I can on my A7RIII iirc. The animal eyeAF was practically useless so I don't bother with it at all.Anybody know if you can set the Animal or Human eye detection to a custom button so you can easily switch without having to go through the menu?
Anybody know if you can set the Animal or Human eye detection to a custom button so you can easily switch without having to go through the menu?
If anyone needs another view on the Sony 35mm f1.8 here's a review from Phillip Reeve...
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-35mm-f1-8/
To sum it all up...
"The Sony FE 1.8/35 is a very well balanced lens. It is very sharp, for most applications. It has pleasant bokeh at short to medium distances and becomes a bit harsher at longer distances but so does almost any competing 35mm. In general it corrects all aberrations good enough so that you need to push it for them to become distracting. At the same time it handles well thanks to quick AF, ok MF and useful buttons without any quirks. And the 1.8/35 manages all that while being rather small and significantly lighter than most competing E-mount lenses. Therefore I would say that the Sony 1.8/35 will easily keep up with most photographer’s expectations. Only the price seems to be maybe $100 too high at the moment and I hope that we will see it come down a bit with time."
I do agree with that. The bokeh has been criticised by some but I think it's pretty much good for a 35mm f1.8 or at least in line with what I'd expect and what I've seen from other 35mm lenses but as I've never used the new expensive bigger 35mm Art and GM type lenses maybe they are better at f1.8. I haven't seen much ca to worry about and imo if you have to go to 100% with back lit examples to make it an issue it's not something I'm too upset about and no one I show pictures to is going to ever notice even if I point it out I think it's ok to quite good actually if not truly exceptional for a lens of this sort and at this level. It's a shame it isn't as good as the 55mm f1.8. It may be overpriced but I think it's worth it in todays market and in todays terms for the overall image quality and the close focus ability. If it didn't have that close focus ability I'd be much less happy
Big? It's the smallest and lightest 1.8?My search for the perfect 35mm lens for me goes on but although this lens is bigger than I'd probably unrealistically hoped it would be the good points seem to be that it's sharp from f1.8 with what seems to me to be high contrast, it's fast to focus and it has that close up ability. The disappointing or really maybe no better than I could realistically expect being some ca in some situations and not having the best bokeh in the world at some distances for messy stuff like foliage.
I haven't been able to take many pictures in the last couple of weeks but when I can I've been using my Voigtlander manual focus lenses
Big? It's the smallest and lightest 1.8?
After seeing the leaked specs of the 1DX-III I can’t see Sony winning over the legions of Canon Pro Sports shooters this year. Which did seem to be something they wanted.
After seeing the leaked specs of the 1DX-III I can’t see Sony winning over the legions of Canon Pro Sports shooters this year. Which did seem to be something they wanted.
I’d like to see a 24 1.8 priced around same as 35 1.8
Won't happen 24mm is supposed to be one of the most difficult primes to make, they couldn't do it at the same price as the 35mm. Even with the old Nikon DSLR lenses the 24 f/1.8 is a couple of hundred quid more expensive than the 35 f/1.8.
The Sigma arts are the same price? Even though they’re 1.4. To be fair the Nikon one is £650 anything around that mark would be pretty fair.
I’d like to see a 24 1.8 priced around same as 35 1.8
Won't happen 24mm is supposed to be one of the most difficult primes to make, they couldn't do it at the same price as the 35mm. Even with the old Nikon DSLR lenses the 24 f/1.8 is a couple of hundred quid more expensive than the 35 f/1.8.
It'll be about rendering.Anyone fancy switching to Nikon to use that $7,999 50mm f0.95?
I can see the appeal of a 50mm f0.95 but is light that much of an issue? And if going for subject isolation that's the equivalent of about f1.6 at 85mm so another idea is to just buy a 85mm f1.4 and stand back a bit.
Just thinking
Anyone fancy switching to Nikon to use that $7,999 50mm f0.95?
I can see the appeal of a 50mm f0.95 but is light that much of an issue? And if going for subject isolation that's the equivalent of about f1.6 at 85mm so another idea is to just buy a 85mm f1.4 and stand back a bit.
Just thinking
PS.
Interesting comments on the Sony rumor site. People still saying that the Sony mount can't have f0.95 lenses. Amazing.
Just demonstrates how messed up Nikon’s priorities are.
I suppose it depends how many recourses they've put into it (50mm f0.95) and how much revenue it generates either through sales or through attracting people to the system. This has certainly got people on forums chattering as have the f2 zooms and fast primes for Canon.
I am a bit phased at the thought that people might be attracted to a system because of lenses they'll never buy but I suppose it could happen, in fact it probably will happen.
Just demonstrates how messed up Nikon’s priorities are.
I would argue that the F/2.0 zooms is actually useful in real life whereas the 0.95 Nikon isn't for the very fact that it is manual focus. It becomes a practical issue rather than a cost issue, as there will always be people who don't even look at the price and buy it but if you are not going to be able to use it in a job then no matter how cheap it is, you just won't buy it.
Generally speaking.
This is what happens when you let marketing department set priorities and take control.
They milked the large mount so much that in the end it worked to their detriment! Their lenses are larger (the Z24/1.8 is larger that 24GM!), Less sharp, and subpar AF. But they all have less CA.
I was expecting them to be trouncing FE lenses not just have better CA control!
Never said it had anything to do with mount size but that's all they seem have achieved after claiming they had hit gold with their mount designI don't think ca is a function of the mount size though or even lens size. I read a bit recently about it and I think that was the gist but designing out ca could add to complexity and thus size, maybe. I don't believe it's anything to do with mount size though and we'll soon have another apo lens for e mount, the Voigtlander 50mm f2.
If anyone doesn't know about apo there's a wiki thingy on it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apochromat
I don't know why it should be so difficult or expensive and isn't the short flange distance supposed to be an advantage at the wider end? Sigma used to do a reasonably priced 24mm f1.8 which was supposedly pretty close to the 20mm f1.8 I had. That 20mm was excellent across the frame when stopped down and I expect the 24mm was too. Actually I've just checked a review and they say it was If Sony will do it or not is another question but I'll eat my shorts if it's beyond them to make a reasonably priced one for any technical reason.
I'm sure you can use lenses like this for some jobs. I can't remember the exact details but Leica once made a very expensive fast prime because a film producer wanted it. It was so expensive that I don't think they ever said how much it would cost to buy.
There must be some applications for lenses like this but they must be niche and maybe pro use isn't at the top of Nikons expectations. Golly knows what their expectations are. Halo product selling in tiny numbers I expect. The only f0.95 lens I've ever used was the 25mm one I had for MFT but someone here must have had a FF one.
Is the lcd on the A7III and the A9 the same size?
I have an A9 on it's way to me and I have a couple of spare A7III screen protectors.
That sort of lens is good for taking nude portraits u want to be safe for viewing lolNo fashion jobs, because if you eyes is in focus, everything else will be out of focus meaning all the clothing you are trying to sell is blur. So you won't buy this for that kind of jobs.
It is nothing more than a Halo lens, a collector's piece, it is impractical in use, size, weight and cost.
And they also failed to make it auto focus...so much for the big mount and R&D. I really don't understand why they can't make it auto focus. The 50/1.0 is in a much smaller body is, from 20 years ago. I would have thought with the Mirrorless tech and sensor focusing this would make is much easier now, or they just can't be bothered. Is it the size limitation? They can't fit it in that barrel even though it is massive?
I see this lens as an own goal in saying they lack the know-how to make an autofocus lens in 2019, as opposed to choosing deliberately not making it auto focus..
edit:After seeing the leaked specs of the 1DX-III I can’t see Sony winning over the legions of Canon Pro Sports shooters this year. Which did seem to be something they wanted.
The advantage for wider lenses is that they can be smaller due to the short flange distance that still doesn't mean that wider lenses are easier to make. 24mm for whatever reason is more difficult to manufacture, so more expensive.
Every single mirrorless lens that has launches so far has been a fair bit more expensive than it's older DSLR equivalent. 24mm lenses have always been more expsive than 35mm lenses. Why would a 24mm f/1.8 be any different?
No fashion jobs, because if you eyes is in focus, everything else will be out of focus meaning all the clothing you are trying to sell is blur. So you won't buy this for that kind of jobs.
It is nothing more than a Halo lens, a collector's piece, it is impractical in use, size, weight and cost.
And they also failed to make it auto focus...so much for the big mount and R&D. I really don't understand why they can't make it auto focus. The 50/1.0 is in a much smaller body is, from 20 years ago. I would have thought with the Mirrorless tech and sensor focusing this would make is much easier now, or they just can't be bothered. Is it the size limitation? They can't fit it in that barrel even though it is massive?
I see this lens as an own goal in saying they lack the know-how to make an autofocus lens in 2019, as opposed to choosing deliberately not making it auto focus..
That sort of lens is good for taking nude portraits u want to be safe for viewing lol
I doubt having 28mp and 30 fps are the only features which make a difference.... what about AF, Silent black-out free shooting, Body size and connectivity features etc?edit:
just saw. 28mp at 30fps? thats more like it.
A9 have dropped the ball BIG time if this 1dx3 turns out to have those two features