between the Sigma, gm and f1.8 85mm's...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/85m...new-sigma-sony-gm-and-my-favorite-sony-f-1-8/

Wowza.

I hope Sigma do get around to designing some lenses for the e mount. Hopefully they'll be smaller than these adapter SLR lenses.
Click to expand...

It’s a stupid comparison as they are only comparing the sizes of the 3 different lenses. The sigma is huge but they have made it look worse by not including the hoods where they have included the hood with the Sigma. Even with the hoods the Sigma is bigger and bulkier but it’s no where near as big of a differences shown there. The G.M is a big lens too much bigger than the Nikon equivalent.
 
f/2.8 said:
It’s a stupid comparison as they are only comparing the sizes of the 3 different lenses. The sigma is huge but they have made it look worse by not including the hoods where they have included the hood with the Sigma. Even with the hoods the Sigma is bigger and bulkier but it’s no where near as big of a differences shown there. The G.M is a big lens too much bigger than the Nikon equivalent.
Click to expand...

Yup, stupid. The sigma does lose out more noticeably in weight.
 
twist said:
Really nice, unsure why people say the 85 1.8 OOF isn’t great, I think it’s amazing for such a cheap lens. The 55 didn’t impress me in comparison.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, I've only had it a couple of weeks but had read people saying it had too much 'character' in the OOF areas but I've not seen anything that made me think that yet. It's my first modern lens for my A7 III and I couldn't be happier with it, quite versatile, nice size and weight and very sharp. Now if only they had a wide and maybe a 50mm of the same quality-price ratio.
 
NewBeetle said:
Yeah I mean, I've only had it a couple of weeks but had read people saying it had too much 'character' in the OOF areas but I've not seen anything that made me think that yet. It's my first modern lens for my A7 III and I couldn't be happier with it, quite versatile, nice size and weight and very sharp. Now if only they had a wide and maybe a 50mm of the same quality-price ratio.
Click to expand...

I’ll recommend the sigma 35 art as your wider lens or the 24 if you want wider.
 
twist said:
I’ll recommend the sigma 35 art as your wider lens or the 24 if you want wider.
Click to expand...

I do want a wide prime, and a 70-200 at some point. I'm kind of hoping Sigma & Tamron get their arses into gear with some nice 70-200 E-Mount lenses.
 
NewBeetle said:
Yeah I mean, I've only had it a couple of weeks but had read people saying it had too much 'character' in the OOF areas but I've not seen anything that made me think that yet. It's my first modern lens for my A7 III and I couldn't be happier with it, quite versatile, nice size and weight and very sharp. Now if only they had a wide and maybe a 50mm of the same quality-price ratio.
Click to expand...

The 55mm is very good not as good as the Sigma Art 50mm in terms of sharpness but not bad. It’s also feather light and quite small which js a real advantage on such a small camera body.

twist said:
I’ll recommend the sigma 35 art as your wider lens or the 24 if you want wider.
Click to expand...

The 24mm G.M is outstanding as is the Sigma 35mm Art.

NewBeetle said:
I do want a wide prime, and a 70-200 at some point. I'm kind of hoping Sigma & Tamron get their arses into gear with some nice 70-200 E-Mount lenses.
Click to expand...

The rumour site mentioned a while back that there will be a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 shortly into the new year. Personally I am very happy with the 70-200 f/4 but it’s not a focal length I use much so if it’s a lens you would use a lot you might be off with a f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
One thing that interests me is eye detect.

I've only recently started using face detect and to be honest I think it's great as it allows me to take casual shots which I could have only got before by zone focusing as moving the focus point or focusing and recomposing both have their problems. Face detect is better than zone focusing as I don't have to shoot at zone focus apertures and can instead shoot at wide apertures if I want.

That little shot of Mrs WW emptying the bird seed bag wont win any prizes but it would have been impossible without face detect. I'd still have taken a picture but it would have been a different picture of a different moment. The only way I could take that picture of that moment was to frame and shoot very quickly and moving the AF point or focusing and recomposing wouldn't have been quick enough. Shooting at 35mm, 3m or so at f5.6/f8 would have got me the moment but it would have been a different picture to that f2.8 one.

I can only imagine that eye detect and faster focusing is even better.
Click to expand...

I use eye AF etc less and less on the A9. It misses far more shots than if I just manage the focus point myself. I know where my focus point is and can adjust as needed (including whilst bringing the camera up to take a shot). Eye AF isn't infallible, and can just not find the face, be too slow, lock to the wrong face etc. There times it is nice to use and works well, especially with a single subject in controlled conditions. It's just not always the magic bullet it's made out to be. Quite often it needs a nudge first using the selected AF point to get it working in the right location.
 
jj_glos said:
I use eye AF etc less and less on the A9. It misses far more shots than if I just manage the focus point myself. I know where my focus point is and can adjust as needed (including whilst bringing the camera up to take a shot). Eye AF isn't infallible, and can just not find the face, be too slow, lock to the wrong face etc. There times it is nice to use and works well, especially with a single subject in controlled conditions. It's just not always the magic bullet it's made out to be. Quite often it needs a nudge first using the selected AF point to get it working in the right location.
Click to expand...

Is that with your canon lenses or native? I find it very effective.
 
Daniel_Paul said:
Will the E-Mount lenses work on the FE bodies? guessing obviously just at a loss of resolution?!
Click to expand...

I am suing Sigma 60mm F/2.8 and Sigma 16mm F/1.4 (both APS-C E- mount lens) on Sony A7R II full frame and I don't have problem.
Of course you have this mega heavy vignetting, but this could be quite creative (for me - for portraits, or just to add some drama, accent, etc.)
Be aware that I modified the Sigma 60mm and now the vignetting is significantly smaller (removed the rear baffle) - and you can get almost 35-36Mpx after cropping the vignette.

2 examples of Sigma 60mm on my A7RII:

Speed boat at the Koh Larn by Kalin Kalpachev, on Flickr

The local gas station by Kalin Kalpachev, on Flickr

About the 16mm, I rather not publish, as someone told me here last time it is not safe for work.

Anyway, the truth is don't be afraid to experiment. That is what the photography is, try it your way :)

Regards,
Kalin
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top