- Messages
- 8,531
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- No
You need to own one TobyVery nice, this and the 35mm GM certainly do render beautifully, definitely my kind of look.
You need to own one TobyVery nice, this and the 35mm GM certainly do render beautifully, definitely my kind of look.
You need to own one Toby
Too pricey for me I'm afraid, especially considering the number of times I'd use it.You need to own one Toby
Too pricey for me I'm afraid, especially considering the number of times I'd use it.
What's using got to do with anythingToo pricey for me I'm afraid, especially considering the number of times I'd use it.
Do it. It’s sublimeBeen eyeing up the 50mm 1.2 GM recently but not sure I can drop £2k on a lens!
Ken Rockwell has "reviews" of the little Sony 24 f2.8 and 40mm and 50mm f2.5 lenses. His reviews and comments are sometimes maybe questionable but the facts and figures and even the reviews may be interesting.
Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G Review
www.kenrockwell.com
Sony FE 40mm f/2.5 G Review
www.kenrockwell.com
Sony FE 50mm f/2.5 G Review
www.kenrockwell.com
I do keep looking at these but as I have the old Sony 35mm f2.8 maybe there's no point.
Perhaps you missed the silver 'G' badgeI was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
Should be £150I was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
What's using got to do with anything
The A6000 is a great little camera.Hi all
Does getting a a6000 with a sigma 30mm 1.4 make sense. A6000 seem to be going for good money and the 30mm gets good write ups. This is for a 17 year old who wants to get into photography. I've currently got a Fuji xt1 but dont think this would be the best for newbies and can see him getting a bit put off by the dials. Also with the sony eco system he has more of a upgrade path than I have on Fuji.
Cheers all
It was the kit we were looking at getting cheers. I'll have a look at the Sony 35mm today.The A6000 is a great little camera.
The Sigma is a nice lens, but personally I opted for the Sony 35 f/1.8 OSS instead, as the A6000 lacks IBIS and in low light I gain more from the slower shutter speeds OSS allows than I would by going to f/1.4 over f/1.8.
I'd also consider getting the 16-50 kit lens - it's a lot better than many will claim (particularly if you use it stopped down a touch, and use lens profiles to correct distortion, etc), is very small and light, gives a decent amount of flexibility in focal length, and is very cheap when bought as a kit!
I was having a quick look, the Sony 50mm f2.5 on camerapricebuster come at £629, gosh that is insane money for that kind of lens. Am I missing something? I think it should be half that price.
You are of course correct but it is very difficult to get into that mindset, especially when you are so accustomed to the nifty fifty. I still baulk at the price of the 35mm f2.8 and I can't see this ever changing, however I do appreciate that it is a good lens. I got a good price on a used one, however even after owning one I struggled to see why it is a £600+ lens.Because its small or because it's f2.5 or because the optical quality isn't there? Or all of these?
I don't know if the lens is worth £629 or not and there are I suppose few small 24/40/50mm's to measure them against other than the lottery that Samyang seem to be and the similar Sigma DN DG lenses that are a shade cheaper than the Sonys. One thing I think we need to get away from is the thought that only f1.2 or f1.4 lenses should cost £600+. The first lens that made me think about this was the 55mm f1.8 when at the time people couldn't understand why a 55mm f1.8 should be expensive when traditionally 50/55mm f1.8's have been the cheap option, sometimes below £100. The fact that these sub £100 lenses were often relatively poor and the new 55mm was relatively rather good escaped them.
So, I think these lenses should be looked at as relatively nicely made compact and light lenses with aperture rings and we should then asses their image quality and decide if the price point is justified to us. I think the 35mm f2.8 is still round about £600. Is that lens £300 over priced? Maybe when you can get a Sigma f1.4 for just a stretch more but that lens will be a relatively big fat honker whereas these Sony f2.x lenses are compact and light with decent optical quality and that combination will appeal to some people even at over £600.
You are of course correct but it is very difficult to get into that mindset, especially when you are so accustomed to the nifty fifty. I still baulk at the price of the 35mm f2.8 and I can't see this ever changing, however I do appreciate that it is a good lens. I got a good price on a used one, however even after owning one I struggled to see why it is a £600+ lens.
Been eyeing up the 50mm 1.2 GM recently but not sure I can drop £2k on a lens!
Yeah, its not cheap but it is ridiculously good.
Since I got mine according to Lightroom I have used it for just under 70% of all of my wedding photos.
50mm can pretty much do everything, you can use it for getting ready, ceremony, portraits and the dancing. It has pretty much replaced everything that I used to use my 35/85 for.
Have been using 35/50 for quite some time now. First wedding I went 24/50 but 35/50 just seemed to suit me more. At my last wedding I only used 35/50 apart from 3 photos using the macro. Even the 35 which is also excellent only really gets used when 50 is just a little too tight.
I haven't used my 85 hardly at all over the last few months, only on a couple of occasions when I needed a longer lens for speeches.
I don't regret getting mine one bit and that is coming from someone who always struggled with 50mm focal length. When I shot Nikon I had every 50mm option including the 58mm and couldn't get on with any of them. This 50 is special.
I have taken tens of thousands of frames with mine at this point and every single time it blows me away. The rendering is superb and having the option of shooting at f/1.2 lets me get images that I have always been aiming for style wise. Some of my favourite wedding photographers have always had f/1.2 lenses and I have always been envious.
I may try and rent one for a wedding and see how I go. I've moved to 24/85 this year rather than 35mm. I do love the wider shots. so 24/50 may suit me. Using the 85mm for group shots can be a pain, to get that look. I do love the Sigma 85mm thought, it's ridiculously good
AND expensiveBe warned shooting at f/1.2 is very addictive.
I’d prefer to call it value for moneyAND expensive
Its a lens I always wanted to try but never found a good deal on one. they are rather rare to come by in the used market.I keep toying with the Mitakon 50mm 0.95 as a poor man's alternative as I'd only be shooting static things with it. That's still not cheap though, especially for something that'll be barely used.
Because its small or because it's f2.5?
Lez, I think you probably linked the wrong image! your avocet look a lot like an oyster catcher.My 200-600mm is a lovely lens twinned with the a7Riv
One from yesterday
Lone Avocet on the Estuary
A bit of both really for me a compact 50mm f/2.5 sounds like a cheap and cheerful lens. And £630 doesn't sound cheap and cheerful to my wallet.
It's probably just the way things are going. Only a few years ago only some pro photographer would get something like a canon 5d mark iii (launch price of £3k). An amateur would be more than happy with a canon 6d or Nikon D750 both around near the £1.5k mark.
Nowadays a lot of amateurs seems to buy sony a9 mk ii at £4k or sony a1 a £6.5k. So maybe it is normal that sony can charge £630 for a compact 50mm f/2.5. I think you don't really get much for your money but really the price is only dictated by how much money people are ready to spend.
There are other examples of f2.x and higher prices, like Leica. Some of their moderate aperture lenses cost a bomb.
I don't tend to like bigger kit so these lenses do interest me but as I already have the 35mm f2.8 I can't see myself buying one. If that 35mm f2.8 didn't exist I'd have one of these new compact lenses or a Sigma alternative in a flash. The 35mm f2.8 is by far my most used AF lens.
I have a number of film era 35mm f2.8's and the Sony 35mm f2.8 is far better than any of them. Ditto those nifty 50's of the past with few if any of them being thought of as anything other than poor in comparison with modern lenses.Probably a part of the sense of poor value comes from memory that a 35mm f2.8 design has been around forever, and it's hard to justify spending so much on what's essentially an old style lens. Now if reviewers were raving about astonishing sharpness and contrast coupled to super smooth bokeh wide open then it might be different. But I don't hear anyone raving about these rather budgety looking yet quite expensive lenses.
Leica can charge a bit more because all their kit has that expensive red spot attached.
Great Set, the second (quoted) is my personal favorite of them.
DSC05133-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
DSC05156-Edit-2 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
DSC05219 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
DSC04899-Edit by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr
Great Set, the second (quoted) is my personal favorite of them.
Lovely set Ant. First is my favourite.
Very nice set of Dog shots Ant, liking all of these very much.
I have a number of film era 35mm f2.8's and the Sony 35mm f2.8 is far better than any of them. Ditto those nifty 50's of the past with few if any of them being thought of as anything other than poor in comparison with modern lenses.
I can see I'm in a minority on this one but I do also think some of you are living in the past and have unreal expectations. I don't think a f2.x has to be a budget lens and the competition that exists, the similar Sigma range, isn't significantly cheaper plus not all those 35mm f2.8's were exactly bargains even back then once you adjust for inflation.
As above. If I didn't have the 35mm f2.8 I'd have one of these new compact f2.x's either from Sony or Sigma as they transform the system from something I'd think was sometimes too intrusive and too bulky to bother with into something that I'll be happy to use more often.
Me too, I have a samyang 35mm f2.8 (AF) which I bought for £140 on this forum if I remember well. And it is my "normal lens".There are other examples of f2.x and higher prices, like Leica. Some of their moderate aperture lenses cost a bomb.
I don't tend to like bigger kit so these lenses do interest me but as I already have the 35mm f2.8 I can't see myself buying one. If that 35mm f2.8 didn't exist I'd have one of these new compact lenses or a Sigma alternative in a flash. The 35mm f2.8 is by far my most used AF lens.