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

I watched this at the time and for whatever reason it appeared on my screen when I looked at youtube today...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8uYufdtOo


If you get time to watch this you'll see he agonises over slight differences in framing and perspective to minute detail. I can sort of relate to the ocd here :D but I'm also reminded of something Prince Philip once said... "Just take the ******* picture." :D

I do obsess sometimes. I think I took three pictures of this (and I still don't know which I prefer) rather than the 300 he shot but maybe he's exaggerating. I hope so :)

This is not the same place, just a place I rarely go to so I wanted a picture I'd be reasonably happy with.

1-DSC03050.jpg

What do you do? Take a few with different framing and perspective, take 300 or just "Take the..."
 
Last edited:
So, I tried the 24-105/4 yesterday and found it a bit front heavy on the A7 ii. So I am currently leaning towards a Tamron 28-75 RXD, does anyone noticed this issue with this lens ?

The other choice would be a Sigma 28-70 F2.8 DG DN Contemporary, but that bumps the price up a fair bit. A 2nd hand Tamron will leave me some spare cash for 1, maybe 2 more lenses
 
woof woof said:
I watched this at the time and for whatever reason it appeared on my screen when I looked at youtube today...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8uYufdtOo


If you get time to watch this you'll see he agonises over slight differences in framing and perspective to minute detail. I can sort of relate to the ocd here :D but I'm also reminded of something Prince Philip once said... "Just take the ******* picture." :D

I do obsess sometimes. I think I took three pictures of this (and I still don't know which I prefer) rather than the 300 he shot but maybe he's exaggerating. I hope so :)

This is not the same place, just a place I rarely go to so I wanted a picture I'd be reasonably happy with.

View attachment 404923

What do you do? Take a few with different framing and perspective, take 300 or just "Take the..."
Click to expand...

I do normally sit somewhere in the middle :)

Sometimes I will try to refine a composition fairly precisely such as night sky foregrounds or a specific sunrise or sunset shot. Especially if I'm only going home with the one image.

My other 'snapshot' work (as I like to call it) I will wander around a subject and get a few different views and try to tweak composition slightly to get something but I don't get too hung up on the technicalities of perfect composition! This is because as you know I like to shoot things sometimes and present them as a 'set' of images.
 
LeeRatters said:
I do normally sit somewhere in the middle :)

Sometimes I will try to refine a composition fairly precisely such as night sky foregrounds or a specific sunrise or sunset shot. Especially if I'm only going home with the one image.

My other 'snapshot' work (as I like to call it) I will wander around a subject and get a few different views and try to tweak composition slightly to get something but I don't get too hung up on the technicalities of perfect composition! This is because as you know I like to shoot things sometimes and present them as a 'set' of images.
Click to expand...

I think sometimes there is effectively only on place you can stand but even so you can often bob up and down or sway a bit from side to side and inches can change the perspective and framing and make a difference and even quite a big one so it is worthwhile spending a bit of time and taking a few pictures to see what works :D
 
woof woof said:
I watched this at the time and for whatever reason it appeared on my screen when I looked at youtube today...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8uYufdtOo


If you get time to watch this you'll see he agonises over slight differences in framing and perspective to minute detail. I can sort of relate to the ocd here :D but I'm also reminded of something Prince Philip once said... "Just take the ******* picture." :D

I do obsess sometimes. I think I took three pictures of this (and I still don't know which I prefer) rather than the 300 he shot but maybe he's exaggerating. I hope so :)

This is not the same place, just a place I rarely go to so I wanted a picture I'd be reasonably happy with.

View attachment 404923

What do you do? Take a few with different framing and perspective, take 300 or just "Take the..."
Click to expand...
I'm a bit the opposite, I only tend to take more than one during sunsets to capture the differing light.
 
A9III and A1 firmware update rumoured first half of November, I'll not hold my breath ;)
 
snerkler said:
I stop these lenses down so vignetting is less of a problem for me. I still don't fully understand MTF's, I just go by real world examples :runaway:
Click to expand...
OK, there is not that much to it, basically you want everything to be both as high as possible and as close together as possible

Left side represents centre, and right - corner. Ideally no less than 0.7 in the corners, but 0.6 might be still OK if lines stick close together. If you are into the lower half and particularly if you get there quite soon just run.

You can see what let's say 300mm f/2.8 MTF looks like for almost ideal lens, and some cheap broad range old zoom for the other extreme.

Notably, the MTF presents the theoretical ideal case scenario, so in real life the performance can only get worse but never better. So, yes, absolutely you want to inspect representative RAW files if MTF curve didn't already scare you away/
 
snerkler said:
I'm still to find some example raw files but this review is pretty comprehensive
dustinabbott.net

Tamron 17-50mm F4 Di III VXD Review - DustinAbbott.net

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a thorough, real world review of the Tamron 17-50mm F4 VXD wide angle zoom
dustinabbott.net dustinabbott.net
Click to expand...
I'm generally not a fan of his reviews. There is a lot of content, but no high res downloads to speak of so you just have to take his word for it. In this day and age everything is graded between excellent to very good, unusually quite randomly as they appear to be barred from using phrases that I like to use for lenses that are somewhat less than convincing.

Besides most of the images don't critically challenge the lens performance. Cameralabs give a nice clean inifinity focused shot from a hill and that really means a lot more. If you want macro lens test on money and other small items. Lensrentals go way deeper, but sadly they only cover some select lenses and can take a while to do so.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I'm generally not a fan of his reviews. There is a lot of content, but no high res downloads to speak of so you just have to take his word for it. In this day and age everything is graded between excellent to very good, unusually quite randomly as they appear to be barred from using phrases that I like to use for lenses that are somewhat less than convincing.

Besides most of the images don't critically challenge the lens performance. Cameralabs give a nice clean inifinity focused shot from a hill and that really means a lot more. If you want macro lens test on money and other small items. Lensrentals go way deeper, but sadly they only cover some select lenses and can take a while to do so.
Click to expand...
Roger Cicala used to do the lens tests and reviews at lensrentals. But he hasn't done any in a long time and it's almost like he's disappeared.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
OK, there is not that much to it, basically you want everything to be both as high as possible and as close together as possible

Left side represents centre, and right - corner. Ideally no less than 0.7 in the corners, but 0.6 might be still OK if lines stick close together. If you are into the lower half and particularly if you get there quite soon just run.

You can see what let's say 300mm f/2.8 MTF looks like for almost ideal lens, and some cheap broad range old zoom for the other extreme.

Notably, the MTF presents the theoretical ideal case scenario, so in real life the performance can only get worse but never better. So, yes, absolutely you want to inspect representative RAW files if MTF curve didn't already scare you away/
Click to expand...
Thanks, I kind of get the principle and understand what the two different types of line represents in terms of contrast and sharpness but then how this translates into distortion (barrel, pincushion, moustache), corner distortion, CA’s, vignetting etc I don’t know. These days apart from the odd super duper lens I find that they all look very similar :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, I kind of get the principle and understand what the two different types of line represents in terms of contrast and sharpness but then how this translates into distortion (barrel, pincushion, moustache), corner distortion, CA’s, vignetting etc I don’t know. These days apart from the odd super duper lens I find that they all look very similar :thinking:
Click to expand...
I don't think MTF has anything to with vignetting or distortion. These are completely separate. The CA and all that IQ degradation pretty much comes with lines separating out by fairly significant amount which usually happens just before the corners.
Curve going down doesn't tell you if lens performance is weaker in periphery or you have notable amount of field curvature. Either case is bad so maybe not much to worry about then as long as you don't buy it. For portrait only lens I think curvature is much preferable to generally mushy edges. It still gives you a chance to achieve critical focus in key area, but may just mean sharp focus will not follow elsewhere as expected. For landscapes that's all a one way trip to poorly resolved edges.
I have just discovered my Sigma ART 50mm has enough curvature to render it useless for landscapes under f/5.6 on 8K sensor. But for portrait or close up work it is very permissive.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I don't think MTF has anything to with vignetting or distortion. These are completely separate. The CA and all that IQ degradation pretty much comes with lines separating out by fairly significant amount which usually happens just before the corners.
Curve going down doesn't tell you if lens performance is weaker in periphery or you have notable amount of field curvature. Either case is bad so maybe not much to worry about then as long as you don't buy it. For portrait only lens I think curvature is much preferable to generally mushy edges. It still gives you a chance to achieve critical focus in key area, but may just mean sharp focus will not follow elsewhere as expected. For landscapes that's all a one way trip to poorly resolved edges.
I have just discovered my Sigma ART 50mm has enough curvature to render it useless for landscapes under f/5.6 on 8K sensor. But for portrait or close up work it is very permissive.
Click to expand...
Despite the 24-70mm GM2 getting rave reviews I’m guessing you won’t be too impressed with these mtf’s either then?

IMG_6700.jpeg

I always thought I was picky but it appears I’m happy with any old crap :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
Despite the 24-70mm GM2 getting rave reviews I’m guessing you won’t be too impressed with these mtf’s either then?

View attachment 404967

I always thought I was picky but it appears I’m happy with any old crap :LOL:
Click to expand...
Red lines are all good. They usually are for most higher end lenses. Blue lines are so so. It is a wedding lens at the end of the day. I would have no problems with it in that setting. For landscape I don't know If I will easily trust another 24-70mm, particularly one that comes with such a price tag to swallow all my primes in one go.

Let's just say on paper it looks definitely better than Canon EF mk II, and the new RF one. That's a good thing, but is it enough?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I thought the original Canon 24-70 L on EF Mount was great,
Click to expand...
The original was absolutely dire. Not even f13 would make it acceptably sharp. MK2 improved it enough to make it usable for events. Very usable. For landscape work there is very strong field curvature that is still totally visible at f11 even on 20mp sensors; and the whole thing completely falls apart on 8k. Unless you shoot weeding on something like r6 run from it
 
LongLensPhotography said:
The original was absolutely dire. Not even f13 would make it acceptably sharp. MK2 improved it enough to make it usable for events. Very usable. For landscape work there is very strong field curvature that is still totally visible at f11 even on 20mp sensors; and the whole thing completely falls apart on 8k. Unless you shoot weeding on something like r6 run from it
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Copy variability? I'm sure Canon aren't immune.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I also never used it on the R6, I used it on the EF mount, 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk4, so up to 30mp. Granted I am mostly a Prime shooter so the 24-70 never really see much action but when it was needed, it did fine and yes LLP...I shoot weddings lol (isn't that obvious?)

One thing I dislike with these new 24-70 is they put the hood at the end of the lens, the Mk1 zooms inside the hood which gives better protection from knocks.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Copy variability? I'm sure Canon aren't immune.
Click to expand...
Canon are fairly bad for this with zooms. However my mk2 was pretty bang on other than design faults. Field curvature is not something that develops, as long as it is uniform on both sides and mine was.
The mk1 I had ages ago was a very very very bad copy. Canon Elsetree tried fixing it 4x - yes 4 times - and it came back with different optical flaws one worse than the previous each time until it met its unfortunate end. I looked around online and most were very bad in some way. Very bad even if that was mostly QC.

Raymond Lin said:
Perhaps. I also never used it on the R6, I used it on the EF mount, 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk4, so up to 30mp. Granted I am mostly a Prime shooter so the 24-70 never really see much action but when it was needed, it did fine and yes LLP...I shoot weddings lol (isn't that obvious?)
Click to expand...
Like I said for event work with very selective focus areas I don't expect anyone to have major problems with mk2. It doesn't have as much microcontact as newer primes wide open, but you may call this an advantage for some customers.

R6 is the most forgiving one of all the bodies, and same would go for R3, with the added benefit of more precise focusing. Mine was mostly on 5D mark III and I did a lot of work on it. At f/11 I felt it was reasonable enough, but looking back I wouldn't mind much better edges in all of them. I only kept it because it was so much better than mk1, and we didn't have the fancier Sigma glass back in the day. The short canon EF L primes, and primarily but not exclusively the mk1s were pretty poor too in the periphery; so Canon initially marketed this as a prime equivalent. You wouldn't get away with it now. So, fast forward to the near past, a brand new 50MP 5Ds lands in my possession and it makes an absolute pig of 24-70mm. 50mm STM kills it everywhere. In fact at f/6.3 you would struggle to match it period. Sigma ART glass does it too. I only had 35mm to begin with and that walked all over it despite being one of the weakest ART in the series. Now it is replaced with much better Tamron. Then of course the 50ART is another major bump and so on.
As a last ditch I threw it on R6 and still no redemption so that was it. Even 16-35 III, another so-so zoom walks all over it, particularly at 35mm or it's weakest spot.

And here is the fun part. This is perhaps the last image shot on it with R6 at 70mm f/9. It absolutely should NOT be sharp everywhere in the frame but it is. The focus is perhaps on that greenery in the right third. Field curvature makes this shot possible without stacking or stupid apertures. Of course if this is all you did, or perhaps are street photojournalist then by all means this is one of the best lenses available for you today.
P.S. It is a test image done in suboptimal light so please don't judge it on artistic merit.

20230822-_Y0A2157.jpg

For any wide focus flat field landscapes you get focus very close in on the sides with infinity left totally blurry. Frankly unacceptable. And there gone leaving two big gaps between 35 and 70... or more like 85mm if you use 8k camera.

Raymond Lin said:
One thing I dislike with these new 24-70 is they put the hood at the end of the lens, the Mk1 zooms inside the hood which gives better protection from knocks.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you on that point. The old lens looked business, the newer ones are like cheap plastic kit lenses on steroids, only not cheap to purchase at all.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Copy variability? I'm sure Canon aren't immune.
Click to expand...
Differing standards I feel, I do believe longlens appears to be far more critical than most (not a criticism)
 
snerkler said:
Differing standards I feel, I do believe longlens appears to be far more critical than most (not a criticism)
Click to expand...
I put up with that thing for 11 years so that must make me less critical than most :LOL:

8k cameras, A1+ printers, 32" 4k+ monitors and lenses like Sigma 135mm ART-"Plena" change your expectation pretty quickly
 
I would seriously like to see some critical real life evaluation of Sigma 24-70 DN ART particularly in 35-70mm range: curvature, edges, wide open performance, flare and all that.
and at the same time 14-24mm too.... I would rather someone else did the legwork in this instance. If any of my gear broke tomorrow, then it is fair enough to say I'd probably just pick up either one as required, to get the job done given price and Leica endorsements :LOL:. The only real alternatives are Nikon Z and GMII equivalents with their own benefits and warts and extortionate price.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I would seriously like to see some critical real life evaluation of Sigma 24-70 DN ART particularly in 35-70mm range: curvature, edges, wide open performance, flare and all that.
and at the same time 14-24mm too.... I would rather someone else did the legwork in this instance. If any of my gear broke tomorrow, then it is fair enough to say I'd probably just pick up either one as required, to get the job done given price and Leica endorsements :LOL:. The only real alternatives are Nikon Z and GMII equivalents with their own benefits and warts and extortionate price.
Click to expand...
Just had a look at your flickr, stunning images. I could probably fave about 99% (y)
 
Again, don't really have that many photos taken with the Sigma, but it is fine for me.

On the A7R3.

vFOofdP.jpg


jBx2jB1.jpg
 

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience with this lens?​

Zeiss 35mm F2 Loxia​

I've been hankering after a 35mm prime for a while now and noticed that Ffordes of Beauly have one.
As I am heading up in that direction tomorrow for a few days, I was wondering if it was worth stopping off for a look
 
mstphoto said:

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience with this lens?​

Zeiss 35mm F2 Loxia​

I've been hankering after a 35mm prime for a while now and noticed that Ffordes of Beauly have one.
As I am heading up in that direction tomorrow for a few days, I was wondering if it was worth stopping off for a look
Click to expand...

I personally don't like the build of those and I would and did go for the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 instead and I've read that they're similar from f2 and of course the Voigtlander has f1.4 if only for emergency use. You could also consider the Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo which should be much better in just about every way.
 
Last edited:
mstphoto said:

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience with this lens?​

Zeiss 35mm F2 Loxia​

I've been hankering after a 35mm prime for a while now and noticed that Ffordes of Beauly have one.
As I am heading up in that direction tomorrow for a few days, I was wondering if it was worth stopping off for a look
Click to expand...
I believe it's the worst one if the Loxias. Depending on the price etc you might be better off looking for a voigtlander 35mm f2 APO lanthar

Having said all that purely based on reviews and samples I really like the rendering and colours of Zeiss.
There is something special in that T* magic dust coatings of the Zeiss
 
nandbytes said:
I believe it's the worst one if the Loxias. Depending on the price etc you might be better off looking for a voigtlander 35mm f2 APO lanthar

Having said all that purely based on reviews and samples I really like the rendering and colours of Zeiss.
There is something special in that T* magic dust coatings of the Zeiss
Click to expand...
Thanks nanbytes ;)
I've been looking at YT vids and there seems to be quite a variation of reviews, good and bad.
I think a bit more research is needed before I make a decision.
In the meantime, I can always use my 24GM in crop mode
 
Reading the threads on another forum the rendering of the Zeiss and the Voigtlander f1.4 are similar at apertures the Zeiss can match, so that's from f2.

The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is my most used manual lens and possibly my most used on Sony lens. People criticise the rendering but this really is aperture and scene and also distance dependant. At f1.4 with complex scenes you can get funky bokeh ditto at close distance but given a less cluttered scene and the use of close up filters at close distance the rendering is less wild and I do like the look this lens gives when stopped down. The corners are never great though but it is miles better on Sony in every respect than the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 in M mount which I've also had.

Including the Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo on the list of possibilities complicates things as the apo lens will be better in every respect but it's f2 not f1.4 and bigger and heavier and more expensive than the f1.4.

Fred Miranda has lots on these lenses.

PS.
If after a manual 35mm how about the Pergear? It's unbelievable cheap for what it is, imo.
 
Last edited:
First hour with the A1 and 100-400 infact any camera walking the dog and sticking the lens between bodies really enjoyed it, I have a lot to take in and have already changed some of my camera setup i also need to figure out LR and PS won't load so missus said i can have a new pc so just loaded them on a tablet.
Also need to figure out why flickr has reduced the resolution but hey ho iv'e seen a lot worse.

_DSC0058 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
_DSC0057 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
_DSC0056 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
_DSC0055 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
_DSC0046 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
_DSC0016 by Ben Cheneler, on Flickr
 
woof woof said:
Reading the threads on another forum the rendering of the Zeiss and the Voigtlander f1.4 are similar at apertures the Zeiss can match, so that's from f2.

The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is my most used manual lens and possibly my most used on Sony lens. People criticise the rendering but this really is aperture and scene and also distance dependant. At f1.4 with complex scenes you can get funky bokeh ditto at close distance but given a less cluttered scene and the use of close up filters at close distance the rendering is less wild and I do like the look this lens gives when stopped down. The corners are never great though but it is miles better on Sony in every respect than the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 in M mount which I've also had.

Including the Voigtlander 35mm f2 apo on the list of possibilities complicates things as the apo lens will be better in every respect but it's f2 not f1.4 and bigger and heavier and more expensive than the f1.4.

Fred Miranda has lots on these lenses.

PS.
If after a manual 35mm how about the Pergear? It's unbelievable cheap for what it is, imo.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input, Alan
I've had Voigtlander 12mm + 15mm in the past and they produced some great image quality.
This lens could be a possible choice ;)
 
mstphoto said:
Thanks nanbytes ;)
I've been looking at YT vids and there seems to be quite a variation of reviews, good and bad.
I think a bit more research is needed before I make a decision.
In the meantime, I can always use my 24GM in crop mode
Click to expand...

Tbh with you I am not sure what you are hoping to gain from a manual 35mm f2....
There some small light 35mm options with AF these days... Samyang 35mm f1.8, Sony 35mm f1.8, Sigma 35mm f2. All review pretty well.
Loxias aren't cheap and when they came out seemed like a great option but things have moved on and so has optics.

Voigtlander APO lanthar lenses aims for very high optical quality. May be that is something worth paying for.
but once again I am not sure how much better it is compared to the above AF options.

I personally have the 35GM and its probably as good as it get for photography. Its not the smallest or lightest of options but its not particularly big and heavy either like previous gen f1.4 lenses.
 
Last edited:
leaky5 said:
Does anyone know if the screw drive of the La-ea5 works with Minolta lenses on the A7 ii ?
Click to expand...

I looked it up on the Sony site for you - no, there's no AF with screw drive lenses. You need the LA-EA4. As far as I can see the 5 doesn't have a built-in focus motor, which is why it's much smaller than the older adaptors.

FWIW I have a 4 that works fine with screw drive lenses. The AF system is built into the adaptor and is the same as in the SLT cameras.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Tbh with you I am not sure what you are hoping to gain from a manual 35mm f2....
There some small light 35mm options with AF these days... Samyang 35mm f1.8, Sony 35mm f1.8, Sigma 35mm f2. All review pretty well.
Loxias aren't cheap and when they came out seemed like a great option but things have moved on and so has optics.

Voigtlander APO lanthar lenses aims for very high optical quality. May be that is something worth paying for.
but once again I am not sure how much better it is compared to the above AF options.
Click to expand...

Lenses today are better than they've ever been but manual lenses can offer things besides image quality. They're tactile, involving and some of them are compact compared to modern AF lenses. For me it not about image quality at all, it's mainly about the experience of using them plus the bulk and weight savings do come into it too for me. They're not for everyone though and an expensive buy could be regretted after any honeymoon period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top