- Messages
- 24,181
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Tempted by the 28 f2.0 at £260 compared to buying used.
its a really nice lens. possibly one my favourites.
But i found myself using it mostly 80-110mm for portraits. So I decided to go back to a 85mm f1.4.
It's very quick to focus on the A9, haven't tried it on the A6500 yet. I bought mainly to get shots of the grandchildren tearing about, I found a prime too restrictive in those conditions. For portraits I stick to my 90mm macro lens, it's amazingly sharp, some say too sharp for portraits!its a really nice lens. possibly one my favourites.
But i found myself using it mostly 80-110mm for portraits. So I decided to go back to a 85mm f1.4.
Good to see this lens being used. I've got the Sigma Trinity (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) but haven't yet had much chance to try them on my A6500.Well, after the rain stopped, I drove out around 2am to try some night photography on my new a6600. I tested the camera to Imaging Edge smartphone wi-fi connection I was asking about and it really does work well! The remote on the app will come in handy. I didn't use it though, I did handheld. The ibis seems to work very well. I was down to 1/15 to 1/8 of a second shutter speed on some. A little noisy because of the high iso. These are my first ever photos with the new camera and the Sigma 16mm 1.4, some shots around a quiet hilly road in Hampstead near Flask Walk. I came across ghosts though! Also, a pub near me in Finchley. I couldn't decide which ones to upload so there's a few, lol.
Ghosts 5 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Door 2 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Stag 1 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Ghosts 2 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Ghosts 4 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
White Bear by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Ghosts 1 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Is the 50mm f1.8 any good, Amazon deal seems good.
It's the f1.8 that interests me most for any low light stuff. Next fastest lens is my 35 f2.8.
That's why I have a 85/1.4 and 105/14, and not a 135/1.8.
It's very quick to focus on the A9, haven't tried it on the A6500 yet. I bought mainly to get shots of the grandchildren tearing about, I found a prime too restrictive in those conditions. For portraits I stick to my 90mm macro lens, it's amazingly sharp, some say too sharp for portraits!
I'm not a portrait person but is there really that much difference between 85mm and 105mm to justify the cost of both?I wish there was a smaller 105/1.4 like the nikon. the sigma is just a monster!
I bought the 70-180mm for similar reasons i.e. shooting my 3 year old playing. might rebuy it again next year for this reason but at the moment we are stuck at home this year not doing much. so an 85mm f1.4 is a better option for me indoors
I'm not a portrait person but is there really that much difference between 85mm and 105mm to justify the cost of both?
Ordered the 50 f1.8 if I don't like it I doubt I'd loose anything selling it on.
What’s the ‘pop’ like?I have this lens and it's a bloody good piece of glass for the money.
I haven't found the AF to be that slow either.
I had one - excellent optics, but focus so poor I returned it. Now have a Zeiss 55, and it's all round better.Is the 50mm f1.8 any good, Amazon deal seems good.
I'd hope so for 4 times the price. I can live with poor AF on this sort of lens.I had one - excellent optics, but focus so poor I returned it. Now have a Zeiss 55, and it's all round better.
What’s the ‘pop’ like?
I'd hope so for 4 times the price. I can live with poor AF on this sort of lens.
Very nice pic, but no that's not what I meant. It's the 3D and/or subject isolation of a lens, I really like lenses that have 3D 'pop' like thisNot really sure what that means.
Took this with it Sunday. Used the 18mm and 28-70 for the other shots.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jSy1mb]Waterfall on the River Neath by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
I think you mean depth of field Toby.
Not really sure what that means.
Took this with it Sunday. Used the 18mm and 28-70 for the other shots.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jSy1mb]Waterfall on the River Neath by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
That was how I sold the purchase of the 70-180 to my wife. I just had to say the word "grandchildren" twice and it was game overIf The kids would keep still I would have got the FE135 f1.8 but they just tear around so the FE 70/200 f2.8 is perfect for me for portraits in the Garden over a fixed focal length.
Rob.
Not really tbh, as above different lenses have different micro contrast and different ways they transition from focus to out of focus areas etc giving lenses a more 3D appearance, some a kind of Brenizer appearance .I think you mean depth of field Toby.
Not really tbh, as above different lenses have different micro contrast and different ways they transition from focus to out of focus areas etc giving lenses a more 3D appearance, some a kind of Brenizer appearance .
It's very quick to focus on the A9, haven't tried it on the A6500 yet. I bought mainly to get shots of the grandchildren tearing about, I found a prime too restrictive in those conditions. For portraits I stick to my 90mm macro lens, it's amazingly sharp, some say too sharp for portraits!
Hi Laurence I have the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 do you think - your new lens is comparable with this, given the price difference???
Les
Hi Les, I haven’t used the Sony so I have no direct comparison to make but I looked carefully at all the reviews and in particular the technical tests. It seemed to come out ahead. The only things that it couldn’t match with the Sony was the absence of image stabilisation and a tripod collar. A third party collar is available and the stabilisation issue is easily overcome. Have a look at Dustin Abbotts review.Hi Laurence I have the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 do you think - your new lens is comparable with this, given the price difference???
Les
Hi Les, I haven’t used the Sony so I have no direct comparison to make but I looked carefully at all the reviews and in particular the technical tests. It seemed to come out ahead. The only things that it couldn’t match with the Sony was the absence of image stabilisation and a tripod collar. A third party collar is available and the stabilisation issue is easily overcome. Have a look at Dustin Abbotts review.
The Sony 2.8 apparently weighs as much as the 100-400, the 70-180‘s weight seems negligible in comparison and it’s really “dinky” in size. I did some tests yesterday in the garden and I’m well satisfied.