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

Ed Sutton said:
I was curious because back in the 1990s some English anglers went out there to fish for catfish. It looked a fascinating place in the video they made. https://www.catfishconservationgroup.co.uk/page--53/

End of thread hijack!
Click to expand...

Golly. Big fish. It's an interesting, diverse and potentially dangerous place. I went several times as at the time I was dating a Kazakh lady who split her time between there and Belgium. I met her in Darlington of all places,I chatted her up as she waited for a train. At the time the visa process was a faff but I don't think you need one now. I went fishing with her brother and some Kazakhs and ethnic Russians but I did say No to her invitation to go to Afghanstan with her on business. If I was single I'd go to Kazakhstan again.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Golly. Big fish. It's an interesting, diverse and potentially dangerous place. I went several times as at the time I was dating a Kazakh lady who split her time between there and Belgium. I met her in Darlington of all places,I chatted her up as she waited for a train. At the time the visa process was a faff but I don't think you need one now. I went fishing with her brother and some Kazakhs and ethnic Russians but I did say No to her invitation to go to Afghanstan with her on business. If I was single I'd go to Kazakhstan again.
Click to expand...
Darlington, centre of the universe!
 
Been toying with the idea of buying a Leica Q3 or a Sony A7CR or similar, there are so many options with Sony. Seems pretty confusing what to opt for.

Guess need to visit some shops but these days they're few and far between.
 
chivers67 said:
Been toying with the idea of buying a Leica Q3 or a Sony A7CR or similar, there are so many options with Sony. Seems pretty confusing what to opt for.

Guess need to visit some shops but these days they're few and far between.
Click to expand...

It's something I've thought about. I've watched the reviews and looked at the prices and that's as far as it's gone. Q3 looks bulkier than I'd have thought and the reviews seem to be saying that Sony AF is better. I went for the CII rather than the R as I didn't think I'd need the extra mp's but if you're thinking of spending Leica Q3 money the cheaper Sony RX1RIII could be worth a look?
 
Thanks, it does look a good option though I think I'd like a 28mm.
 
chivers67 said:
Been toying with the idea of buying a Leica Q3 or a Sony A7CR or similar, there are so many options with Sony. Seems pretty confusing what to opt for.

Guess need to visit some shops but these days they're few and far between.
Click to expand...

I think it's going to come down to Sony AF performance vs the Leica form factor and faster lens - presuming you'd stick something like the 24G on the A7CR for similar sizes.

I'm sure there are other differences, but those are the main ones that I would initially consider.
 
chivers67 said:
Been toying with the idea of buying a Leica Q3 or a Sony A7CR or similar, there are so many options with Sony. Seems pretty confusing what to opt for.

Guess need to visit some shops but these days they're few and far between.
Click to expand...
If I had the money I’d buy the Q3. For a few reasons.

1. Always fancied owning a Leica
2. I want a lens with a focus range markings to quickly select the hyperfocal distance (I wish all lenses had this)
3. I’ve found that the 35mm eq on my X100 can be limiting at times, with the Q3 I could use it at 35mm most of the time but could use it at 28mm when it’s really needed, plus 50mm. There’s no decent fast 28mm for Sony, and also in crop mode it’s 42mm not 35mm. There’s always 24mm I guess but the 24mm f1.4 is pretty big, and the f2.8 isn’t fast enough.
 
I don't think I've had a lens yet with accurate distance markings throughout, are Leica markings accurate? Mostly I use marking as a rough guide only and think about stopping down a bit further for things which might be noticeable if they're a bit out of the depth.

What you can do though with a lens with iffy markings is remember at what point past or between markings you're happy or ignore the markings and focus at a point in the distance you're happy with or just stop down a bit more and not worry about it.

I'm waiting for the rumoured new Sony 28mm but I haven't seen the rumor guy mention it again. There's the f2, issues and all but if you can stop fixating on the corners it's maybe not all that bad and it is quite small.

PS.
Manual focus wise there's the Sony mount Voigtlander 28mm f1.5 and f2 apo.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't think I've had a lens yet with accurate distance markings throughout, are Leica markings accurate? Mostly I use marking as a rough guide only and think about stopping down a bit further for things which might be noticeable if they're a bit out of the depth.

What you can do though with a lens with iffy markings is remember at what point past or between markings you're happy or ignore the markings and focus at a point in the distance you're happy with or just stop down a bit more and not worry about it.

I'm waiting for the rumoured new Sony 28mm but I haven't seen the rumor guy mention it again. There's the f2, issues and all but if you can stop fixating on the corners it's maybe not all that bad and it is quite small.

PS.
Manual focus wise there's the Sony mount Voigtlander 28mm f1.5 and f2 apo.
Click to expand...
I have teh 28mm f2 for a while, it was OK but for a walkabout equivalent of something like the Q3 or X100VI I'd like it to be the size of the 35mm f2.8.

Regarding markings, I always err on the side of caution so for hyperfocal distance I make sure the infinite mark is just past the marker. I've never shot with Leica lenses (other than a breif play with the Q3 in store) so I can't comment on how accurate they are.
 
Gold said:
Not had any GAS for a while but seriously tempted by this depending on price. Will sell like hot cakes.
Click to expand...
I think I have GAS most days :lol:
 
Yeah no indication of the price.
My hope is it's as good as the samyang 50mm f1.4 in optics...

Let's see... will likely be cheaper than their art series f1.4 version
 
There don't seem to be any reviews yet just this IMO rather uninspiring dull day vid.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaQRYIFEBo


PS.
Straighten your shots mate and when standing take a shot from below eye level now and again :D I'm off to Thailand soon so can't get one to take with me but when we're back I'll look for reviews, price and availability.
 
Last edited:
Mr Perceptive said:
Easy to solve buy a Leica or a Hasselblad then you’ll have no money left for other purchases………
Click to expand...
Doesn't solve GAS, just means I can't act on it :lol:
 
woof woof said:
There don't seem to be any reviews yet just this IMO rather uninspiring dull day vid.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaQRYIFEBo


PS.
Straighten your shots mate and when standing take a shot from below eye level now and again :D I'm off to Thailand soon so can't get one to take with me but when we're back I'll look for reviews, price and availability.
Click to expand...
I’ve not watched the video but I’ve just received an email about the lens, for an f1.4 it’s tiny, and light at 374g :eek:
 
snerkler said:
I’ve not watched the video but I’ve just received an email about the lens, for an f1.4 it’s tiny, and light at 374g :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm just sat looking at the spec and trying to visualise the size...

Sigma 50mm, Sony E-mount: φ64.7mm x 56.0mm / φ2.5in. x 2.2in.
Sony 28mm f2, 64 mm x 60 mm (2.52 in x 2.36 in).
And just for fun, Sony 40mm f2.5, 68 mm × 45 mm (approx. 2.68 x 1.77 inches).

So, the Sigma 50mm is between the Sony 40 and 28mm f2 in size and a bit bigger than a Minolta Rokkor.

I'm very interested and if I could have one next week I'd probably take a chance but as I can't I'll have to wait which means I can watch some reviews. General IQ and bokeh will be worth looking at.

Just had a look at the minimum focus distance, it's 45cm, for comparison the Sony 55mm f1.8 MFD is 50cm, so not spectacular but maybe ordinary.

Back in my Canon DSLR days 50mm was one of my most used lenses but more recently I've been using 35mm more and now 40mm. If a 35mm f1.4 of this type and size comes out I'd be very interested.
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
I'm not sure I want to dip back in to 50mm. There are times 35mm is a touch too wide but I think in general 35mm (or 40mm) is what's for me.
Click to expand...

Yup, me too but this 50mm could do until someone does a compact 35mm, f1.8/2 would do.

Just thought I'd have a look at the AOV as some 50mm lenses are a bit wider or tighter. This one is stated as 46.8 deg which is what Google tells me it should be.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm just sat looking at the spec and trying to visualise the size...

Sigma 50mm, Sony E-mount: φ64.7mm x 56.0mm / φ2.5in. x 2.2in.
Sony 28mm f2, 64 mm x 60 mm (2.52 in x 2.36 in).
And just for fun, Sony 40mm f2.5, 68 mm × 45 mm (approx. 2.68 x 1.77 inches).

So, the Sigma 50mm is between the Sony 40 and 28mm f2 in size and a bit bigger than a Minolta Rokkor.

I'm very interested and if I could have one next week I'd probably take a chance but as I can't I'll have to wait which means I can watch some reviews. General IQ and bokeh will be worth looking at.

Just had a look at the minimum focus distance, it's 45cm, for comparison the Sony 55mm f1.8 MFD is 50cm, so not spectacular but maybe ordinary.

Back in my Canon DSLR days 50mm was one of my most used lenses but more recently I've been using 35mm more and now 40mm. If a 35mm f1.4 of this type and size comes out I'd be very interested.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this helps?

IMG_3862.webp
 
Yes but I thought I'd compare it to lenses I have. I hoped it would be a little smaller but you can't have everything and at least it's between the Sony mini G's and the Sony 28mm f2 in size. Another few mm's smaller would have been nice though and it is smaller than the Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's and it has an aperture ring.

I've been thinking about selling some of the lenses I'm just not using and I might even if I don't get this Sigma. Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's, 35mm f2.8, Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and f2 apo. I'll have a think and maybe see if anyone is interested when I get back from Thailand. Might also sell all my remaining MFT kit.

PS.
The Sigma website gives 64.7 x 56mm rather than 64.7 x 54mm as above for Sony. I think the 54mm is for L mount.

www.sigma-global.com

50mm F1.4 CL DG | LENSES | Sigma

This page is about Sigma's 50mm F1.4 CL DG.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes but I thought I'd compare it to lenses I have. I hoped it would be a little smaller but you can't have everything and at least it's between the Sony mini G's and the Sony 28mm f2 in size. Another few mm's smaller would have been nice though and it is smaller than the Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's and it has an aperture ring.

I've been thinking about selling some of the lenses I'm just not using and I might even if I don't get this Sigma. Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's, 35mm f2.8, Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and f2 apo. I'll have a think and maybe see if anyone is interested when I get back from Thailand. Might also sell all my remaining MFT kit.

PS.
The Sigma website gives 64.7 x 56mm rather than 64.7 x 54mm as above for Sony. I think the 54mm is for L mount.

www.sigma-global.com

50mm F1.4 CL DG | LENSES | Sigma

This page is about Sigma's 50mm F1.4 CL DG.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com
Click to expand...
It looks pretty small to me for an f1.4

Screenshot 2026-10-24 at 08.23.39.jpg



It even looks slightly smaller than the 35mm f2 here, at least in diameter, and the hood is much smaller :oops: :$
Screenshot 2026-10-24 at 08.26.37.jpg
 
The size and weight look great and I’m a fan of the style, always thought the 50/2 looked great.

But following the thread in the Sony Reddit they posted images from the sigma website and the LoCa and Ca seems even worse than the 50/2.
I guess there has to be some give when making it so small and cheap,
Hence them stating it’s about image looks over perfection.


Well screen shots look crap posted here
IMG_5668.png
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes but I thought I'd compare it to lenses I have. I hoped it would be a little smaller but you can't have everything and at least it's between the Sony mini G's and the Sony 28mm f2 in size. Another few mm's smaller would have been nice though and it is smaller than the Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's and it has an aperture ring.

I've been thinking about selling some of the lenses I'm just not using and I might even if I don't get this Sigma. Sony 35 and 55mm f1.8's, 35mm f2.8, Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 and f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and f2 apo. I'll have a think and maybe see if anyone is interested when I get back from Thailand. Might also sell all my remaining MFT kit.

PS.
The Sigma website gives 64.7 x 56mm rather than 64.7 x 54mm as above for Sony. I think the 54mm is for L mount.

www.sigma-global.com

50mm F1.4 CL DG | LENSES | Sigma

This page is about Sigma's 50mm F1.4 CL DG.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com
Click to expand...
I might take an interest in one of the 35mm lenses, depending on finances. The dog has to go in for dental work on Monday. £1000!
 
snerkler said:
It looks pretty small to me for an f1.4

View attachment 495755



It even looks slightly smaller than the 35mm f2 here, at least in diameter, and the hood is much smaller :oops: :$
View attachment 495756
Click to expand...

The mft does show it's a bit soft in corners. Not too fussed at long as its sharp stopped down and has decent sharpness centre to mid frame at portrait distances
 
nandbytes said:
The mft does show it's a bit soft in corners. Not too fussed at long as its sharp stopped down and has decent sharpness centre to mid frame at portrait distances
Click to expand...
I still can’t read MFT charts very well, I keep looking how to but I never get my head around it. I can see if it’s sharp or not, but when it comes to things like trying to interpret CA’s, distortion etc I’m lost :lol:

I think there’s always going to be compromises trying to make lenses this small, but for this kind of lens then the edges aren’t as important, especially wide open. Also it is a contemporary lens rather than an art lens.
 
I suspect the old A mount 50 f1.4 is a bit smaller than this (even if it had an adapter built in) but the quality wouldn't be acceptable now.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I suspect the old A mount 50 f1.4 is a bit smaller than this (even if it had an adapter built in) but the quality wouldn't be acceptable now.
Click to expand...
Much smaller, I've not idea what that lens is like quality wise, but I guess by the time you've added an adapter and size and weight advantage would be gone.
 
snerkler said:
I still can’t read MFT charts very well, I keep looking how to but I never get my head around it. I can see if it’s sharp or not, but when it comes to things like trying to interpret CA’s, distortion etc I’m lost :lol:

I think there’s always going to be compromises trying to make lenses this small, but for this kind of lens then the edges aren’t as important, especially wide open. Also it is a contemporary lens rather than an art lens.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't worry too much about the MFT charts, its a bit like car specifications, they don't tell the whole story when it comes to real world use
 
ancient_mariner said:
I suspect the old A mount 50 f1.4 is a bit smaller than this (even if it had an adapter built in) but the quality wouldn't be acceptable now.
Click to expand...

As I might have said before, I keep thinking back to the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM I had for my Canon DSLR's. That lens would be seen as prety poor now but at the time I was impressed. If this new lens even just matches that old one I'd probably be happy.

On the size and optical compromises, the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is an excellent lens and is compact. I wonder wow much length would be added by adding AF motors to a good design liks that? Looking at those pictures Toby posted above I'd guess very little if any to length but some to width.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
As I might have said before, I keep thinking back to the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM I had for my Canon DSLR's. That lens would be seen as prety poor now but at the time I was impressed. If this new lens even just matches that old one I'd probably be happy.

On the size and optical compromises, the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is an excellent lens and is compact. I wonder wow much length would be added by adding AF motors to a good design liks that? Looking at those pictures Toby posted above I'd guess very little if any to length but some to width.
Click to expand...

I used the Canon 50/1.4 USM (?) a lot in my Canon days - that used to get a bad report but I always found it perfectly fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top