The Amazing Sony A7 / A9 / Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Messages
3
Name
Edward
Edit My Images
No
Hi all i am giving you a challenge. What is the lightest setup you can think of for this focal range for travelling?

The rules are below:
  • Can mention primes as well as zooms
  • Minimum apature of f2.8
  • Cropping up to 1.4x is fine to cover a missing focal length range
  • Can be a manual adapted lens at the 100-200 focal length.
  • from 24-100 it needs to be a AF lens(adapted or native)

Post the list of lenses you can think of and the weight of it all
OK, so I'm a long time lurker, first time poster to this thread. Straight off the bat, just wondering, what have I let myself in for?!

Anyway, I've been looking in to this very thing for an upcoming holiday - primes versus zooms - , so am happy to share with the group. Going entirely native, you've got:

FE 24mm f1.4 G Master Lens
FE 35mm f1.8 Lens (imminent release)
FE 55mm f1.8 ZA Lens
FE 85mm f1.8 Prime Lens
FE 135mm f1.8 G Master Lens

Which, all told, comes in at 2327g (specs from Wex website). (Combined price, also from Wex, is £5,125.)

If you can do without the 135mm (which would take you to 202mm cropped), the weight comes down to 1377g and the price to £3,376. (Talking brand new, of course). That's actually what I'm settling on. For my shooting, I tend to do landscapes, street and the odd portrait (as in rare, not weird) so the longer focal lengths don't get used so often.

But since I've looked in to it - for zooms, you've got:

FE24-70 and FE70-200 - combined weight, 2389g, cost, £4,218.

I'm sure I'm being obvious, but it's a choice between convenience with zooms and quality with primes. An aguable point, of course. My biggest decision was whether to go for more G Master lenses but I wanted to keep the weight down, so that was a factor in my overall decision.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,186
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, so I'm a long time lurker, first time poster to this thread. Straight off the bat, just wondering, what have I let myself in for?!

Anyway, I've been looking in to this very thing for an upcoming holiday - primes versus zooms - , so am happy to share with the group. Going entirely native, you've got:

FE 24mm f1.4 G Master Lens
FE 35mm f1.8 Lens (imminent release)
FE 55mm f1.8 ZA Lens
FE 85mm f1.8 Prime Lens
FE 135mm f1.8 G Master Lens

Which, all told, comes in at 2327g (specs from Wex website). (Combined price, also from Wex, is £5,125.)

If you can do without the 135mm (which would take you to 202mm cropped), the weight comes down to 1377g and the price to £3,376. (Talking brand new, of course). That's actually what I'm settling on. For my shooting, I tend to do landscapes, street and the odd portrait (as in rare, not weird) so the longer focal lengths don't get used so often.

But since I've looked in to it - for zooms, you've got:

FE24-70 and FE70-200 - combined weight, 2389g, cost, £4,218.

I'm sure I'm being obvious, but it's a choice between convenience with zooms and quality with primes. An aguable point, of course. My biggest decision was whether to go for more G Master lenses but I wanted to keep the weight down, so that was a factor in my overall decision.
Since he's willing to crop he can skip the 35mm and 85mm ;)
 
Messages
976
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
No
Bristol Balloon Festival didn't kicked off due to weather (pity) but I'll be back again next year, meanwhile enjoy the lighthouse at Burnham On Sea.

Sony A9 + 24-105mm G + 10 Stop

Burnham On Sea Lighthouse
by Robin Lee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,470
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
If weight is a factor then also consider the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75. And get the 70-200 GM.

I think a 70-200 GM is great for landscapes, I have been thinking to get one for that purpose, as opposed to portraits.

Surely for landscapes the f4 would be better? No need to lug a massive 2.8 for landscapes.

I can see why for portraits, but you've easily got that covered with your primes.
 
Messages
2,118
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
2,470
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
The GM is a better lens optically.
At F8? Who really needs that 1% difference?

I'd imagine even the likes of Tom Heaton would only go for the F4 so people getting the 2.8 for landscape use are either complete gear snobs, some of the very best landscape photographers in the world, view images with a magnifying glass, or have too much money.
 
Messages
7,062
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
At F8? Who really needs that 1% difference?

I'd imagine even the likes of Tom Heaton would only go for the F4 so people getting the 2.8 for landscape use are either complete gear snobs, some of the very best landscape photographers in the world, view images with a magnifying glass, or have too much money.
I think Thomas Heaton has the 2.8 version...
 
Messages
1,018
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I’m wanting one medium zoom and one prime to start my full frame journey with the a7iii. I appreciate I’m joining a family that’s Lenses are fairly expensive so I want something that’s going to keep me happy for a while. I have funding at present for 2 such lenses, I’m torn between a 35 or 50mm prime. I shoot a bit of everything. Once I’m happy enough i’ll be selling all my other gear and looking to then Purchase either 70-200mm or 100-400mm.
 
Messages
7,062
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Not according to the gear list on his website.

You ignored the rest.

Someone buying the 2.8 for landscape absolutely baffles me.
Well you asked me why...so I will explain with more detail, but know that this is me, not the OP.

1 - I hate slow lenses...
2 - optical it is better. 1%?

Go to 1 min 30, it’s a big difference.

View: https://youtu.be/9hNOJ0pKzjM


3 - If I get the GM I know it is the best and I will never get the urge to upgrade

Weight and cost are factors I can live with.

4 - I can use it for portraits, if the occasion arise

The only reason to get an F/4 is to save some money and weight. I will just save up for longer and carry less of other kit. For example...again, for me, I never really used the 135L, not even for portraits so a 70-200 is actually more useful as it gives me flexibility and one lens will do me going out shooting. Not a 85/135 and 200.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,186
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m wanting one medium zoom and one prime to start my full frame journey with the a7iii. I appreciate I’m joining a family that’s Lenses are fairly expensive so I want something that’s going to keep me happy for a while. I have funding at present for 2 such lenses, I’m torn between a 35 or 50mm prime. I shoot a bit of everything. Once I’m happy enough i’ll be selling all my other gear and looking to then Purchase either 70-200mm or 100-400mm.
Well you don't have to splurge on lenses straight away. Though I believe in buying one or two good lenses over 3 or 4 bad ones but most lenses for sony e-mount (FE) are at least good.

For a one good medium zoom I'd pick either Sony 24-105mm f4 or tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Both are great option and I'm currently loving my 24-105mm.

For 35 to 50mm prime there are many many options (from cheaper to expensive end but not in perfect order):
  • Sony FE 50mm f1.8 - cheap, excellent image quality and possibly the best nifty fifty but what you gain in quality at this price you lose in AF performance. But its no worst than you Fuji 35mm f1.4 IMO in terms of AF. There are a couple in sales is you want to pick one up easily ;)
  • Samyang 35mm f2.8 - small light sharp prime but its "only" a f2.8. AF is decent but not as good as the native Sony zeiss 35mm f2.8.
  • Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 - better colours than the samyang above with better AF. The image quality is about the same.
  • Samyang 45mm f1.8 - no idea about this one, might be worth a watch -
  • View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS9uZHvp4cU&t=196s

  • Sigma 45mm f2.8 - no idea about this one too. its was only recently announced
  • Sony 50mm f2.8 macro - a very sharp macro lens.
  • Samyang 50mm f1.4 - AF not so good, large as its a f1.4 lens, IQ not the best at f1.4 but for price one can't complain. Once again AF is unreliable at best and possibly the worst samyang AF lens.
  • Sony FE 35mm f1.8 - still on pre-order but first few review says its excellent
  • Samyang 35mm f1.4 - IQ wise hits way above its price point. AF not entirely reliable especially indoors but still usable. Again no worst that Fuji prime you have ;) (I believe there is one in sales)
  • Sony ziess 55mm f1.8 - nearly otus sharp, small and overall great lens.
  • Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART - sharp, good accurate reliable AF. Also huge.
  • Zeiss batis 40mm f2 CF - a nice sharp lens with good AF. can focus somewhat close to give 0.33x magnification.
  • Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART - sharp, good accurate reliable AF.
  • Sigma 35mm f1.2 ART - recently released, looks to be a great sharp lens with GM lenses like handling and features.
  • Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART - supposedly one of the best ART lenses from sigma. also HUGE!
  • (I posted a comparison review for one before on this thread for the above three)
  • Sony zeiss 50mm f1.4 - Sharp, nice rendering and one of the 50mm primes out there.
  • Sony zeiss 35mm f1.4 - most people will tell you to avoid this because of poor quality control and the above sigma ART being better in many ways. But the AF on this lens is blazing fast and accurate.
  • There is also a number of number of manual lenses - ziess loxia 35mm f2 and 50mm f2, voigtlander 35mm f1.4, 40mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2, mitakon 50mm f0.95 etc

plenty of choices at almost all prices :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,403
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Plenty of holiday pics to get through..random few.

So, who else gets into the pool with £3.5k of kit in your hands for a pic of your little one because she's just let go of your arm for the first time?











Great images, what gear did you use? :)
 
Messages
497
Name
Ant
Edit My Images
No
I’m wanting one medium zoom and one prime to start my full frame journey with the a7iii. I appreciate I’m joining a family that’s Lenses are fairly expensive so I want something that’s going to keep me happy for a while. I have funding at present for 2 such lenses, I’m torn between a 35 or 50mm prime. I shoot a bit of everything. Once I’m happy enough i’ll be selling all my other gear and looking to then Purchase either 70-200mm or 100-400mm.
Might be a silly question, but I see you're coming from Fuji and wondered if you've had Full Frame before? My A7 III is my first FF camera and I thought I wanted a 50mm first, it might sound obvious but because I used a lot of 50 & 55mm lenses on my APSC I found it so much wider than I imagined on the FF camera. I find I use 85mm the most on my A7III
 
Messages
1,018
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
@NewBeetle..... Ant, this is my first time going full frame.... and like you I’ve chosen the a7iii. I’ve loved the 35mm on the crop sensors, so really I guess I’m saying I’d like a nifty fifty on FF.. But I do fancy the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art Lens.

I’m keeping my Fuji X-H1 and am looking to sell the 10-24mm f4 and get the 16mm 1.4. I’m also keeping the Canon 100mm 2.8 L Macro as i’ve got a Viltrox adapter for the Fuji, just need to get one for the Sony.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,186
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
2,470
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Well you asked me why...so I will explain with more detail, but know that this is me, not the OP.

1 - I hate slow lenses...
2 - optical it is better. 1%?

Go to 1 min 30, it’s a big difference.

View: https://youtu.be/9hNOJ0pKzjM


3 - If I get the GM I know it is the best and I will never get the urge to upgrade

Weight and cost are factors I can live with.

4 - I can use it for portraits, if the occasion arise

The only reason to get an F/4 is to save some money and weight. I will just save up for longer and carry less of other kit. For example...again, for me, I never really used the 135L, not even for portraits so a 70-200 is actually more useful as it gives me flexibility and one lens will do me going out shooting. Not a 85/135 and 200.
Well, I watched the video and he shot both lenses wide open, you're likely to never do that with landscapes. Side by side at f8 I bet they're essentially the same. In fact he says in the video, the F4 is the better choice for landscape.

Using for portraits then I understand getting the 2.8. Exclusively for landscape, no way.
 
Messages
497
Name
Ant
Edit My Images
No
Well, I watched the video and he shot both lenses wide open, you're likely to never do that with landscapes. Side by side at f8 I bet they're essentially the same. In fact he says in the video, the F4 is the better choice for landscape.

Using for portraits then I understand getting the 2.8. Exclusively for landscape, no way.
I've just been reading that the f/2.8 has sharper corners and edges than the f/4 which would be useful on landscape photography.
 
Messages
2,470
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just been reading that the f/2.8 has sharper corners and edges than the f/4 which would be useful on landscape photography.
At f8 and above?

We do nit pick though, a lens that is 5% better won't make an image any better. People talk all the time about corners in landscape, when in fact the vast majority of people apply at least a slight crop which 75% of the time takes away the corners.

Once profile corrections are applied I couldn't imagine there being much difference at all, but that's just me.

I use the cheap Canon 70-200 f4 non IS for landscapes on mine :D:D
 
Messages
3,350
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
It's probably beyond the reach of this thread but I picked up an a6400 and the Sigma 1.4 primes recently (16, 30 and 56mm). Its safe to say I love the setup. The 3 primes (all used) came in under £700, which is a steal for the capability and range. For personal photography it all fits in my little Domke with room for phone, wallet etc.

Above all else, the AF is obscene. The a7III does everything I need comfortably but somehow this is yet another step forward, its utterly seamless at adapting to whatever you point it at, Eye AF, subject tracking etc, it just knows what's needed and then hangs on like nothing else, to the point that after setting it up I've no desire to change any settings.

I had no interest in the a9 but now I want one!

If Sony could make the body a bit bigger to hold the FZ1000 battery, add an extra dial and card slot they'd have an absolute beast of a mini a9 on their hands. It's just a shame that there is a complete lack of decent APS-C specific telephotos.
 
Messages
497
Name
Ant
Edit My Images
No
It's probably beyond the reach of this thread but I picked up an a6400 and the Sigma 1.4 primes recently (16, 30 and 56mm). Its safe to say I love the setup. The 3 primes (all used) came in under £700, which is a steal for the capability and range. For personal photography it all fits in my little Domke with room for phone, wallet etc.

Above all else, the AF is obscene. The a7III does everything I need comfortably but somehow this is yet another step forward, its utterly seamless at adapting to whatever you point it at, Eye AF, subject tracking etc, it just knows what's needed and then hangs on like nothing else, to the point that after setting it up I've no desire to change any settings.

I had no interest in the a9 but now I want one!

If Sony could make the body a bit bigger to hold the FZ1000 battery, add an extra dial and card slot they'd have an absolute beast of a mini a9 on their hands. It's just a shame that there is a complete lack of decent APS-C specific telephotos.
Keep your eyes peeled for that A7000 (or whatever they end up calling it)
 
Top