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

[snerkler]

Nice one, thanks

I don't think the 24-240mm is very highly regarded and believe the Tamron and Sigma all in one's are better, but someone with more knowledge on these types of lenses will confirm/correct me

 

[woof woof]

I'm thinking I'd like to try 28mm so am considering buying the wide coverter lens for the X100VI however I'm 'concerned' it will upset the balance of the camera making it front heavy.

Do you use the X100's OVF or (like I did) do you just the EVF? I ask because afaik with the wide converter fitted you wont see the whole frame with the OVF but you will with the evf.

I quite like 28mm or 24mm but I like 35/40 more.

 

[snerkler]

Do you use the X100's OVF or (like I did) do you just the EVF? I ask because afaik with the wide converter fitted you wont see the whole frame with the OVF but you will with the evf.

I quite like 28mm or 24mm but I like 35/40 more.

I tend to use the EVF, I find AF slower with the OVF for some reason

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sony FE 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 OSS Lens | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

No idea what it’s like.

It's not a good lens - or at least it wasn't at release. I investigated them, and results were poor. I believe the super zooms from sigma and tamron are both better.

 

[nandbytes]

Sony FE 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 OSS Lens | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

No idea what it’s like.

Not good at all

Sony 600mm 6.3 announcement makes me wanted to switch to this ecosystem.

A1 II, 14mm 1.8, 24-105mm, 300 2.8 and 600mm 6.3 plus 1.4x and 2x tc.

Does Sony have Canon 24-240mm equivalent??? Thanks.

Use either sigma 20-200mm or tamron 25-200mm f2.8-5.6

I personally use the sigma 20-200mm along with Sony 16mm f1.8 (instead of 14mm, because it's much smaller and has filter thread)

 

[LeeRatters]

Do you use the X100's OVF or (like I did) do you just the EVF? I ask because afaik with the wide converter fitted you wont see the whole frame with the OVF but you will with the evf.

I quite like 28mm or 24mm but I like 35/40 more.

I tend to use the EVF, I find AF slower with the OVF for some reason

I might be wrong, but I think the whole OVF might be 28mm. I'm sure I read/heard that somewhere.

Whether that was intentional or not.....

 

[JohnMcL7]

I don't think the 24-240mm is very highly regarded and believe the Tamron and Sigma all in one's are better, but someone with more knowledge on these types of lenses will confirm/correct me

I'm not very fussy with lenses and mainly use superzooms but even then I found the 24-240mm lens a poor one especially at telephoto ranges. I initially was only using the 24-240mm with the A9 and was quite shocked when I started using the Sigma 100-400mm how good the image quality of the A9 was which I stupidly thought wasn't that great due to the stacked sensor. There is a Tamron 28-300mm which I haven't used nor the Sigma 20-200mm,

 

[woof woof]

I might be wrong, but I think the whole OVF might be 28mm. I'm sure I read/heard that somewhere.

Whether that was intentional or not.....

I Can't remember what I thought about the ovf at the time other than not liking it. My comment about the ovf and the wide adapter is just what I remember reading at the time I thought about getting one. As someone who gave up on the ovf and only used the evf and screen it didn't matter to me.

 

[woof woof]

Just on the 24-240mm and I've probably said this a lot

My first DSLR lens was a Sigma 28-300mm and by modern standards it was a poor lens but but it did make a good day out and holiday lens and I still look at pictures taken with it. I think these long zooms are worth a look if you want the range rather than image quality.

 

[JohnMcL7]

As I said, I've used superzooms a lot and a huge fan of them so I'm not saying the 24-240mm is bad just because it's a superzoom which I find is a common sentiment but because it's a genuinely bad lens even for a superzoom. I don't want people making the same costly mistake I did.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I've had a few super-zooms. Quality can vary from tolerable to making you want to weep at the otherwise great images they spoil. I have a picture printed 24x16 of a river in Morzine, and I can only look at the centre of the picture. If I'd used the Sony 18-55 kit lens, image quality would have been much higher instead of the using the Sigma 18-250. I have an old sigma 28-200 adapted to E mount, and it's less poor than some much more recent super zooms.

 

[LeeRatters]

I Can't remember what I thought about the ovf at the time other than not liking it. My comment about the ovf and the wide adapter is just what I remember reading at the time I thought about getting one. As someone who gave up on the ovf and only used the evf and screen it didn't matter to me.

I wasn't talking about liking it or anything like that.

The framelines are there for the '35mm' frame. I think the whole OVF (disregarding the framelines) is around the 28mm field of view is what I was getting at. So with the WLC someone may still be able to frame and shoot using the OVF.

 

[woof woof]

I wasn't talking about liking it or anything like that.

The framelines are there for the '35mm' frame. I think the whole OVF (disregarding the framelines) is around the 28mm field of view is what I was getting at. So with the WLC someone may still be able to frame and shoot using the OVF.

I was explaining what I read at the time and the potential drawback when using the ovf not getting into a debate about personal views.

Googling today seems to say the same thing I read at the time but as I never went ahead and bought it I don't know for sure. If anyone has one maybe they can confirm if you can see the whole frame or not but of course the lens and its adapter will block a percentage of the ovf and that might be more of a problem than potentially not showing the whole frame. I thought about it but didn't bother but with the evf the problem or problems would go away. I did have a similar adapter for MFT. They add to the bulk but they give you the wider view,

 

[woof woof]

Just a few superzoom memories taken with my Canon 300D.









In that last one if I zoom in I can read the number plates on those cars. It wasn't a great lens but if I was into zooms and didn't mind the bulk and weight I might think about one for days out and holidays. With a prime too

 

[gman]

Have you thought about the 24mm f2.8 G? If you don't need f1.4 or the bulk and weight that come with it.

I don't think a 24mm could replace a more normal lens like a 35, 40 or 50mm for me but 24 or 28mm makes a great addition. I have the Sony 28mm f2 but I have a few issues with that lens and have more recently used the 24mm f2.8 G more.

I did have a brief look, but it was the prospect of getting the Master lens at what seems like quite a good price that appealed. The faster speed would be handy for those indoor shots. I think I'll still with the 40mm for a while and if I find myself needed a wider angle, then I can revisit this.