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

Messages
3,940
Name
Tommy
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.
It’s an awesome wee camera. I have mine up for sale because I want an A7RIV. Am sure I will regret it though as it’s an excellent travel set up.
 
Messages
7,922
Name
Raymond
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.
You don’t have to shoot with F/8 all the time you know, even in landscapes photos.

And there is nothing to stop me to change my mind and decide to point that lens at a face instead of a tree.

At the end of the day, it is a better lens.
 
Messages
3,144
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
You don’t have to shoot with F/8 all the time you know, even in landscapes photos.

And there is nothing to stop me to change my mind and decide to point that lens at a face instead of a tree.

At the end of the day, it is a better lens.
Not always, but at 70-200 you’re very likely to :)

True, I completely agreed that for portrait use it’s understandable.

It is a better lens, obviously at a significant increase in size, weight and cost :).
 
Messages
887
Name
Omar
Edit My Images
Yes
Not always, but at 70-200 you’re very likely to :)

True, I completely agreed that for portrait use it’s understandable.

It is a better lens, obviously at a significant increase in size, weight and cost :).
Agreed - 2.8 tele is pointless for landscapes. The weight saving is far more important to me, over any potential 1% gain in optics. In fact, I'd bargain it'd be far more important to 99% of landscape photographers.
 
Messages
14,483
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Thought I'd add a little since I shoot landscape with an A7III and limited lenses and budget.

I looked at mid zooms and chose the 24-105 for good all round performance. The obvious lens would have been the 24-70 f4, but from both reviews and real-world images I'd seen, while sharp enough in the centre, edges were poor, and didn't improve enough with stopping down.

My other native lens is a Samyang 35 f2.8 and it's tiny, with excellent sharpness at f5.6 in the centre and acceptable corners. I also had the Sammy 50f1.4 and on my copy AF was much better than the Sony 50f1.8, faster and with less hunting.

On why people choose f2.8 lenses for landscape, it's most likely down to past experience, where f2.8 lenses were much sharper than the consumer equivalent - sometimes still true, especially at wider apertures. I've recently been processing some of the pictures I took with my D610 and 28-105, and while I was reminded how sharp that lens could be, it needed stopping down to f13 to be really good - f8 was not enough. The Sony 24-105 is as sharp, but from about f5.6.
 
Messages
8,191
Edit My Images
No
Thought I'd add a little since I shoot landscape with an A7III and limited lenses and budget.

I looked at mid zooms and chose the 24-105 for good all round performance. The obvious lens would have been the 24-70 f4, but from both reviews and real-world images I'd seen, while sharp enough in the centre, edges were poor, and didn't improve enough with stopping down.

My other native lens is a Samyang 35 f2.8 and it's tiny, with excellent sharpness at f5.6 in the centre and acceptable corners. I also had the Sammy 50f1.4 and on my copy AF was much better than the Sony 50f1.8, faster and with less hunting.

On why people choose f2.8 lenses for landscape, it's most likely down to past experience, where f2.8 lenses were much sharper than the consumer equivalent - sometimes still true, especially at wider apertures. I've recently been processing some of the pictures I took with my D610 and 28-105, and while I was reminded how sharp that lens could be, it needed stopping down to f13 to be really good - f8 was not enough. The Sony 24-105 is as sharp, but from about f5.6.
There are reasons to shoot at F2.8 or brighter for landscape and that's low light landscape which I do.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,164
Edit My Images
Yes
At 200 there is only F2.8 and a canon 200mm F2.8 prime is heavier then a 70-200 I think?
the minolta 200mm f2.8 which I used to own with LA-EA4 adapter was definitely smaller and more compact than the 70-200mm/2.8. Its about the same size as a 70-200mm f4.
I imagine its the same for canon version?
 
Messages
14,135
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
At 200 there is only F2.8 and a canon 200mm F2.8 prime is heavier then a 70-200 I think?
The Canon 200mm 2.8 L USM II is tiny, much smaller than a 70-200, it's a cracking lens and I've no idea why it's not more popular. Your old friend Lanier actually did a video on it a couple years back and was blown away by it on a Sony body
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,922
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Not always, but at 70-200 you’re very likely to :)

True, I completely agreed that for portrait use it’s understandable.

It is a better lens, obviously at a significant increase in size, weight and cost :).
Of course and all the negatives I can live with, having the regret not having 2.8 or when I get back to the computer and realise it could’ve been sharper...that regret I hate, and it would have been my fault.
 
Messages
8,191
Edit My Images
No
Of course and all the negatives I can live with, having the regret not having 2.8 or when I get back to the computer and realise it could’ve been sharper...that regret I hate, and it would have been my fault.
And shooting landscapes and printing them out does tests a lens sharpness.

I though I was happy with the manual samyang 14mm 2.8 I had a while ago but when I was printing and pixel peeping I saw lots of rubbish soft edges on it
 
Messages
3,144
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
You guys are going on like the f4 is a piece of cr*p!

At f8, I doubt it’s sharper at all. I wonder how some of you guys make any profit with the amount you spend on gear.

@jonneymendoza, how close did you need to look at it?

Plus, the f4 70-200 is clearly a much better lens than a naff cheap 14mm lens that people only like because it’s wide, fast and cheap.
 
Messages
3,144
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Of course and all the negatives I can live with, having the regret not having 2.8 or when I get back to the computer and realise it could’ve been sharper...that regret I hate, and it would have been my fault.
There are many things in an image to consider before looking at that extra 1% sharpness :). Probably another reasons why pro landscapers are using f4 telephoto lenses.
 
Messages
7,922
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
There are many things in an image to consider before looking at that extra 1% sharpness :). Probably another reasons why pro landscapers are using f4 telephoto lenses.
There are amateurs that shoots 1Ds and Hasselblad....

Don’t look at it being the F4 is being much worse, look at it from someone who can pick either lens and don’t care about the weight and cost (which i have stated) and just want to best. Period.

Then convince me why I should get the F4?
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
8,164
Edit My Images
Yes
than a naff cheap 14mm lens that people only like because it’s wide, fast and cheap.
that lens became popular or rather initially gained popularity because of its good coma correction while being cheap. So it made for a good cheap astro lens without needing spend a grand on something better.
 
Messages
14,135
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Price shouldn't matter on gear, only performance. I swear this is the only thread where cheaper gear gets put down for the sake of it, every other gear specific thread the cheaper options get hailed rather than shunned - if they are in any way decent. General observation, not aimed at anyone btw

As for the extra 1% sharpness or better performance in corners, you only have to look at Flickr where people use the most expensive gear only to upload in low res so viewers can't even pixel peep - no doubt often cropped a fair amount on top so the corner performance is a lie! :D they may as well have shot [landscape in particular] with a kit lens as it'll look much the same at that res
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,483
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
You guys are going on like the f4 is a piece of cr*p!
My personal opinion is that the 24-70 is extraordinarily poor value for the image quality it offers, and the only advantage over the kit 28-70 is the constant aperture and a few mm wider. No experience of the 70-200.

At 200 there is only F2.8 and a canon 200mm F2.8 prime is heavier then a 70-200 I think?
THB for telephoto landscape applications in low light I'd use a tripod instead, so the amount of light was no longer an issue.


Overall - my preference in a landscape lens is that it reaches peak sharpness in the f8 to f16 range, usually because I will also be looking for a larger depth of field and sharp corners. Wide aperture performance is, for me, much less of a priority *in that situation*, and if I want nice bokeh etc then I'd chose a different lens. I like a lens to be sharp wide open, but I'd much rather it had biting critical sharpness at the more common working apertures. I appreciate this is very different from the needs of wedding & sports toggers.
 
Messages
3,144
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
My personal opinion is that the 24-70 is extraordinarily poor value for the image quality it offers, and the only advantage over the kit 28-70 is the constant aperture and a few mm wider. No experience of the 70-200.
The 24-70 f4 doesn’t even come into this, I know that’s an inferior lens :)

Saying that. I know people that use it and create great images.

But this is specially related to the 70-200.
 
Messages
7,922
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Have you ready anything I’ve said or just twisting it to suit your argument?
I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve said.

I said I want the best 70-200mm.
I said I may shoot portraits with it.
I said I don’t want regrets not having 2.8.
I said I don’t care for cost.
I said I don’t care for weight.
And I don’t care if you think I am bragging.

So, why should I get a F4 except to keep you happy?
 
Messages
1,731
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
I wouldn't even bother with the f4 70-200 for landscapes, the 70-300 would be a better choice.

Like others though I would prefer a lens that covers all the various subjects that I shot. So the 70-200 f2.8 it would have to be.
 
Messages
3,144
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve said.

I said I want the best 70-200mm.
I said I may shoot portraits with it.
I said I don’t want regrets not having 2.8.
I said I don’t care for cost.
I said I don’t care for weight.
And I don’t care if you think I am bragging.

So, why should I get a F4 except to keep you happy?
You’re still showing you haven’t read what I’ve said. I clearly said many messages ago that because you’d shoot portraits as well, I can understand why you’d go for the 2.8

Bragging wasn’t aimed at you, it was a general comment.
 
Messages
5,773
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I wouldn't even bother with the f4 70-200 for landscapes, the 70-300 would be a better choice.

Like others though I would prefer a lens that covers all the various subjects that I shot. So the 70-200 f2.8 it would have to be.
DXO don’t think the 70-300 is as sharp as the 70-200 f4.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...5-6-G-SSM-on-Sony-Alpha-900__1246_917_247_371

This review compares them, it seems corner sharpness is better on the 70-200 f4 which would be key for landscapes.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-fe-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-g-oss/3

The problem usually is that cost, weight and performance all play a part but 1 or 2 usually rate higher in most people’s needs. In Raymond’s case I think it’s very clear he wants the 70-200 f2.8 as nothing else will meet all of his requirements.

I’ve got the 70-200 f4 and 100-400. I’m tempted to sell the 70-200 as the 100-400 can cover my needs but at the expense of some additional weight. If I sold it the money would likely go in the kitchen we are getting done rather than other photography gear ☹️ I’ve found the 70-200 to be a nice lens, great build, no external zoom, pretty fast AF and sharp enough for my needs. The 100-400 would cover me but it means lugging around an extra 600g when I do landscapes and moving to Sony was about reducing weight for me. The 24-105 and 100-400 would cover nearly all of my needs.
 
Messages
1,731
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
DXO don’t think the 70-300 is as sharp as the 70-200 f4.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...5-6-G-SSM-on-Sony-Alpha-900__1246_917_247_371

This review compares them, it seems corner sharpness is better on the 70-200 f4 which would be key for landscapes.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-fe-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-g-oss/3

The problem usually is that cost, weight and performance all play a part but 1 or 2 usually rate higher in most people’s needs. In Raymond’s case I think it’s very clear he wants the 70-200 f2.8 as nothing else will meet all of his requirements.

I’ve got the 70-200 f4 and 100-400. I’m tempted to sell the 70-200 as the 100-400 can cover my needs but at the expense of some additional weight. If I sold it the money would likely go in the kitchen we are getting done rather than other photography gear ☹️ I’ve found the 70-200 to be a nice lens, great build, no external zoom, pretty fast AF and sharp enough for my needs. The 100-400 would cover me but it means lugging around an extra 600g when I do landscapes and moving to Sony was about reducing weight for me. The 24-105 and 100-400 would cover nearly all of my needs.
To be honest I don't shoot landscapes, but when I was looking into the 70-300 for motorsports it seemed a lot liked it over the 70-200 f4 for landscapes.

I'd like to say I'd never buy a 70-200 f4, been there done that with Canon, but the smaller size is nice (I might just stick with Fuji though if I decide to go with smaller kit). The problem I have with the Sony 70-200 f2.8 is the price/performance and needing to get a good copy. I'm still using an adapted Canon at the moment whilst waiting to see if Tamron/Sigma bring anything out. If they don't I might just get the 100-400 and get a 135mm prime. Although the 200-600 release has clouded the water a bit. Main uses would be motorsport and airshows, but also some field sports. I'm thinking the 100-400 would be the better all rounder and it takes a TC well?
 
Messages
3,940
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I have the 70-200 f/4 and am very pleased with it, both in terms of I.Q, a.f speed and a.f reliability. I bought the f/4 version purely because I don't generally use a 70-200 that much and the thought of lugging around the f/2.8 just didn't make any sense.

From a work point of view I only ever use it for outdoor wedding ceremonies where I want to stay out of the way, although I have used it a fair bit for personal stuff. If it was something I used more, like for portraits, church weddings etc. I would have definitely got the f/2.8. Perhaps at some point in the future I might decide that it is something I will use more but I doubt it.

You never know though, when I first started doing weddings I mainly used a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 50mm f/1.4 for when the light was really pants. I then switched to using a 35 f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.4. Then for a long while I mainly used a 20mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/1.4, that was when I shot Nikon.

Then when I switched to Sony I went back to using a 35mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.4. Recently though I have been mainly using the 24GM and the 55 f/1.8 and only pulling out the 85mm for bride and groom portraits. I think I must prefer wider lenses. A 70-200 f/2.8 does give awesome compression for portraits, but you tend to be a fair bit away from your subject which isn't always ideal, not for me any way. :)

Have no idea why I have slipped back to using mainly the 24 and 55, maybe I just got a bit bored of the 35-85 combo.
 
Top