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

jonneymendoza said:
O dear. Which should I get rid?
Click to expand...

Tricky.

The obvious one to keep is the Sammy because of the tiny size that makes the camera almost pocketable. If you find yourself still going for the Sigma for weddings and use the extra stop then keep that - otherwise move it on.
 
f/2.8 said:
Keep the Sigma the Samyang is cack and the Sony has ugly oof area's and poor C.A.

Although even with the issues with the Sony I still quite like it for it's quick a.f speed and the lighter weight, although I am keeping my Siggy as well.
Click to expand...
It's better than the sigma bokeh :p
 
nandbytes said:
It's better than the sigma bokeh :p
Click to expand...

I am not talking about bokeh, I haven't narrowed down the root cause yet but the Sony has very ugly o.o.f area's in certain situations, sometimes it seems fine, I think it might be a lighting thing but I have only processed 3 weddings so far using it and am still trying to nail down the root cause so it can be avoided.
 
f/2.8 said:
I am not talking about bokeh, I haven't narrowed down the root cause yet but the Sony has very ugly o.o.f area's in certain situations, sometimes it seems fine, I think it might be a lighting thing but I have only processed 3 weddings so far using it and am still trying to nail down the root cause so it can be avoided.
Click to expand...
Think that's the CA ruining it
 
I don't think ca is an issue or at least no one I know will ever mention it. I've certainly seen worse and more obvious.

OOF areas and bokeh is going to be scene and background dependent. Maybe the same scene needs to be shot with different lenses to make it a fair and good comparison. I have three 35mm's that'll do f1.8 so I'll give them a go sometime with the same scene. Other than that anyone looking for really good OOF areas and bokeh should maybe be looking at a longer focal length.

Jonney could do an f1.8 comparison with his Sony f1.8 and the big fat honker :D
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Tricky.

The obvious one to keep is the Sammy because of the tiny size that makes the camera almost pocketable. If you find yourself still going for the Sigma for weddings and use the extra stop then keep that - otherwise move it on.
Click to expand...

At the moment I can't see myself selling my Sony 35mm f2.8 for exactly this reason. The close focus ability of the f1.8 is making it a favourite for me though.
 
I'm looking at pictures taken today and honestly I have to go to 100% with backlit to see ca.

If and when I get time I'll do a comparison with my other 35's that'll go to f1.8 but at the mo I don't see anything too out of the ordinary to panic about. Anyway, the fast focus, light weight, smaller size compared to a modern AF f1.4 and the close focus ability are enough for me to forgive it almost anything :D
 
twist said:
Tbh that 1.8 bokeh looked bloody terrible when looking at samples posted here. Sigma isn’t as nervous.
Click to expand...

sigma would be almost equally bad in the scenario posted here. Have a look on dpreviews sample gallery.
The new Sigma ART 35/1.2 also looks better than 1.4 version.
 
nandbytes said:
sigma would be almost equally bad in the scenario posted here. Have a look on dpreviews sample gallery.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that, I’ve run about 30k images through a 35 art. The Sony just looked a bit weird at distance, up close it’s decent.
 
Last edited:
Hold on, I thought general opinion was the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art was pretty much brilliant with the only downside being it's heft?
 
NewBeetle said:
Hold on, I thought general opinion was the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art was pretty much brilliant with the only downside being it's heft?
Click to expand...

It was a great lens about 6yrs back when I had one, don't know how it holds up today
 
NewBeetle said:
Hold on, I thought general opinion was the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art was pretty much brilliant with the only downside being it's heft?
Click to expand...

It is a fantastic lens but it isn’t new and shiney.

It is hefty but pretty light compared to the gigantic f/1.2 version.

In terms of performance it spanks everything else apart from the f/1.2 version.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Examples?
Click to expand...

I haven't delivered the weddings where I have used the 35 f/1.8 yet, pretty much every review on the lens mentions the C.A though so it should easy enough to be able to find some examples online.

Even with that though as I mentioned above I can live with it just because the lens is light weight and the a.f speed is very good.

I am gonna probably stop using it at weddings though as the C.A can be a pain to remove over several hundred images.

Plus there is the other issue with the ugly oof areas which is an odd one as sometimes it is completely fine.
 
f/2.8 said:
I haven't delivered the weddings where I have used the 35 f/1.8 yet, pretty much every review on the lens mentions the C.A though so it should easy enough to be able to find some examples online.

Even with that though as I mentioned above I can live with it just because the lens is light weight and the a.f speed is very good.

I am gonna probably stop using it at weddings though as the C.A can be a pain to remove over several hundred images.

Plus there is the other issue with the ugly oof areas which is an odd one as sometimes it is completely fine.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any mystery here. The results should be decided by the scene, the background, the distances between them, the distance between the main subject and the camera and of course the aperture and any instances in which it's better or worse shot to shot should be down to combinations of these factors. The pictures I've taken with messy backgrounds like foliage are broadly what I'd expect from a 35mm at f1.8.

Comparisons with other lenses at f1.8 will tell us if it's any better or any worse than the rest regardless of size, weight and focus speed which are things we can add to the mix to help us decide if any optical shortcomings can be overlooked for the benefits the other attributes bring.

f1.8.

0bpjhvC.jpg


EwZej1x.jpg


Can't get much messier than this, near MFD.

27BXL5b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Agree, the Bokeh and abberations of the 35 1.8 is brutal. Not sure its worth the money at all.
 
woof woof said:
There shouldn't be any mystery here. The results should be decided by the scene, the background, the distances between them, the distance between the main subject and the camera and of course the aperture and any instances in which it's better or worse shot to shot should be down to combinations of these factors. The pictures I've taken with messy backgrounds like foliage are broadly what I'd expect from a 35mm at f1.8.
Click to expand...

But there is, I have shot a burst and some images are okay and some are not. All the same settings etc. only difference is possibly that the available light has changed.

I am not the only one that has noticed it, there is a thread on one of the Facebook wedding photographer groups as well.

It's not a deal breaker for me anyway so I am not too worried about it, I bought the lens for when I am travelling mainly. I only used it at a few weddings to test it.
 
F/1.4 said:
Agree, the Bokeh and abberations of the 35 1.8 is brutal. Not sure its worth the money at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the bokeh itself was too bad, I didn't expect it to be great.

I still think it's a decent lens but I am definetly switching back to my Siggy for work.
 
Well there you go then. There's a change which will affect how the scene is captured and likely how the bokeh and background will look.

The main thing is that it's ok saying this lens is a bit rough depending on the scene but is there another 35mm lens that's significantly better at f1.8?

The modern AF f1.4's may be better, I don't know as the only modern 35mm f1.4 I have is the Voigtlaner classic.
 
One last one from our sloe walk.

vuYzerJ.jpg


They look like little planets to me :D

We picked a tub full but we're not sure what to do with them yet.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well there you go then. There's a change which will affect how the scene is captured and likely how the bokeh and background will look.

The main thing is that it's ok saying this lens is a bit rough depending on the scene but is there another 35mm lens that's significantly better at f1.8?

The modern AF f1.4's may be better, I don't know as the only modern 35mm f1.4 I have is the Voigtlaner classic.
Click to expand...

The Sigma f/1.4 is definetly significantly better.

At the end of the day it's all moot anyway, if I was shooting just stuff for myself I would probably still choose the Sony for the lighter weight and it does have an a.f speed advantage over the Sigma as well.

I guess general rule of thumb will be in terms of I.Q Sigma f/1.2 - Sigma f/1.4 - Zeiss f/1.4 (if you can found a good one, a near impossible task) - Sony f/1.8 - Sony f/2.8
 
Corner performance at f8 when focused at infinity or at least the hill :D

As far as we got before we ran out of time...

yjLibrX.jpg


Bottom right at 100%, the other side is the same.

DJHOgdw.jpg
 
f/2.8 said:
The Sigma f/1.4 is definetly significantly better.

At the end of the day it's all moot anyway, if I was shooting just stuff for myself I would probably still choose the Sony for the lighter weight and it does have an a.f speed advantage over the Sigma as well.

I guess general rule of thumb will be in terms of I.Q Sigma f/1.2 - Sigma f/1.4 - Zeiss f/1.4 (if you can found a good one, a near impossible task) - Sony f/1.8 - Sony f/2.8
Click to expand...

I'd like to see identical shot examples. I'll do some for myself with my lenses (MF Minolta Rokkor f1.8 and Voigtlander f1.4) but it would be nice to see examples from people with more modern AF lenses. Certainly the Sony gives a more modern less fussy look than the MF lenses I have.
 
Finally my A7mkII has arrived, purchased in August!! can anyone recommend a decent screen protector please.
 
Do you think we'll see lenses like 200mm f/2.8 primes on E-Mount eventually? I know they're a little bit of an oddity these days, but reading about the 70-180 Tamron and realising I use my 70-200 at 200mm nearly all the time it got me thinking it would nice to just have a 200mm f/2.8, lighter, cheaper, than zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top