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

I did briefly think about swapping my Sony 20-70mm for tamron 17-50mm but I think I'll stick with the Sony. It'll match nicely with the new 70-200mm f4 :D
Hoping they'll be some offers Christmas time....
 
TTArtisan AF primes...

First images of the upcoming new TTartisan 35 and 56mm f/1.8 E-mount lenses – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

Depending on how good they are and how much they cost these could interest some. As I said a few days ago I do wish that 56mm was a 50mm. I could have been tempted.

I do have to say that their MF 50mm f2 is a joy to use with the only issues being corner funkiness and just about off the scale vignetting.

Oh, Mrs WW made this picture her home screen on her tablet yesterday.

A7 and TTArtisan 50mm f2.

DSC02467.JPG
 
nandbytes said:
I did briefly think about swapping my Sony 20-70mm for tamron 17-50mm but I think I'll stick with the Sony. It'll match nicely with the new 70-200mm f4 :D
Hoping they'll be some offers Christmas time....
Click to expand...
I’m definitely swaying more to the Tamron, I use the 16-35mm far more than the 24-70mm and am very often at 16mm.
 
As someone who claims not to be swayed too much by wide apertures :D I do still use them for reasons of light gathering and also for depth so having an f4 lens just seems a bit limiting :D

I don't know what percentage of my pictures are at wider than f4, I suppose it is only a small number, maybe much less than 10% but I think I would find f4 a bit frustrating at times as I think I do use wider than f4 for a shot or two just about every time I go out with a camera.
 
woof woof said:
As someone who claims not to be swayed too much by wide apertures :D I do still use them for reasons of light gathering and also for depth so having an f4 lens just seems a bit limiting :D

I don't know what percentage of my pictures are at wider than f4, I suppose it is only a small number, maybe much less than 10% but I think I would find f4 a bit frustrating at times as I think I do use wider than f4 for a shot or two just about every time I go out with a camera.
Click to expand...
That's why we have primes :D
F2.8 zooms are generally larger than I like to normally carry around

I like use each for their strengths i.e. primes for really fast aperture and zooms versatility. Trying to mix both just makes things complicated :D
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I'm thinking of getting a viltrox 16mm f1.8 for uwa uses plus astro
Click to expand...
I’ll often only take one lens out, I don’t like swapping lenses all the time when out and about, especially on city breaks etc.
 
Yesterday was the 1st time since 2003 since when i had a lens with an aperture smaller than 2.8. (I got a X-S10 and came with a kit lens, i did not expect it for the price so it was "free"). And that lens was a Canon 18-55 kit lens, 3.5-5.6 i think?

I made a vow/promise never to get anything with an aperture smaller than 2.8 ever again when i sold that and started my lenses from scratch.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Yesterday was the 1st time since 2003 since when i had a lens with an aperture smaller than 2.8. (I got a X-S10 and came with a kit lens, i did not expect it for the price so it was "free"). And that lens was a Canon 18-55 kit lens, 3.5-5.6 i think?

I made a vow/promise never to get anything with an aperture smaller than 2.8 ever again when i sold that and started my lenses from scratch.
Click to expand...

I made a comment when the Sony 35mm f2.8 came out that f2.8 was "just enough" and I think for the majority of my use it is. f2.8 is sometimes not enough in low light when shooting handheld and wanting to freeze movement and it isn't enough for the thinnest DoF but on balance I do like that 35mm f2.8 for its small size and next to no weight. Wider apertures do however give that extra flexibility.
 
I can accept a 2.8 prime for specific cases or design.

100/2.8...fine. It's a Macro lens.
45/2.8...fine. It's a TSE.

I am not sure on a 35mm at 2.8 though....even if it's small and cheap. 2.0 would be acceptable.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I can accept a 2.8 prime for specific cases or design.

100/2.8...fine. It's a Macro lens.
45/2.8...fine. It's a TSE.

I am not sure on a 35mm at 2.8 though....even if it's small and cheap. 2.0 would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

I think any prime of f2.8 or smaller has to justify its existence somehow. Usually for me it's because of its size and weight. The Sony 35mm f2.8 for example is tiny compared to just about any zoom and that in itself is justification enough for me. Ditto the more recent 24mm f2.8 and 40 and 50mm f2.5 Sony primes

I think the smallest aperture primes I've had were f3. something. I had a 17 Tokina and a 19mm Vivitar and also 28 and 35mm Takumars. They justified their existence to me for focal length, size and weight.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Yesterday was the 1st time since 2003 since when i had a lens with an aperture smaller than 2.8. (I got a X-S10 and came with a kit lens, i did not expect it for the price so it was "free"). And that lens was a Canon 18-55 kit lens, 3.5-5.6 i think?

I made a vow/promise never to get anything with an aperture smaller than 2.8 ever again when i sold that and started my lenses from scratch.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the last time I shot with my 16-35mm at anything wider than f8, for this type of lens f2.8 is a waste of money and bulk for me (y)
 
trevorbray said:
I've been thinking of a lightweight 50mm
Never gonna happen..
50GM f1.2
Click to expand...

Just for argument/debate reasons... You can get relatively and even possibly truly lightweight 50's especially when compared to the modern crop of 50mm f1.2's.

There's the various Voigtlander f1-f1.2's and even the cheapo Syoptic f1.1 I have. You have to give up AF with these though.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Yesterday was the 1st time since 2003 since when i had a lens with an aperture smaller than 2.8. (I got a X-S10 and came with a kit lens, i did not expect it for the price so it was "free"). And that lens was a Canon 18-55 kit lens, 3.5-5.6 i think?

I made a vow/promise never to get anything with an aperture smaller than 2.8 ever again when i sold that and started my lenses from scratch.
Click to expand...

Raymond you sound like you’d be some craic at a party
 
@woof woof I reckon half the pictures you post here are at f2 or wider.

To me, there seems little point in having a 28mm lens with a wide aperture, because you're just going to need to stop it down for DoF - who gives a wet slap about wide angle bokeh, because too much stuff will just look out of focus instead. So I can't see the point of and f2.8 short zoom except for specialised use.

50mm - f1.8 or wider or go home if you want bokeh. For background blur 135mm is the shortest fl where f2.8 is useful.

So a 17-50 f4 isn't giving anything away to an f2.8 version.
 
ancient_mariner said:
@woof woof I reckon half the pictures you post here are at f2 or wider.

To me, there seems little point in having a 28mm lens with a wide aperture, because you're just going to need to stop it down for DoF - who gives a wet slap about wide angle bokeh, because too much stuff will just look out of focus instead. So I can't see the point of and f2.8 short zoom except for specialised use.

50mm - f1.8 or wider or go home if you want bokeh. For background blur 135mm is the shortest fl where f2.8 is useful.

So a 17-50 f4 isn't giving anything away to an f2.8 version.
Click to expand...

I take more wide aperture pictures when first get a lens and I'm seeing what it can do and of course what I post here is a small percentage of what I take.

The last twice I took my Sony out I took a total of 21 pictures and none were at wider apertures than f5/5.6. Wide aperture pictures are a small percentage of what I take regardless of what I post here but I suppose my favourite pictures are possibly of Mrs WW at wider apertures and that I suppose makes up a larger percentage of what I post here.

I'm I think I'm a bit opposite to you regarding wide lenses and wide apertures as I think maybe the wider you go the more a wide aperture may help. Have a look at the sample pictures in this 28mm f1.2 review...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Laowa 28mm 1.2 FFII Argus - The world's fastest 28mm lens - phillipreeve.net

The Laowa 28mm 1.2 FFII Argus is the world's fastest 28mm lens and surprisingly compact. But what about bokeh and sharpness, is it actually
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

If you want 28mm perspective I don't see anything wrong with also wanting the ability to get a degree of subject isolation and background blur when that's the look you want.
 
woof woof said:
If you want 28mm perspective I don't see anything wrong with also wanting the ability to get a degree of subject isolation and background blur when that's the look you want.
Click to expand...

If you have a lens with f1.2 then that's a possibility. My point was really that with f2.8 and 28mm - even 35mm - you won't get useful subject separation.


FWIW I like the pics you post here, and your feelings towards Mrs WW are clear in the photos.
 
ancient_mariner said:
If you have a lens with f1.2 then that's a possibility. My point was really that with f2.8 and 28mm - even 35mm - you won't get useful subject separation.


FWIW I like the pics you post here, and your feelings towards Mrs WW are clear in the photos.
Click to expand...
I think you can get decent subject isolation at 35mm (y)


A1_03798 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
A1_09305-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Even at f1.8 it can give nice seperation imo

A9_05733 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr



Clearly you're not going to completely obliterate the background like an 85mm f1.4 or something but it can still be useful. YMMV (y)
.
 
woof woof said:
The rumor site says that Canon may be about to open their mount to 3rd party lens makers...

Competition rumors: Canon will “Open” their RF mount to third party lens manufacturers – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
I guess it's a tricky balance as opening up to third party lenses potentially means less money on their own lens sales but attracts more people to the system who will likely stay with it. Third party support is a big plus for me especially with the likes of the Sigma 100-400mm and it's something that makes me hesitate about buying Z-mount as the Nikon 100-400mm is too much for me.
snerkler said:
I think you can get decent subject isolation at 35mm (y)

Clearly you're not going to completely obliterate the background like an 85mm f1.4 or something but it can still be useful. YMMV (y)
.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's one of the useful aspects of the 35mm F2 on the RX1 as it can get good enough isolation in a way that I couldn't on the RX100 or a smartphone.

Also I mostly use the 28mm and 35mm at F2 as to get as much light as possible which is one of their main uses over a zoom lens for me.
 
snerkler said:
I think you can get decent subject isolation at 35mm (y)


A1_03798 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
A1_09305-Edit by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

Even at f1.8 it can give nice seperation imo

A9_05733 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr



Clearly you're not going to completely obliterate the background like an 85mm f1.4 or something but it can still be useful. YMMV (y)
.
Click to expand...
His comment was "My point was really that with f2.8 and 28mm - even 35mm - you won't get useful subject separation" i.e. that you would need to use a wider aperture than f2.8 to get the separation at 28mm or 35mm. Your examples above are either at f1.4 or f1.8. Think you may have missed the reference to f2.8.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I guess it's a tricky balance as opening up to third party lenses potentially means less money on their own lens sales but attracts more people to the system who will likely stay with it. Third party support is a big plus for me especially with the likes of the Sigma 100-400mm and it's something that makes me hesitate about buying Z-mount as the Nikon 100-400mm is too much for me.
Click to expand...
It would certainly make Canon much more appealing, to get a similar system on Canon at the moment is much more expensive.
 
mike_6480 said:
His comment was "My point was really that with f2.8 and 28mm - even 35mm - you won't get useful subject separation" i.e. that you would need to use a wider aperture than f2.8 to get the separation at 28mm or 35mm. Your examples above are either at f1.4 or f1.8. Think you may have missed the reference to f2.8.
Click to expand...
I did indeed misinterpret the post :facepalm:
 
ancient_mariner said:
If you have a lens with f1.2 then that's a possibility. My point was really that with f2.8 and 28mm - even 35mm - you won't get useful subject separation.


FWIW I like the pics you post here, and your feelings towards Mrs WW are clear in the photos.
Click to expand...

I think the wider we go the more a very wide aperture will help, as per that 28mm f1.2. I've looked at buying that lens and the similar 35mm f0.95 so many times but the bulk puts me off.

I can see the view that wide lenses are often used for landscape and the like and they may not be the first thing we think about if we're looking for example to take a picture of someone and include an aspect of subject separation but if we do want a wide angle perspective I think a lens with a wide aperture is doubly useful :D
 
Last edited:
We went to Whitby yesterday.

A7 and Syoptic 50mm f1.1.

DSC03306.jpg

DSC03347.jpg

DSC03351.jpg

There's a new bridge (on the RHS) or at least it's the first time I've noticed it and the first time in my life that I've been able to cross to that other section of the pier.

DSC03360.jpg

DSC03350.jpg
 
Last edited:
We headed down a slipway and path and had a mooch around on the rocks. The tide came in extremely quickly and as we reached the safety of the slipway we spotted a young asian lady obliviously taking pictures of the fossils. I shouted a warning to her and it took another 30 seconds or so for her to react and begin to make her way back by which time the chance of a dry escape had gone. It's easy to appreciate how people can get into difficulties.

DSC03328.jpg

A pano.

Untitled_Panorama-1-R.jpg

I really do like this lens. Infinity is at the hard stop so it's very quick and easy to shoot hyperfocally and I do like the look this lens gives, even stopped down I think the fall off is quite lovely.

DSC03364.jpg

I think it's a snip at about £150.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I'm sure they'll eventually update it when they catch a break from releasing a new body every other month or so.
Click to expand...
That’ll be when hell freezes over :LOL:

I don’t feel there’s anything missing from the A1. I know some want focus stacking/bracketing which is fair enough, and I know some want more subject recognition but if you can’t focus on a car or a train yourself you may as well give up anyway ;)
 
snerkler said:
That’ll be when hell freezes over :LOL:

I don’t feel there’s anything missing from the A1. I know some want focus stacking/bracketing which is fair enough, and I know some want more subject recognition but if you can’t focus on a car or a train yourself you may as well give up anyway ;)
Click to expand...

For me it's mainly the focus bracketing and pre-shutter features.
Though we may have to wait forever for the latter one.
 
nandbytes said:
For me it's mainly the focus bracketing and pre-shutter features.
Though we may have to wait forever for the latter one.
Click to expand...
Neither would be useful to me, but obviously are to some.

What I don’t understand though is the people that have a rant because there’s not been an update, surely you buy for what the device can do at the time and not what it may or may not do in the future :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
What I don’t understand though is the people that have a rant because there’s not been an update, surely you buy for what the device can do at the time and not what it may or may not do in the future :thinking:
Click to expand...
I agree for the most part with that unless manufacturer make a promise explicitly that they'd add a feature in the future.

But also the point is (at least for me) the later cheaper bodies have features that'd be desirable on a flagship too. The positive spin on that is Sony isn't artificially crippling their bodies and they are putting out the best they can with each iteration. At the same time they are putting out a lot of bodies now..... you win some you lose some I guess
 
nandbytes said:
I agree for the most part with that unless manufacturer make a promise explicitly that they'd add a feature in the future.

But also the point is (at least for me) the later cheaper bodies have features that'd be desirable on a flagship too. The positive spin on that is Sony isn't artificially crippling their bodies and they are putting out the best they can with each iteration. At the same time they are putting out a lot of bodies now..... you win some you lose some I guess
Click to expand...
Yep the A1 had everything at the time, well except a top level LCD. Ok so some new stuff came out a couple of years later but that’s always the way with tech.

If they offer feature updates then great, but otherwise there’s no reason to complain imo (y)
 
Last edited:
As it's quiet.

Two more pictures from Whitby.

A7 and Syoptic 50mm at f1.1. I forgot to select ISO 50 so unfortunately the camera went to 1/8,000 and still couldn't quite cope so I had to fiddle more in post capture. Silly me. I must try to remember to go to ISO 50 when needed.

DSC03313.jpg

DSC03313.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top