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

NewBeetle said:
Do you think we'll see lenses like 200mm f/2.8 primes on E-Mount eventually? I know they're a little bit of an oddity these days, but reading about the 70-180 Tamron and realising I use my 70-200 at 200mm nearly all the time it got me thinking it would nice to just have a 200mm f/2.8, lighter, cheaper, than zoom.
Click to expand...

Canon 200mm 2.8 USM L II - looks a cracking lens for the money, I've seen them go for as little as £350 on MPB, or HDEW have them brand new for £589. I would imagine a Sony 200 2.8 would be at least triple that
 
Last edited:
Instead of having a 70-180 and a 200mm 2.8, might as well just get the Sony 70-200/2.8?

I mean it might come but don’t hold your breath.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Instead of having a 70-180 and a 200mm 2.8, might as well just get the Sony 70-200/2.8?

I mean it might come but don’t hold your breath.
Click to expand...

I won't buy the 70-180, 200mm was more important to me than size/weight.

Yeah I'm not waiting for one, just thinking out loud really
 
NewBeetle said:
I won't buy the 70-180, 200mm was more important to me than size/weight.

Yeah I'm not waiting for one, just thinking out loud really
Click to expand...

The Canon is pretty small and light for a 200mm 2.8 prime, if you're only after the longer end of a 70-200 I think it's a steal. It adapts really nicely to Sony too. Good ol' Jason Lanier did a video on it adapted to an A7RII I believe and he was blown away.
 
Cagey75 said:
The Canon is pretty small and light for a 200mm 2.8 prime, if you're only after the longer end of a 70-200 I think it's a steal. It adapts really nicely to Sony too. Good ol' Jason Lanier did a video on it adapted to an A7RII I believe and he was blown away.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll give it a watch
 
I think very few people would want a 200 2.8 vs something like a 70200 2.8, little incentive for a manufacturer. It’s not long, it’s not very fast, it’s a bit meh with lenses like a 85 1.4/135 1.8/200 f2(again specialist).
 
Last edited:
NewBeetle said:
Damn, how about that 200mm f/1.8 :p

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIBEqBzre4
Click to expand...

about £2K extra, not bad :D

After flicking through the video and looking at the samples, there's f*** all in it tbh. Obviously the 1.8 delivers shallower DOF but I think the 2.8 actually stands up really well here. If anything, it's more an advert for that lens than the stupidly over sized and priced one
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I think very few people would want a 200 2.8 vs something like a 70200 2.8, little incentive for a manufacturer. It’s not long, it’s not very fast, it’s a bit meh with lenses like a 85 1.4/135 1.8/200 f2(again specialist).
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. It's not not only much cheaper but also a lot lighter [talking Canon here, as Sony don't have a 200 2.8] Fuji do a stupidly priced 200 F2, it's also a mammoth sized specimen, and that is definitely niche. But I think Canon's 200 2.8 is impressive in how small a package it is. And if you can get one for about £350 ... that's a huge saving on a 70-200 2.8 L if you're only ever using the longer end
 
Cagey75 said:
You'd be surprised. It's not not only much cheaper but also a lot lighter [talking Canon here, as Sony don't have a 200 2.8] Fuji do a stupidly priced 200 F2, it's also a mammoth sized specimen, and that is definitely niche. But I think Canon's 200 2.8 is impressive in how small a package it is. And if you can get one for about £350 ... that's a huge saving on a 70-200 2.8 L if you're only ever using the longer end
Click to expand...

I know if I was after an awkward FL that wasn’t very fast for very little money I’d buy one, but I’d bet that the sales support my theory.... and we’re talking Ff a 200f2 is more useful/desirable on crop than a 200 2.8 on ff just like a 300 2.8 is a good fl for ff.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
You'd be surprised. It's not not only much cheaper but also a lot lighter [talking Canon here, as Sony don't have a 200 2.8] Fuji do a stupidly priced 200 F2, it's also a mammoth sized specimen, and that is definitely niche. But I think Canon's 200 2.8 is impressive in how small a package it is. And if you can get one for about £350 ... that's a huge saving on a 70-200 2.8 L if you're only ever using the longer end
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll be on the look out for the Canon 200L f/2.8 USM II, if I see a good one cheap I'm gonna grab it.
 
twist said:
I know if I was after an awkward FL that wasn’t very fast for very little money I’d buy one, but I’d bet that the sales support my theory.... and we’re talking Ff a 200f2 is more useful/desirable on crop than a 200 2.8 on ff just like a 300 2.8 is a good fl for ff.
Click to expand...

There's nothing awkward about 200mm though, and it's certainly not slow either. It's 200mm 2.8, in a prime, that might well be sharper than the 200mm end of a 70-200 - most people buy those for the longer end anyway - otherwise why not just use an 85 1.8?

I know the difference between FF and APSC, the 200mm F2 Fuji is still stupidly priced, so desirable or not, the average user isn't buying it. The Canon 200 2.8 is TC compatible also. You can buy it with the 2x TC on the likes of HDEW for £919 - you get a 400mm F5.6 in the mix with that option.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
There's nothing awkward about 200mm though, and it's certainly not slow either. It's 200mm 2.8, in a prime, that might well be sharper than the 200mm end of a 70-200 - most people buy those for the longer end anyway - otherwise why not just use an 85 1.8?

I know the difference between FF and APSC, the 200mm F2 Fuji is still stupidly priced, so desirable or not, the average user isn't buying it. The Canon 200 2.8 is TC compatible also. You can buy it with the 2x TC on the likes of HDEW for £919 - you get a 400mm F5.6 in the mix with that option.
Click to expand...

Sure about that? I’d say most buy a 70200 for its versatility and a perfect 2 lens combo with a 2470 for real work. The 70200 sells in bucket loads... the 200 prime much less. I only use primes but realise that, 200 2.8 FL only is awkward and if it was a better lens it would be much more desirable and as such at a higher price point. Genius spending 1k on a 200 2.8 and tc when you can get a L 400 5.6 for around 600 quid used.

200 2.8 on ff is a weird FL, to long for portraits, to short for motor/sport or wildlife and to long for anything else.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Sure about that? I’d say most buy a 70200 for its versatility and a perfect 2 lens combo with a 2470 for real work. The 70200 sells in bucket loads... the 200 prime much less. I only use primes but realise that.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Longer primes or indeed zooms that start in three figure focal lengths must surely be for specific shooting situations or subjects and outside of that comfort zone they must be limiting.
 
twist said:
Sure about that? I’d say most buy a 70200 for its versatility and a perfect 2 lens combo with a 2470 for real work. The 70200 sells in bucket loads... the 200 prime much less. I only use primes but realise that, 200 2.8 FL only is awkward and if it was a better lens it would be much more desirable and as such at a higher price point. Genius spending 1k on a 200 2.8 and tc when you can get a L 400 5.6 for around 600 quid used.

200 2.8 on ff is a weird FL, to long for portraits, to short for motor/sport or wildlife and to long for anything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am, I've seen many people buy the likes of the 200 2.8 because of the lower cost because they only want the longer end of a 70-200 - didn't say it was for everyone, but here we are on TP having to draw out the obvious as per usual. Genius in you not getting the fact you get both a 200 2.8 and 400 5.6 for below £1K and having the option to not get the TC to begin with :rolleyes:

We get it, YOU find a 200mm prime 'awkward' - but there's a reason the lens exists, people who know it makes sense buy it. You are allowed have other lenses besides. Go ahead and spend 4x the amount on a 70-200 2.8 Sony if you like, and then find you'll mostly use it at 200mm ...

Or like I already said, get an 85 1.8 if you're not using the longer end. It's all about options. Bit boring to suggest everyone should just get a 70-200 and be done.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yup.

Longer primes or indeed zooms that start in three figure focal lengths must surely be for specific shooting situations or subjects and outside of that comfort zone they must be limiting.
Click to expand...

It's 350 used for the 200 2.8, I wouldn't pay any more as I know they go for that regular. Don't you think that's a bit of a bargain? even if you'd only use it now and then?
 
Cagey75 said:
Yes, I am, I've seen many people buy the likes of the 200 2.8 because of the lower cost because they only want the longer end of a 70-200 - didn't say it was for everyone, but here we are on TP having to draw out the obvious as per usual. Genius in you not getting the fact you get both a 200 2.8 and 400 5.6 for below £1K and having the option to not get the TC to begin with :rolleyes:

We get it, YOU find a 200mm prime 'awkward' - but there's a reason the lens exists, people who know it makes sense buy it. You are allowed have other lenses besides. Go ahead and send 4x the amount on a 70-200 2.8 Sony if you like, and then find you'll mostly use it at 200mm ...
Click to expand...

No, I get it, you like a specialist fairly slow FL and want it to be the best thing ever, buy a ff camera, buy the lens and show us how useful it is. Much more so than say a 70200 and tc or a useful 400 5.6 L for half the price of your suggestion.

Who’s we, can’t see the masses agreeing with you? Do a quick poll, how many users in TP have a 70200 vs a 200 2.8 prime on FF.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
No, I get it, you like a specialist fairly slow FL and want it to be the best thing ever, buy a ff camera, buy the lens and show us how useful it is. Much more so than say a 70200 and tc or a useful 400 5.6 L for half the price of your suggestion.

Who’s we, can’t see the masses agreeing with you? Do a quick poll, how many users in TP have a 70200 vs a 200 2.8 prime on FF.
Click to expand...

What 'masses'? the Sony elite club? LOL. What's a "slow FL"? enlighten me because it sounds interesting. I don't own the 200 2.8, never have, it's one I wouldn't mind trying though. What's your point, in general? why would I need a poll? is this a competition for you? I recommended it to someone who might actually appreciate it. In fact newbeetle seems to be very interested, none of this was of your concern to begin with and I'm struggling to get your uppity-ness about it. They're f'ing lenses .... And I don't need to own a FF camera to know what I'm talking about. You'd have to be a bit of an elitist prick to imagine that , but hey, we're in this thread after all. Do you wake up every morning and p*** in everyone's cornflakes? pretty miserable attitude - I'll pet name you F8
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Calm down kids. Go out and take some pics and stop arguing lol
Click to expand...

I know, it comes to something when you can't have a light chat about some gear without it turning into a drama. I won't bother next time, not worth getting people so annoyed.
 
NewBeetle said:
I know, it comes to something when you can't have a light chat about some gear without it turning into a drama. I won't bother next time, not worth getting people so annoyed.
Click to expand...

Oh it certainly wasn't you ... maybe I'll save recommendations in future because it becomes some macho challenge - only in here mind
 
Who's buying 200mm 2.8's, though? Like, really. Pretty niche - hence why there are so few, one would imagine.
 
ohms12 said:
Who's buying 200mm 2.8's, though? Like, really. Pretty niche - hence why there are so few, one would imagine.
Click to expand...

People who want them and can see a bargain. Seriously, if Sony suddenly brought out a 200 2.8 for £600 ... would you not be interested?
 
Cagey75 said:
People who want them and can see a bargain. Seriously, if Sony suddenly brought out a 200 2.8 for £600 ... would you not be interested?
Click to expand...

Um, no. Because it's Sony, if they released a 200mm 2.8 it'd cost £2000.
 
ohms12 said:
Um, no. Because it's Sony, if they released a 200mm 2.8 it'd cost £2000.
Click to expand...

meanwhile the Canon + adapter costs about £500 used. It's just an option, don't know why people turn their nose at it. How much is a 70-200 2.8? Reckon you can get the 200 2.8, adapter and an 85 1.8 cheaper. Options ...
 
Cagey75 said:
meanwhile the Canon + adapter costs about £500 used. It's just an option, don't know why people turn their nose at it. How much is a 70-200 2.8? Reckon you can get the 200 2.8, adapter and an 85 1.8 cheaper. Options ...
Click to expand...

A used Canon 70-200 2.8 goes for basically the same money though, so I’m not sure I get your point. I’d buy the zoom.
 
ohms12 said:
A used Canon 70-200 2.8 goes for basically the same money though, so I’m not sure I get your point. I’d buy the zoom.
Click to expand...

Show me where, honestly show me one for 350 used. Obviously there is no point if you can get a 70-200 2.8 L for as little. There might also be the point that the prime is sharper and lighter, and not white [matters to some] - feel like people are arguing against a lens they barely ever heard of just for the sake of it. I don't care which you personally buy, but someone specifically mentioned a 200 2.8 ... maybe read back. I swear this is the only thread where disputes break out over a recommendation - you all hate it yet keep doing it
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
What 'masses'? the Sony elite club? LOL. What's a "slow FL"? enlighten me because it sounds interesting. I don't own the 200 2.8, never have, it's one I wouldn't mind trying though. What's your point, in general? why would I need a poll? is this a competition for you? I recommended it to someone who might actually appreciate it. In fact newbeetle seems to be very interested, none of this was of your concern to begin with and I'm struggling to get your uppity-ness about it. They're f'ing lenses .... And I don't need to own a FF camera to know what I'm talking about. You'd have to be a bit of an elitist prick to imagine that , but hey, we're in this thread after all. Do you wake up every morning and p*** in everyone's cornflakes? pretty miserable attitude - I'll pet name you F8
Click to expand...

Yet again, Cagey getting angry and argumentative
 
Livin The Dream said:
I sold my Nikon one as luckily someone mentioned that they ruin Sony sensors. Haven't replaced it yet. So far, getting away with a blower and arctic butterfly atm.
Click to expand...

Are you using the one without the led as the one with can damage the sensor?
 
F/1.4 said:
Yet again, Cagey getting angry and argumentative
Click to expand...

Not even remotely angry, you'd have to be a right Snowflake to think that.

On the pic above, I'd suggest not cropping below the knee
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Not even remotely angry, you'd have to be a right Snowflake to think that.

On the pic above, I'd suggest not cropping below the knee
Click to expand...

And what's your reasoning for that bro ?

Btw that's the cropped version for IG. Intentional so it shows larger on a phone screen. It was composed that way intentional, it was cropped in from a wider field of view.

There is no reason not to have a shot framed to cut off that part of a limb. It's more awkward looking if it's a knee/ankle/joint etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F/1.4 said:
And what's your reasoning for that bro ?

Btw that's the cropped version for IG. Intentional so it shows larger on a phone screen. It was composed that way intentional, it was cropped in from a wider field of view.

There is no reason not to have a shot framed to cut off that part of a limb. It's more awkward looking if it's a knee/ankle/joint etc.
Click to expand...

It was the first thing I was drawn to, I just think crop below the knee you're as well to leave the full body in, but it's just personal preference, nowt wrong with it otherwise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top