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

I used my 50 f1.2 all the way between 1.2 and 16 on today's walk, though 16 isn't quite enough for sunstars.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Thank you! :D
Click to expand...
My take on this is that, coming most recently from m4/3, f4 produces a very shallow depth of field, for my uses anyway. But it can’t be denied that wide apertures are better in low-light situations. Conversely modern sensors handle low light much better than the olden days. Each to their own, there’s no right or wrong. Even though some people think there is.
 
Stephen L said:
My take on this is that, coming most recently from m4/3, f4 produces a very shallow depth of field, for my uses anyway. But it can’t be denied that wide apertures are better in low-light situations. Conversely modern sensors handle low light much better than the olden days. Each to their own, there’s no right or wrong. Even though some people think there is.
Click to expand...
There is certainly no right or wrong. Most of it is said in jest when talking about stopping down ;)
 
snerkler said:
There is certainly no right or wrong. Most of it is said in jest when talking about stopping down ;)
Click to expand...

I think it depends what you're trying to do. A head and shoulders or even half body 50mm f1.2 shot of Mrs WW on a day out probably isn't going to show much of the scenery and the scenery might be part of the point of taking the picture. Sometimes you want more than your subject to be discernible and might have to go to the dizzy heights or depths of f5.6.
 
woof woof said:
I think it depends what you're trying to do. A head and shoulders or even half body 50mm f1.2 shot of Mrs WW on a day out probably isn't going to show much of the scenery and the scenery might be part of the point of taking the picture. Sometimes you want more than your subject to be discernible and might have to go to the dizzy heights or depths of f5.6.
Click to expand...

I'm not really a wider angle, foreground in focus landscape person so for me, f/5.6 is usually more than enough DOF at (usually 35mm) for what I shoot. I'm often 1.4 to 2.8 though, and yes, there are times I shoot wide open when really I shouldn't!
 
pmac said:
Anyone used both the tamron 35-150 and the 70-200gm2?

Contemplating my next buy and really struggling with what I would use the most.

The last 70-200 I had was the mk2 on Nikon. While optically it was great I found the size and weight ment I didn’t use it that often ( both my kids were under very young which didn’t help)

I mainly use wider lens 20/50 and 28-75 but find myself wanting more reach at times so the 70-200 was the logical step.
The tamron would just be an easier solution as it covers a wider range but looses max range.

My worry is I won’t be quite satisfied with the results
After buying the 20 and 50gm I’ve started to feel the 28-75 (v1)doesn’t match and the 35-150 could be similar
Click to expand...
we're heading to Thailand next year and I'm considering the 35-150, at the minute i'd say 80% of what i do is with a 35mm prime but I don't want to limit myself whilst out there, my thoughts are sigma 16-28, tamron 35-150 and the sigma 35mm f1.4 for low light evenings should cover everything I need.
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm not really a wider angle, foreground in focus landscape person so for me, f/5.6 is usually more than enough DOF at (usually 35mm) for what I shoot. I'm often 1.4 to 2.8 though, and yes, there are times I shoot wide open when really I shouldn't!
Click to expand...

Even when going for front to back depth f5.6 or so is often fine when stood up because everything is further away but sometimes when shooting with the camera held further down and things are closer it might not be not but it depends what you want. If you want the foreground slightly or totally out of the depth to guide your eye to something else you might need a lot wider than f5.6 depending on the distances.

These are both at 40mm. This first one is at about stood up height but actually I was crouching down on a bridge at f5 and got front to back depth.

DSC01489.jpg

With the camera low down I needed f11.

DSC03263.jpg

I don't always go for front to back depth but I do sometimes :D Sometimes I try to be at about 10mm aperture which often gives a nice look for me. With my 40mm that's f4 but f5 / f5.6 is there or there abouts.
 
andybod said:
we're heading to Thailand next year and I'm considering the 35-150, at the minute i'd say 80% of what i do is with a 35mm prime but I don't want to limit myself whilst out there, my thoughts are sigma 16-28, tamron 35-150 and the sigma 35mm f1.4 for low light evenings should cover everything I need.
Click to expand...

Beat you! I'm going next month and me and The Boss will fly back together.

Where are you going? I'm going to her home town, Chon Buri.
 
woof woof said:
Even when going for front to back depth f5.6 or so is often fine when stood up because everything is further away but sometimes when shooting with the camera held further down and things are closer it might not be not but it depends what you want. If you want the foreground slightly or totally out of the depth to guide your eye to something else you might need a lot wider than f5.6 depending on the distances.

These are both at 40mm. This first one is at about stood up height but actually I was crouching down on a bridge at f5 and got front to back depth.

View attachment 494751

With the camera low down I needed f11.

View attachment 494752

I don't always go for front to back depth but I do sometimes :D Sometimes I try to be at about 10mm aperture which often gives a nice look for me. With my 40mm that's f4 but f5 / f5.6 is there or there abouts.
Click to expand...

I often prefer this style of photo, with the foreground OOF anyway...


*** by Lee, on Flickr

That's 40mm f/2

Have you looked more into a zoom yet? Is that for Thailand?
 
andybod said:
we've got 4 nights in Bangkok and 9 nights somewhere between Bang Tao and Surin beach, Phuket.
Click to expand...

Ah, Phuket way. We're on the bay of Thailand up to the NE of where you'll be.

When eating out I got a bit tired of the food last year as I'm vegi and that limits the choices. I'm going to ask for special food this time :D

I hope you enjoy your trip.
 
LeeRatters said:
Have you looked more into a zoom yet? Is that for Thailand?
Click to expand...

Despite being on here a bit at relaxing time I really haven't had time to do anything except the size comparison. I'll have a look at reviews and things over the next few days. It's not for Thailand, I'll take my A7cII and 40mm to Thailand, it's more for days out in the UK instead of taking more than one lens or two cameras with different lenses.

TBH I don't know how anyone enjoys travelling by plane. I hate everything about it. I hate getting to and from the airport, I hate hanging around for hours, I hate the endless security checks and queues and I hate being crammed in like a sardine on the plane. If I could beam there and back I'd be happier. Mrs says this is the last time I have to go. She has to go as her mams condition has got worse and she's sharing the care with her sis who lives in Singapore. I'll see how I cope with the travelling this time and decide but if I don't go I don't see my other family and friends and I don't get the holiday.

1st world issue really, not being too happy about going to Thailand.

While I'm here. This was the last scenic picture I took there last year. A panorama.

1-Untitled_Panorama-19.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is one of my favourite pictures taken in Thailand, with my A7 and 35mm f2.8 which I've read is a combination known for producing the reflections which can be seen towards the top right. I've seen them with other lenses on the A7 too but maybe the 35mm f2.8 was bad for it? Once you see them you can't unsee them.

1-DSC04472.jpg

A brief play in CS2026 gave me this which isn't perfect but makes it less obvious.

1-DSC04472-R.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top