- Messages
- 811
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.I do think this is a very good lens and easily the best 50/55 AF lens I've used but I do just wish it was 50mm
The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is IMO better but no AF.
So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...
That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?So far so good. Bokeh is nice, AF I am still getting used to. It is a bit slow but also its a macro 50mm.
I have yet to shoot the other manual lenses and I chopped in the 50mm f1.1 7artisans, so cannot compare on the sony.
Only thing with the macro 50mm sony is its plastic, light and not much glass (hence light weight wise). But this could also be a bonus...
I use the same . I use a canon 400 on the sony now and again and its too short without a converter , Id try the 200-600 to see if its too heavy , i manage ok with mine walk around all day with it.Hi @mav I’m using the Sony a7riv.
I had considered the 500mm prime but I think I would prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens.
That’s encouraging, thank you. Will definitely try one out over the next few weeks.I use the same . I use a canon 400 on the sony now and again and its too short without a converter , Id try the 200-600 to see if its too heavy , i manage ok with mine walk around all day with it.
If you click your username in that quote it goes to one of your posts replying to ecniv so I wonder if they've meant to quote you, then quoted woof woof and made an edit which has mixed them up? I'm quoting your post here and seem to be working as expectedThat's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?
That's weird, why has it quote me as saying that when it was woof woof?
Haha, our Staffie used to bring the biggest sticks she could find, may as well have been branchesDid a take the dog to work day today, so I could let the pup have a run around while I shot some engagement photos. She brought half of the forest home with her.
View attachment 417841
Haha, our Staffie used to bring the biggest sticks she could find, may as well have been branches
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!
I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.
I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!
I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.
I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.
TIA
Used Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro?Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!
I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.
I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!
I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.
I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.
TIA
Thanks, it’s just a little North of what I’m prepared to pay. I suppose I’m kinda hoping for a little known lens that offers a close up option!Used Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro?
Evening all. I’m looking for a Sony lens that will offer close focusing on a budget (under 300). No adapted lenses please!
I’ve tried close up rings and the Raynox and no good for my needs.
I need 1:4 as a minimum and 1:2 as a maximum but 1:1 wouldn’t be a problem!!
I would like autofocus and 35mm as a minimum.
I’ve seen the Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 but I already have a 35 mm lens so would prefer a different focal length.
TIA
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.Why do you need a.f for macro?
Can’t think of anything other than the Tamron at that money which isn’t supposed to be very good.
I have the Sony 90mm but can’t remember a time I used the a.f.
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual
used tamron macro 90mm and sigma mc11 adapter. would do the JobBecause it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.
Seriously?! I really don't think an explanation is needed for The ObviousWhy do you need a.f for macro?
Seriously?! I really don't think an explanation is needed for The Obvious
Because it’s not for macro. I just need a lens for 1/48 model photography where I just need to get in a bit closer than usual.
Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me backThe OP requesteda non-adapted lens, but the Tamron SP90 and an adapter are an excellent combination. I have one with an EA4 adapter and it's a really nice lens for an older design.
Yeah I’ve served my time with adapted lenses back with the original NEX! Please don’t send me back
I’d just rather not have the faff and given I need a lens that can just focus a bit closer rather than a true macro lens I think I’d prefer to go directly mounted and given a Tamron 35 2.8 1:2 can be had for £180 second hand, adapted may not even be (much) cheaper.
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!Given the application etc, I can say that the Tamron+ adapter focus much more reliably that one of Sony's budget 50mm lenses with native mount. But if quality is less of an issue then that 35 may be a good buy.
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!
Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.
Thanks and perhaps I’ll get over myself and take a look at the Tamron!!
Out of interest, whilst I don’t particularly want another 35mm lens the Tamron 35 2.8 reviews exceptionally in the IQ department, given your the second person (along with @f/2.8) that has said the Tamron isn’t that good, I’d be interested to know why. Thanks again.
I was only parroting Tommy, assuming he had experience, although I *thought* I had remembered it not reviewing well. This is how false information starts! Better check out for yourself because it might be a fine lens after all.
As good as it is … I’d still rather something around the 50mm mark I think so my search will go on…. Whistles Titanic tune.
From your review
Sitting in my (still-unfinished) office, I immediately checked the autofocus and found it to be oddly slow. Remembering the firm twist required to initially attach the lens, I wondered if all of the connections were lined up, and so removed and reattached the lens: same tickly scrape, same slow autofocus. Here are the results of some tests comparing the Tamron 35mm with my Samyang 35mm AF f/2.8. As you will notice, the Tamron 35mm doesn’t do well.
I thought your budget was £300?Thanks, it’s just a little North of what I’m prepared to pay. I suppose I’m kinda hoping for a little known lens that offers a close up option!
Very poor in autofocus is very subjective, I suspect it beats hands down many lenses that yesteryear had ‘excellent’ autofocus. At least you’ve read a review though now so you can actually post an opinion :thumb:It really isn't Even the review you posted mentions the poor a.f performance.
A quick look on google shows that every review mentions how poor the autofocus performance is both in terms of focus speed and issues with hunting, Pretty much all the reviews also mention how bad it is with focus breathing as well. So, it really isn't very good, unless you use manual focus and the experience for that is quite poor as well according to several reviews. Pretty much all the reviews mention the awful motor noise when using a.f as well. The a.f is that bad in the review you posted the guy says he thought he hadn't connected the lens correctly to his body.
It is hilarious the tripe people post on forums to justify an opinion.
I have recently bought some sub par cheapo lenses in the Noodle maker trilogy of doom with the Samyang 18,45 and 75. I won't pretend they are good, when they aren't though, to justify buying them. They are what they are crap lenses, but have the advantage of being small.
The Tamron is what it is, a cheap lens according to every review that is very poor in terms of autofocus but has the advantage of nearly providing macro capability.
Then of course there are the other issues with the lens in terms of video were a.f can't used with the A7IV and other newer models.
Tbf you can buy for £175 brand new from the grey market. Like with most things in life you get what you pay for. Being able to buy any lens for that sort of money brand new will seem a bit of a bargain.