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

Looks like the 24-50mm is being marketed to pair with the A7c cameras - as a “small” travel lens.

Interested to see the comparisons against the 20-70mm when it’s released. Not a big difference in size. F2.8 v f4. 20mm v 24mm, 50mm v 70mm.
 
simonbe said:
Looks like the 24-50mm is being marketed to pair with the A7c cameras - as a “small” travel lens.

Interested to see the comparisons against the 20-70mm when it’s released. Not a big difference in size. F2.8 v f4. 20mm v 24mm, 50mm v 70mm.
Click to expand...
20mm vs 24mm is quite a big difference. I think the 20-70mm makes much more sense, I don’t really see the point of making the 24-50mm an f2.8 lens. 50mm f2.8 isn’t ideal for portraits, and f2.8 wouldn’t be first choice for Astro. These days the extra stop in light gathering isn’t as important as it was with the modern sensor noise handling.

Making it f4 could have made for a really small portable lens.
 
snerkler said:
20mm vs 24mm is quite a big difference. I think the 20-70mm makes much more sense, I don’t really see the point of making the 24-50mm an f2.8 lens. 50mm f2.8 isn’t ideal for portraits, and f2.8 wouldn’t be first choice for Astro. These days the extra stop in light gathering isn’t as important as it was with the modern sensor noise handling.

Making it f4 could have made for a really small portable lens.
Click to expand...
Just taken delivery of my A7CR so not had the chance to use it in anger with the 20-70mm yet. Just interested side by side comparison. Crop mode on the R would still give 75mm at 28mp.

But think I would miss the 4mm on the wide end.
 
simonbe said:
Just taken delivery of my A7CR so not had the chance to use it in anger with the 20-70mm yet. Just interested side by side comparison. Crop mode on the R would still give 75mm at 28mp.

But think I would miss the 4mm on the wide end.
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2024-02-22 at 07.28.55.jpg
 
24-50mm looks like a bust to me, here's the edges at 24mm and 50mm vs the 24-70mm GM II. Admittedly it's from a Northrup review so I'll wait for other side by sides to make a final verdict but it doesn't look good :(

Screenshot 2024-02-22 at 07.27.47.jpg



EDIT: The comparison at 50mm won't screenshot properly so se the video at 6:13.
View: https://youtu.be/6aoVx8ojw2o?si=fy3jcjLNLBoyJ0wC
 
snerkler said:
20mm vs 24mm is quite a big difference. I think the 20-70mm makes much more sense, I don’t really see the point of making the 24-50mm an f2.8 lens. 50mm f2.8 isn’t ideal for portraits, and f2.8 wouldn’t be first choice for Astro. These days the extra stop in light gathering isn’t as important as it was with the modern sensor noise handling.

Making it f4 could have made for a really small portable lens.
Click to expand...

I would say this lens is a good option for those that want close to the 24-70 GM2 performance but are on a budget and willing to sacrifice the extra range and it's probably a good for those with the A7C series and those that shoot video.

I pretty much shoot all my portraits at 50mm and it works well for me, not sure I would want to do that at f/2.8 though.
 
f/2.8 said:
I would say this lens is a good option for those that want close to the 24-70 GM2 performance but are on a budget and willing to sacrifice the extra range and it's probably a good for those with the A7C series and those that shoot video.

I pretty much shoot all my portraits at 50mm and it works well for me, not sure I would want to do that at f/2.8 though.
Click to expand...
Looking at the video I posted it's not close to the GM2 performance though :(

50mm is my go to potrait length too, but not at f2.8 (y)
 
f/2.8 said:
I haven’t watched or read anything on the lens I just assumed it would be good :p
Click to expand...
As I said, it's a Northrup review so I'm reserving judgement for now but initial impressions aren't good.
 
snerkler said:
Looking at the video I posted it's not close to the GM2 performance though :(

50mm is my go to potrait length too, but not at f2.8 (y)
Click to expand...

As you may know... Years ago it used to be nice to have a lens with a wider aperture than you needed because when you stopped it down to the aperture you wanted it performed better, better than a lens which was wide open at the aperture you wanted. These days though many lenses are actually very good from wide open and the need to stop lenses down for better performance isn't so common.
 
Just pulled the trigger on a 12-24mm GM. As I hardly do any landscapes now I'm hoping not having the option for 100mm filters won't be a problem and I can look to shift my 16-35. Really enjoy the wide lenses for stadium views and while my Laowa 12mm works great I am very much an autofocus type of shooter and my eyes are not what they used to be.
 
wookie6262 said:
Just pulled the trigger on a 12-24mm GM. As I hardly do any landscapes now I'm hoping not having the option for 100mm filters won't be a problem and I can look to shift my 16-35. Really enjoy the wide lenses for stadium views and while my Laowa 12mm works great I am very much an autofocus type of shooter and my eyes are not what they used to be.
Click to expand...

Debated the 12-24 GM a few times myself. Can’t really justify the cost of it though for how often I would use it.

I might however at some point grab the new a.f Laowa 10mm.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
I haven’t watched or read anything on the lens I just assumed it would be good :p
Click to expand...
I suspect it is one you may have to look through the 24MP sensor, and with regards to portrait and lifestyle typical usage. Mid res sensor, and nothing that taxes the midframe or corners all that much.... I can see that such usage asks for f/2.8, but yes I'd also go for primes here every single time. It is not a concept well received by some and it is therefore an opportunity for sony to cash. Plenty more will be also quite ignorant to the fact or won't even pay attention to the output. It is only a very affordable (not my word) small lens :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
f/2.8 said:
Debated the 12-24 GM a few times myself. Can’t really justify the cost of it though for how often I would use it.
Click to expand...
So did I and I opted for the Sigma 14-24. The lack of filter attachments is a pain and I'm not wed to the idea of using the rear lens attachments as I think that would be a real pain in the field. Thankfully managed to get the dedicated Nisi filter system for this lens off Ebay for £200, which is more palatable than the ridiculous £450 Nisi are asking from new.
 
Santafe2000 said:
So did I and I opted for the Sigma 14-24. The lack of filter attachments is a pain and I'm not wed to the idea of using the rear lens attachments as I think that would be a real pain in the field. Thankfully managed to get the dedicated Nisi filter system for this lens off Ebay for £200, which is more palatable than the ridiculous £450 Nisi are asking from new.
Click to expand...
Based on a discussion a while back with LLP on here I’m going to stop using filters for a while (Barring big stoppers) and try blending multiple exposures in post. Allegedly results are better, time will tell for me.
 
snerkler said:
Based on a discussion a while back with LLP on here I’m going to stop using filters for a while (Barring big stoppers) and try blending multiple exposures in post. Allegedly results are better, time will tell for me.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%... I don't use Graduated ND's anymore, preferring to exposure blend, but a Polariser and ND's are indispensable to me. There's an argument to say that graduated filters are destructive, and I completely get that.
 
snerkler said:
Has anyone used any of the Ricoh GR cameras, if so are they truly pocketable? I've recently been looking at them as a 'take everywhere' camera but would want it to be pocketable and looking on camerasize it's only slightly thinner than the RX100's and whilst I could fit this into my pocket I wouldn't say it was a comfortable fit.

View attachment 415332
Click to expand...
It's one I've toyed with but I'm not convinced the specs would work for me and it's too expensive to take a punt on and try it. The Ricoh is clearly going to be better for dynamic range over the Sony but it doesn't get much of an advantage in low light over the Sony's F1.8 lens. I wasn't sure of the 35mm on the RX1 but I find it more useful than 28mm as a single focal length even though you do lose a bit of wide angle as it works better with subjects where you can crop a bit in.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
It's one I've toyed with but I'm not convinced the specs would work for me and it's too expensive to take a punt on and try it. The Ricoh is clearly going to be better for dynamic range over the Sony but it doesn't get much of an advantage in low light over the Sony's F1.8 lens. I wasn't sure of the 35mm on the RX1 but I find it more useful than 28mm as a single focal length even though you do lose a bit of wide angle as it works better with subjects where you can crop a bit in.
Click to expand...
I just fancy the idea of something pocketable, but I never thought the RX100 was comfortably pocketable unless you have a big coat on. If the Ricoh won't make a genuine pocketable camera then I'd actually prefer the Fuji X100V or VI, if the price was considerably lower that is ;)
 
nandbytes said:
We've been on holiday and just been out shooting at night time. For first time left the tripod in the room. By leaning against walls etc was able to easily handhold A7rv down to 2s with 20-70mm between 20-40mm. Very impressed!
Click to expand...
Wow that is impressive, no way I can do that with the A1.
 
snerkler said:
I just fancy the idea of something pocketable, but I never thought the RX100 was comfortably pocketable unless you have a big coat on. If the Ricoh won't make a genuine pocketable camera then I'd actually prefer the Fuji X100V or VI, if the price was considerably lower that is ;)
Click to expand...
Had the X100v and I really enjoyed using it.
My missus less so as she had trouble keeping our children (mainly our toddler daughter) in focus. So she stopped using it and I ended up selling it since I mainly bought it as a family camera.
I think the lens itself is rather slow focusing. So I don't think new sensor will help much :(
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Wow that is impressive, no way I can do that with the A1.
Click to expand...
Indeed was surprised myself.
I guess in my room or in the shop things are a lot closer so I only really managed 1s reliably but shooting nightscapes where things are further away it does a brilliant job at 2s. With enough trial and error I could probably drag the shutter a little bit more but it's cold and I didn't much fancy sticking around too long for that.
 
nandbytes said:
Had the X100v and I really enjoyed using it.
My missus less so as she had trouble keeping our children (mainly our toddler daughter) in focus. So she stopped using it and I ended up selling it since I mainly bought it as a family camera.
I think the lens itself is rather slow focusing. So I don't think new sensor will help much :(
Click to expand...
If it's got the same focussing speed as the X-T5 it will be plenty fast enough, that's a huge leap forward but as usual it needs trying rather than relying on fuji fanboy youtubers and shills
 
Anyway boys, my new ZF, comfortable with the smallrig grip, horrible without it, has a neat trick up it's sleeve, be interesting to see if Sony follow suit......you can use eye AF in manual focus
 
imattersuk said:
If it's got the same focussing speed as the X-T5 it will be plenty fast enough, that's a huge leap forward but as usual it needs trying rather than relying on fuji fanboy youtubers and shills
Click to expand...

It’s the lens that’s the issue. It’s completely gash.
 
f/2.8 said:
Debated the 12-24 GM a few times myself. Can’t really justify the cost of it though for how often I would use it.

I might however at some point grab the new a.f Laowa 10mm.
Click to expand...
I will likely sell my Laowa 12mm for the 10mm. It is a cracking wee lens and works really well with the magic converter to make it a shift lens. Really good for keeping the lines in sporting stadiums vertical but unfortunately the converter won't work with the 10mm. Hoping Sony do a wide tilt and shift but unlikely
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I thought the lens had had an overhaul on the V and was much better?
Click to expand...
It is and it's not gash, it's plenty sharp enough, renders nicely, leaf shutter, a fine piece of gear but the AF was always the problem, the nee sensor and processor are light years ahead of the V.
 
f/2.8 said:
It was slightly better still soft as mush wide open
Click to expand...

I had the S and F and I found them perfectly useable wide open in many instances but showing weakness at closer distances. But who's shooting what at close distance and wide open at f2? I suppose if pixel peeping and comparing the camera to others with demonstrably much better lenses it'll show comparative weakness but IMO the lens is not gash or anywhere near it.

I'd post f2 examples but what's the point in doing so here as regardless of any mangling posting will cause all this does hang on opinion. My issues with these Fuji Xxxx series cameras are not lens wide open sharpness related and if that's really what the criticisms come down to this has to be balanced against the more positive points and attributes.
 
snerkler said:
Based on a discussion a while back with LLP on here I’m going to stop using filters for a while (Barring big stoppers) and try blending multiple exposures in post. Allegedly results are better, time will tell for me.
Click to expand...
Santafe2000 said:
I agree 100%... I don't use Graduated ND's anymore, preferring to exposure blend, but a Polariser and ND's are indispensable to me. There's an argument to say that graduated filters are destructive, and I completely get that.
Click to expand...
With a large bulbous UWA I would just do away with filters altogether as much possible out of convenience in the first instance.

The 16-35mm's take normal screw in filters so generally I much prefer them even if my filter use is very low. I definitely won't use a GND, but CPL or ND both have their place. CPL for reflections of cheap synthetic surfaces and artwork in real estate and maybe some water shots. You can in most cases get better effect by using lights so not a 100% dealbreaker. CPL also likes to cause lots of extra flare so lately I'm trying to avoid one as much as possible. ND would typically go for water shots and that is where you could just also mount it in the rear, but swapping them would be grossly inconvenient.
It is a shame they don't use a drop in filter system, or at least like the nikon 14-24mm offers mounting option via hood if you can stomach 112mm thread

Generally > 90% filter free or with just a protector. Scratching that bulb would be a huge concern.
 
snerkler said:
I just fancy the idea of something pocketable, but I never thought the RX100 was comfortably pocketable unless you have a big coat on. If the Ricoh won't make a genuine pocketable camera then I'd actually prefer the Fuji X100V or VI, if the price was considerably lower that is ;)
Click to expand...
I can't really see how you could get smaller than the RX100 series and have any decent size of sensor in there, I have no issues putting the RX100 in my pockets and its height is a good bit smaller than the phone I carry in my pockets.

Edit: It is something that's been bugging me though, I noticed recently I used to take a lot of just day to day photos on the RX100 cameras but with spending more time on FF cameras and the RX1 I stopped using the RX100. The RX1 isn't small enough to be pocket sized and I've been thinking of trying the old Nex-6 with the 16-50mm without the case to get the size down but you can't use the zoom lens one handed which is a bit limiting. I don't like trying to use the phone when walking the dog or similar since it's a bit fiddly and could be easily dropped whereas the little RX100 can be easily operated with one hand.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
With a large bulbous UWA I would just do away with filters altogether as much possible out of convenience in the first instance.

The 16-35mm's take normal screw in filters so generally I much prefer them even if my filter use is very low. I definitely won't use a GND, but CPL or ND both have their place. CPL for reflections of cheap synthetic surfaces and artwork in real estate and maybe some water shots. You can in most cases get better effect by using lights so not a 100% dealbreaker. CPL also likes to cause lots of extra flare so lately I'm trying to avoid one as much as possible. ND would typically go for water shots and that is where you could just also mount it in the rear, but swapping them would be grossly inconvenient.
It is a shame they don't use a drop in filter system, or at least like the nikon 14-24mm offers mounting option via hood if you can stomach 112mm thread

Generally > 90% filter free or with just a protector. Scratching that bulb would be a huge concern.
Click to expand...
My main issue with CPL’s is the uneven effect of skies with wide angles, as a result I can’t remember the last time I used one.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I can't really see how you could get smaller than the RX100 series and have any decent size of sensor in there, I have no issues putting the RX100 in my pockets and its height is a good bit smaller than the phone I carry in my pockets.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t overly happy with the IQ of the RX100-III in all honesty, add to that it felt a bit bulky in the pocket I don’t think it’s what I’m after.
 
snerkler said:
My main issue with CPL’s is the uneven effect of skies with wide angles, as a result I can’t remember the last time I used one.
Click to expand...
correct, sky only works from around 35-50mm+

You can however find plenty of photo ops that don't include any or just a little of sky, A typical waterfall scene, an interior would be the most obvious ones.

Also you can always take a shot with and one without if you have both sky and foreground that benefits from CPL.
 
snerkler said:
I wasn’t overly happy with the IQ of the RX100-III in all honesty, add to that it felt a bit bulky in the pocket I don’t think it’s what I’m after.
Click to expand...
I liked it initially compared to the GF3 I was using as a pocket camera, a good bit smaller with a much faster lens to make up for it but now it doesn't feel good enough. However on the other hand it's not good taking nothing.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
With a large bulbous UWA I would just do away with filters altogether as much possible out of convenience in the first instance.

The 16-35mm's take normal screw in filters so generally I much prefer them
Click to expand...
Yes, I have the Sony Zeiss 16-35, which is getting a little long in the tooth now, but I'm exclusively a landscape photographer and I've been eyeing up an ultra wide angle for a while, plus F2.8 has some benefits over the F4 16-35 I currently have. I have the Sony 24-105, so the 24-35 range on the Sony Zeiss was always a little redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top