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
 
snerkler said:
There is certainly no right or wrong. Most of it is said in jest when talking about stopping down ;)
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. My point, made with a little tongue in my cheek , was certainly not made with any reference to any of the worthies currently involved in this discussion. However, some of the not-so-regular commentators, not just on this forum, are of the definite opinion that their way is the only way and deviants are stupid. I think most of us “ordinary” members can recognise this. ;)

PS the photos shown here are proof positive of there being no right or wrong way. I was particularly referring to the difference in depth of focus at specific aperture settings between m4/3 and full-frame, which takes a bit of getting used to after a while away.
 
Last edited:
Regarding @woof woof considering a zoom lens for his upcoming Thailand trip despite being principally a prime shooter, I am considering the converse. We have a city break in York booked for next month (not been there for literally decades) and would normally have taken the Sony 20-70 f4. However, for reasons which I am unsure, possibly low light in November, I am thinking of taking 3 primes. I am planning on the Viltrox 14mm for inside shots, the Viltrox 26mm pancake (love this lens, and either the Viltrox 40mm, which has, alas, no aperture ring, or a Sigma 45mm which has. These days I am finding an aperture ring most useful as with the viewfinder on the A7Cii I find it difficult to see the aperture display, especially as the selected aperture briely shows red. A plus point for the primes is that the strap weight per lens will be reduced.
 
Stephen L said:
Regarding @woof woof considering a zoom lens for his upcoming Thailand trip despite being principally a prime shooter, I am considering the converse. We have a city break in York booked for next month (not been there for literally decades) and would normally have taken the Sony 20-70 f4. However, for reasons which I am unsure, possibly low light in November, I am thinking of taking 3 primes. I am planning on the Viltrox 14mm for inside shots, the Viltrox 26mm pancake (love this lens, and either the Viltrox 40mm, which has, alas, no aperture ring, or a Sigma 45mm which has. These days I am finding an aperture ring most useful as with the viewfinder on the A7Cii I find it difficult to see the aperture display, especially as the selected aperture briely shows red. A plus point for the primes is that the strap weight per lens will be reduced.
Click to expand...
No help here I’m afraid. But I noticed you had the TT Artisan 40mm f2 on L mount. Considering it for Sony. How did you feel about it ?
 
Stephen L said:
Regarding @woof woof considering a zoom lens for his upcoming Thailand trip despite being principally a prime shooter, I am considering the converse. We have a city break in York booked for next month (not been there for literally decades) and would normally have taken the Sony 20-70 f4. However, for reasons which I am unsure, possibly low light in November, I am thinking of taking 3 primes. I am planning on the Viltrox 14mm for inside shots, the Viltrox 26mm pancake (love this lens, and either the Viltrox 40mm, which has, alas, no aperture ring, or a Sigma 45mm which has. These days I am finding an aperture ring most useful as with the viewfinder on the A7Cii I find it difficult to see the aperture display, especially as the selected aperture briely shows red. A plus point for the primes is that the strap weight per lens will be reduced.
Click to expand...
If I'm shooting primes I just take one, swapping lenses when out and about is a pain for me, especially if I'm doing a city break etc, I prefer to just have one lens.

My general camera for this kind of thing is the Fuji X100VI, whilst the 35mm eq lens can be limiting I make do. There's the option of the wide conversion lens but even this would be a faff for me.

Since Leica have decided to add the digital crop view to the viewfinder/LCD rather than just grid lines the Q3 has become more appealing as I could use it in 35mm mode most of the time get a 40mp image, but as it's actually a 28mm lens I could swap to 28mm at the push of a button and no faff, and get the full glory of a 61mp image. The trouble is the price, and ideally I'd want it to have a joystick and better controls.

The holy grail is still elusive :lol:
 
Stephen L said:
Regarding @woof woof considering a zoom lens for his upcoming Thailand trip despite being principally a prime shooter, I am considering the converse. We have a city break in York booked for next month (not been there for literally decades) and would normally have taken the Sony 20-70 f4. However, for reasons which I am unsure, possibly low light in November, I am thinking of taking 3 primes. I am planning on the Viltrox 14mm for inside shots, the Viltrox 26mm pancake (love this lens, and either the Viltrox 40mm, which has, alas, no aperture ring, or a Sigma 45mm which has. These days I am finding an aperture ring most useful as with the viewfinder on the A7Cii I find it difficult to see the aperture display, especially as the selected aperture briely shows red. A plus point for the primes is that the strap weight per lens will be reduced.
Click to expand...

The zooms will be for days out in the UK. For travelling I'll still be using a prime in the 24-50mm range and will probably take the 40mm f2.5 to Thailand on my A7cII.

My most used are the Sony 24 and 40mm G's with the 28mm f2 getting the odd look in. I did try the TTA 40mm f2 but it gave a lot of problems and went straight back.
 
trevorbray said:
No help here I’m afraid. But I noticed you had the TT Artisan 40mm f2 on L mount. Considering it for Sony. How did you feel about it ?
Click to expand...
Never used it Trevor, as I sent the body back as soon as I'd held it in my hands. Just didn't feel right. Thought I would manage without the viewfinder but I was wrong. So when the lens arrived it was immediately returned.
 
woof woof said:
The zooms will be for days out in the UK. For travelling I'll still be using a prime in the 24-50mm range and will probably take the 40mm f2.5 to Thailand on my A7cII.

My most used are the Sony 24 and 40mm G's with the 28mm f2 getting the odd look in. I did try the TTA 40mm f2 but it gave a lot of problems and went straight back.
Click to expand...
I did look at the reviews for the TTArtisans but wasn't sure, plus the extra 5mm gives it a wider difference to the 26mm, if that makes sense. I do have the Vilrox 40mm f2.5, which is light and quite good, but not blessed with an aperture ring. For that matter the 14mm hasn't one either, but at that focal length aperture tends to be a little more irrelevant (for me).
 
Stephen L said:
Never used it Trevor, as I sent the body back as soon as I'd held it in my hands. Just didn't feel right. Thought I would manage without the viewfinder but I was wrong. So when the lens arrived it was immediately returned.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate.
 
Stephen L said:
I did look at the reviews for the TTArtisans but wasn't sure, plus the extra 5mm gives it a wider difference to the 26mm, if that makes sense. I do have the Vilrox 40mm f2.5, which is light and quite good, but not blessed with an aperture ring. For that matter the 14mm hasn't one either, but at that focal length aperture tends to be a little more irrelevant (for me).
Click to expand...

Yes on aperture rings. I like them and it makes everything feel a little more tactile and film like.
 
I like them and it makes everything feel a little more tactile and film like.
Click to expand...

This is partly why I picked up my Zf to go with my Sony bodies. Sometimes I want a smart camera to take the photo I want with minimum fuss, and sometimes I want nice clicky dials and smooth manual focus.

It's amazing how much the Sony feels like a lightweight plastic toy after using the Nikon. It's not, but the Nikon + Voigtlander combo is incredibly dense. Just checked, 687g for the A7CII+40g vs roughly similar physical size of the ZF+adapters+CV50/1.2 but it's 1148g. Not far off twice the weight!
 
the_accidental said:
This is partly why I picked up my Zf to go with my Sony bodies. Sometimes I want a smart camera to take the photo I want with minimum fuss, and sometimes I want nice clicky dials and smooth manual focus.

It's amazing how much the Sony feels like a lightweight plastic toy after using the Nikon. It's not, but the Nikon + Voigtlander combo is incredibly dense. Just checked, 687g for the A7CII+40g vs roughly similar physical size of the ZF+adapters+CV50/1.2 but it's 1148g. Not far off twice the weight!
Click to expand...

I've never been happy with the weight of modern kit. Years ago DSLR's were insanely big and heavy, or at least my Canons were but thankfully some mirrorless models have become smaller and lighter but I don't suppose we'll ever get back to the bulk and weight of a film era SLR or RF and that's understandable as they were mostly empty boxes. Even some MFT cameras are now the same size or bigger than the smaller FF Sony bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top