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

Hmmm - was going to suggest checking Live View display setting... Does it affect EVF and rear-screen?
 
Durbs said:
Does this mean it focusses wide open with a f8 or smaller? ;)
Click to expand...

it focuses as it should do - i.e. if i stop it down to f8 it will expose correctly for f8. but what the evf and lcd show before i take the shot is the exposure at f1.3.

I've just tested on the 35mm and its fine. its with the canon 85mm f1.2 that this is happening - so perhaps its an issue with the adapter.
have gone through the dire menu and don't seem to have changed anything. taken the battery grip off, changed batteries etc. :thinking:
 
Does sound like it's just the way the adaptor is controlling the Canon aperture. Maybe the adaptor is programmed to focus wide open to improve performance as it's stopping the aperture down correctly when you actually take the shot. If your native lenses are stopping down as you change the aperture there's no issue with your camera.
 
addicknchips said:
it focuses as it should do - i.e. if i stop it down to f8 it will expose correctly for f8. but what the evf and lcd show before i take the shot is the exposure at f1.3.

I've just tested on the 35mm and its fine. its with the canon 85mm f1.2 that this is happening - so perhaps its an issue with the adapter.
have gone through the dire menu and don't seem to have changed anything. taken the battery grip off, changed batteries etc. :thinking:
Click to expand...
Sell everything you have and just grab a d850. Boom
 
stevelmx5 said:
Does sound like it's just the way the adaptor is controlling the Canon aperture. Maybe the adaptor is programmed to focus wide open to improve performance as it's stopping the aperture down correctly when you actually take the shot. If your native lenses are stopping down as you change the aperture there's no issue with your camera.
Click to expand...

This is correct for canon. Sigma lenses will operate as per native.
 
Last edited:
Metalenses move a step closer...

https://www.dpreview.com/news/46571...ugh-will-revolutionize-lenses-as-we-know-them

I wonder when we'll all be using these? 5 years? 10? 15? Who knows?

I can't be bothered Googling too much but I assume there'll be zooms like this one day and maybe there'll no more inconvenient one focal length only primes :D Maybe we'll just need one lens and it'll be a 10-300mm f0.95 with no CA or other optical nasties :D It'll be interesting to see where this technology or another something like it will go within our lifetimes.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Shame it's not a very exciting lens with regards to aperture but I guess the focus for Sony is to keep the overall size/weight down. Then again, it's still nearly £600 for a variable aperture so they're still not bothered about ridiculous prices :0)
Click to expand...

I've just checked Wex and they have the Fuji 18-135 f3.5-5.6 listed at £699. They also have a Panny 14-140 variable for £549, a similar Oly is cheaper at £489. That's when I stopped looking.

Maybe you can get a Brikon for something in the region of £400 or maybe there's a third party lens or three even cheaper but I'd pay a premium not to use a Brikon :D

So all in all maybe £600 for a Sony doesn't seem all that ridiculous, does it? Or are we back to thinking nothing made by Sony should cost more than one of their DVD players?
:D

And a PS.
One of the things that stops me getting an A6xxx is the lack of a standard f2.8 zoom but I suppose it would be rather large and on the expensive side. I did rate the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 I had very highly and that lens was very reasonably priced too but even though it was quite compact I think it'd be on the large side on an A6xxx.

The Fuji standard f2.8 is up at Wex for £899 so obviously any future Sony equivalent should be £250 :D

EDIT just for Steve... :D

And a PSS.
One of the things that stops me getting an A6xxx is the lack of a standard f2.8 zoom but I suppose it would be rather large and on the expensive side. I did rate the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 I had very highly and that lens was very reasonably priced too but even though it was quite compact I think it'd be on the large side on an A6xxx so maybe I'd buy a used one, if I decided I could live with the bulk and weight.
 
Last edited:
£600 for a variable aperture zoom is still £600. The fact that other manufacturers are similar priced doesn’t change that (meaning they’re all over priced for what they offer).

Shooting static flowers or posed portraits in good light/studio doesn’t need fixed aperture zooms but for anything remotely challenging you need constant 2.8. I used to shoot with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 when I used Canon and it’s an excellent lens for its’ price. Might not be L standard with regards to build/noise but it delivers. That’s the kind of lens Sony should be delivering if they want people to see their APS-C system in a more professional light.
 
I’ve just seen your edit where you’ve contradicted yourself entirely. So you’d buy an A6k series camera if there was a constant aperture zoom available but you don’t think £600 is overpriced for a variable aperture zoom?
 
stevelmx5 said:
£600 for a variable aperture zoom is still £600. The fact that other manufacturers are similar priced doesn’t change that (meaning they’re all over priced for what they offer). Shooting static subjects in good light doesn’t need fixed aperture zooms but for anything remotely challenging you need constant 2.8. I used to shoot with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 when I used Canon and it’s an excellent lens for its’ price. Might not be L standard with regards to build/noise but it delivers. That’s the kind of lens Sony should be delivering if they want people to see their APS-C system in a more professional light.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Well, what do you want?

If you want a decent standard to longish zoom that's what they seem to cost so having a pop at Sony for charging what seems to be about / give or take the going rate seems a bit (and after a bit of comparative Googling and reflection) rather ridiculous, no?

I can understand the knee jerk reaction and I do I agree that as a breed they're rather expensive but I'm not on the net having a pop at Sony for charging £100 quid less than Fuji. You are.

stevelmx5 said:
I’ve just seen your edit where you’ve contradicted yourself entirely. So you’d buy an A6k series camera if there was a constant aperture zoom available but you don’t think £600 is overpriced for a variable aperture zoom?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't contradicted myself.

Yes I do think that £600 is expensive but the other manufacturers are selling them for around that price so maybe it's about right. The difference is that I'm not venting on the net about ridiculous Sony prices as at first I did a bit of a double take and then I checked what the other stuff is up for at Wex and calmed down a bit and now I accept that if you want one of these lenses £600 seems to be in the ball park. No?

And on the standard f2.8's. What I posted is that one of the things that stops me buying into the A6xxx is that there's no standard f2.8 zoom but even if there was one it'd probably be on the large side and expensive. To keep you happy I'll add the following....

"so maybe I'd buy a used one, if I could live with the bulk and weight." :D

I own a 12-35mm f2.8 for my Panny cameras and it's an excellent lens and I would take a look at any future A6xxx with a standard f2.8 but I'd probably come to the same conclusion that I always come to when I look at the A6xxx, that there's not a lot of point moving from MFT.
 
Last edited:
As you mentioned Nikon, here’s a direct comparison to the Sony from Canon;

18-135 F3.5-5.6 IS - £376

IMG_9938.jpg

As I said, I think all of the mirrorless manufacturers are taking the proverbial with their lens prices. I think that’s a result of the limited lens lineup (I appreciate that their systems are considerably younger than CaNikon) which means amateur photographers have somehow come to accept pedestrian lenses being over £500.

If Canon can deliver the exact same lens specification for nearly half the price, what’s stopping Sony/Fuji etc?

As for venting, I merely suggested that, from an actual lens specification, the new Sony offering is overpriced. You were the one that jumped to their defence. My last 3 digital systems have all been Sony so I’m not a hater, just a realist.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
As you mentioned Nikon, here’s a direct comparison to the Sony from Canon...

You were the one that jumped to their defence. My last 3 digital systems have all been Sony so I’m not a hater, just a realist.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just taking a rather more balanced view and sorry to labour the point but your initial "ridiculous" reaction does seem a little OTT to me.

Yes a brikon is cheaper and I knew that before Googling but while that way is cheaper it introduces a whole load of issues and takes away a load of things I've come to value. I've moved on from DSLR's and frankly apart from the odd mad rose tinted moment they no longer interest me so I don't really care what a brikon system costs as I'm not going to buy it. These days I only care what the gear I'm likely to buy costs and by that criteria this new lens doesn't seem all that ridiculously priced... even though in reality I'm only passingly interested and in reality I'd probably never buy it as regardless of the price it's really not my sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm not defending anyone, I'm just taking a rather more balanced view and sorry to labour the point but your initial "ridiculous" reaction does seem a little OTT to me.

Yes a brikon is cheaper and I knew that before Googling but while that way is cheaper it introduces a whole load of issues and takes away a load of things I've come to value. I've moved on from DSLR's and frankly apart from the odd mad rose tinted moment they no longer interest me so I don't really care what a brikon system costs as I'm not going to buy it. These days I only care what the gear I'm likely to buy costs and by that criteria this new lens doesn't seem all that ridiculously priced... even though I reality I'd probably never buy it as regardless of the price it's really not my sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but I'm simply looking at the technical specifications of each lens, I couldn't really care which system they're for. At the end of the day, Canon sell a pedestrian 18-135 lens with IS that covers their APS-C sensor for £376 whereas Sony/Fuji sell their equally pedestrian variable aperture 18-135 lenses for twice the price. My reason for suggesting the Sony price was ridiculous (I didn't bother seeing if Fuji did the same) was that I would personally struggle to justify spending £600 on a lens that is going to be F5.6 at the long end. If I was using my Sony APS-C system for anything where I'm making money (e.g. weddings) I would need much better lens specification. Being realistic, any of the 18-135 F3.5-5.6 are more likely to used by amateurs than jobbing togs and maybe some people would see £600 as a reasonable price but each to their own.

I should probably add full disclosure, I've been considering a move back to Canon from my A7 because of the fact I can pick up a constant aperture standard zoom for a reasonable price (that will autofocus in lower light), even allowing for the increased size of the kit. However, to give the A7 a last chance, I've just picked up an OM Zuiko 35/2.8 and am waiting for a Samyang 85/1.4 to arrive tomorrow so I can skip AF entirely and just manually focus.
 
Last edited:
The Sony may be pedestrian in aperture range... as in uninspiring to keen amateurs who like f1.x primes and f2.8 zooms not f3.5 to 5.6 zooms... but of good optical quality and if so that may go some way towards justifying a higher price than a rather average optically wise brikon, if they are rather average and I suspect that some of them are.

You have to also take into account the tech, the focus type (USM etc...) the type and effectiveness of any IS, build quality, the optical performance and the lack of competition and all these can lead to a higher price. Yes, Sony or Tamron or Sigma could probably do it for a lot less than £600 especially if they cut a corner or two but at the moment the biggest factor is what Sony think they can sell it for and in the CSC market £600 looks about right. In a while they'll probably be at Wex with cashback and on the used market for a sort of tempting price maybe... I bought my 12-35mm f2.8 used and there's no way I'd pay the new price for this sort of lens as my home seems to be in the 35-50mm f1.2-8 range :D and I only occasionally use zooms of any description.

Good luck with the decision. I can see the reasoning but the larger bulk and the look at the P**** with the camera factor and the loss of the EVF and all that brings and the possibility of getting into the whole MA faff on mean that I'll only go back to DSLR's with a gun to my head. I seem to get by in low light with my manual lenses and also with my MFT primes which are still pretty fast for low light indoor photos.

Maybe you could take a look at the Minolta 35mm f1.8? It's not great at f1.8, I've posted examples in this thread, but it's useable.

No luck with the Artisans?
 
woof woof said:
The Sony may be pedestrian in aperture range... as in uninspiring to keen amateurs who like f1.x primes and f2.8 zooms not f3.5 to 5.6 zooms... but of good optical quality and if so that may go some way towards justifying a higher price than a rather average optically wise brikon, if they are rather average and I suspect that some of them are.

You have to also take into account the tech, the focus type (USM etc...) the type and effectiveness of any IS, build quality, the optical performance and the lack of competition and all these can lead to a higher price. Yes, Sony or Tamron or Sigma could probably do it for a lot less than £600 especially if they cut a corner or two but at the moment the biggest factor is what Sony think they can sell it for and in the CSC market £600 looks about right. In a while they'll probably be at Wex with cashback and on the used market for a sort of tempting price maybe... I bought my 12-35mm f2.8 used and there's no way I'd pay the new price for this sort of lens as my home seems to be in the 35-50mm f1.2-8 range :D and I only occasionally use zooms of any description.

Good luck with the decision. I can see the reasoning but the larger bulk and the look at the P**** with the camera factor and the loss of the EVF and all that brings and the possibility of getting into the whole MA faff on mean that I'll only go back to DSLR's with a gun to my head. I seem to get by in low light with my manual lenses and also with my MFT primes which are still pretty fast for low light indoor photos.

Maybe you could take a look at the Minolta 35mm f1.8? It's not great at f1.8, I've posted examples in this thread, but it's useable.

No luck with the Artisans?
Click to expand...


lol. what lens did you have on when they shouted that at you?
 
woof woof said:
The Sony may be pedestrian in aperture range... as in uninspiring to keen amateurs who like f1.x primes and f2.8 zooms not f3.5 to 5.6 zooms... but of good optical quality and if so that may go some way towards justifying a higher price than a rather average optically wise brikon, if they are rather average and I suspect that some of them are.

You have to also take into account the tech, the focus type (USM etc...) the type and effectiveness of any IS, build quality, the optical performance and the lack of competition and all these can lead to a higher price. Yes, Sony or Tamron or Sigma could probably do it for a lot less than £600 especially if they cut a corner or two but at the moment the biggest factor is what Sony think they can sell it for and in the CSC market £600 looks about right. In a while they'll probably be at Wex with cashback and on the used market for a sort of tempting price maybe... I bought my 12-35mm f2.8 used and there's no way I'd pay the new price for this sort of lens as my home seems to be in the 35-50mm f1.2-8 range :D and I only occasionally use zooms of any description.

Good luck with the decision. I can see the reasoning but the larger bulk and the look at the P**** with the camera factor and the loss of the EVF and all that brings and the possibility of getting into the whole MA faff on mean that I'll only go back to DSLR's with a gun to my head. I seem to get by in low light with my manual lenses and also with my MFT primes which are still pretty fast for low light indoor photos.

Maybe you could take a look at the Minolta 35mm f1.8? It's not great at f1.8, I've posted examples in this thread, but it's useable.

No luck with the Artisans?
Click to expand...

Maybe I just don’t fit the profile but nobody has ever shouted, “look at the P****”, at me, regardless of the camera I’m using? Maybe you’re just aiming at the wrong subjects.. [emoji6]

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that the Canon is cheaper because it’s poor whereas the Sony/Fuji must be great because they’re twice the price. Maybe Sony/Fuji are just trying to squeeze more money out of their users?

I’ve been speaking to Hamish Gill about the 35/2 7Artisan and he’s quite impressed with it on his A7 so it may be where I end up but for the time being I’m going to see how I get on with the OM Zuiko. I’ve also got the OM Zuiko 35/2.8 Shift which is a really sharp lens but about twice the weight of the standard prime so not really what I want as a walkabout but is great as an architecture lens.
 
Last edited:
I'm really not sure which direction to go in for a longer lens, one option would be the 70-200 F2.8 then add a teleconverter , wait a long while and then go for the 100-400, or the most likely one go for a used Canon 400 f5.6 with the MC-11, I just wish I could find someone who's tried that combo to see how fast it focus's
 
addicknchips said:
lol. what lens did you have on when they shouted that at you?
Click to expand...

Where I live isn't the best area and yes, I've had my share of abuse and aggression but mostly it's the accusing looks. I'm much more comfortable taking pictures when I'm with someone else like the Mrs. Dunno if I actually look like a pervert though, I'll leave that to others to decide :D Wanting to be less noticeable and more discrete was a part of why I wanted to move away from DSLR's.
 
Got Sigma 16mm F/1.4 today and tested it on the Sony A7R II.
On a full frame after cropping the vignetting, still usable around 30MPx, and in Super 35mm it delvers as well.

Very happy :)
 
stevelmx5 said:
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that the Canon is cheaper because it’s poor whereas the Sony/Fuji must be great because they’re twice the price. Maybe Sony/Fuji are just trying to squeeze more money out of their users?
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I said but I do remember reading some reviews that concluded that they weren't exactly stellar.

The only short to long lens I've ever had was a Sigma 28-300mm which was my first digital era lens and I took some of my favourite pictures with it but in all measureable ways it was probably waaaaaay below being noteworthy. I'm sure that things have moved on a bit in DSLR land but I'd still expect some of the longer range zooms going for significantly less than £600 to be pushing it a bit.

Lets wait until the new Sony has been reviewed a few times before lambasting it too much.
 
photosample said:
Got Sigma 16mm F/1.4 today and tested it on the Sony A7R II.
On a full frame after cropping the vignetting, still usable around 30MPx, and in Super 35mm it delvers as well.

Very happy :)
Click to expand...

That's interesting... Any chance of a full frame test image?

OK. Seen them in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
That's not quite what I said but I do remember reading some reviews that concluded that they weren't exactly stellar.

The only short to long lens I've ever had was a Sigma 28-300mm which was my first digital era lens and I took some of my favourite pictures with it but in all measureable ways it was probably waaaaaay below being noteworthy. I'm sure that things have moved on a bit in DSLR land but I'd still expect some of the longer range zooms going for significantly less than £600 to be pushing it a bit.

Lets wait until the new Sony has been reviewed a few times before lambasting it too much.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure you’re really getting my point Alan. The Sony 18-135 could be the best made lens in the world but it doesn’t bend physics. It’s still a variable aperture and a slow F5.6 at the long end. I’d expect most lenses on a crop sensor to be sharp at F5.6 anyway.

I agree that reviews will be useful but the Canon lens is relatively new as well as far as I know so I’d expect a similar performance although the Sony sensors will be better than the Canon equivalent but 18-135 isn’t exactly superzoom territory. I used to use the 55-250 on my crop Canons and the results from that were considerably better than its’ £120 price would suggest, so cheap doesn’t always mean poor quality.
 
Last edited:
Steve, my point was that you initially posted that Sony had introduced this lens at a ridiculous price. Even though other comparable mirrorless lenses are similarly priced and considering that you're saying this before anyone has had the chance to review the lens. I think you were being premature and too selective although to give you credit once I pointed out the cost of similar lenses from Fuji et al you then lambasted the other mirrorless makers too :D

Yes, I get your point. These lenses aren't exactly my cup of tea either and yes I know that you can get a similar zoom and aperture range DSLR lens for a lot less. I get all that. I just think you're going off on one a bit too soon and being a bit too selective in your criticisms but I've said my bit now multiple times and it's time for me to move on.

The prices are there to compare and pretty soon the reviews will be up to and at that point anyone interested can make an informed decision.

I'm not a fan boy but I do tire of the endless posts in this thread lambasting Sony for charging waaay too much when in calmer moments if we look at the whole picture without our Sony bashing gloves on we see that's often not the case.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
That's interesting... Any chance of a full frame test image?

OK. Seen them in the other thread.
Click to expand...

Check the other thread and the link - I got some full frame samples, but it was just random shots today, to get the feel and how it deliver.
Will do more tests these days, but to be honest for this price, it is very very good.

On 42MPX when you shoot in Full frame mode, after cropping the vignette, still have around 30-31 MPx usable and very sharp, which suits me.
Also very close focusing distance.

Well, I like it :)
 
Last edited:
I'm still chuckling from the "look at the P**** with the camera" comment .. however moving on quick question guys

I'm weighing up the various options around the lenses available for the A7R III - considering that the camera has built in stabilisation. How would that work with the "OSS" lenses - is it just a case of switching it off (lens or camera?), do they complement each other or is there a possibility that Sony may consider releasing equivalent OSS lenses with no OSS? (hope that makes sense).
 
razor777 said:
I'm still chuckling from the "look at the P**** with the camera" comment .. however moving on quick question guys

I'm weighing up the various options around the lenses available for the A7R III - considering that the camera has built in stabilisation. How would that work with the "OSS" lenses - is it just a case of switching it off (lens or camera?), do they complement each other or is there a possibility that Sony may consider releasing equivalent OSS lenses with no OSS? (hope that makes sense).
Click to expand...

The glass with OSS works together with the ibis without conflict and should result in slightly improved stability. I don’t think there’s any chance of a OSS and non OSS version being realised.
 
addicknchips said:
The glass with OSS works together with the ibis without conflict and should result in slightly improved stability. I don’t think there’s any chance of a OSS and non OSS version being realised.
Click to expand...

Thanks, yeah I thought the same (in terms of OSS non OSS) - I'm interested in them both working together as if anything I would have thought that one would trigger the other one to stabilise resulting in perhaps more blurred picture so great news.
 
woof woof said:
Steve, my point was that you initially posted that Sony had introduced this lens at a ridiculous price. Even though other comparable mirrorless lenses are similarly priced and considering that you're saying this before anyone has had the chance to review the lens. I think you were being premature and too selective although to give you credit once I pointed out the cost of similar lenses from Fuji et al you then lambasted the other mirrorless makers too :D

Yes, I get your point. These lenses aren't exactly my cup of tea either and yes I know that you can get a similar zoom and aperture range DSLR lens for a lot less. I get all that. I just think you're going off on one a bit too soon and being a bit too selective in your criticisms but I've said my bit now multiple times and it's time for me to move on.

The prices are there to compare and pretty soon the reviews will be up to and at that point anyone interested can make an informed decision.

I'm not a fan boy but I do tire of the endless posts in this thread lambasting Sony for charging waaay too much when in calmer moments if we look at the whole picture without our Sony bashing gloves on we see that's often not the case.
Click to expand...

As I said Alan, let’s agree to disagree as I think we’re seeing this from different directions. I’m seeing a slow, expensive kit lens and you’re justifying it because everyone else does it too.

I admit that nobody has seen a review yet but it’s just not a lens spec that I’d consider paying anything like £600 for so let’s leave it there [emoji1303]
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top