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

twist said:
So what youre saying is people have something against a brand like Zeiss and actually the people who say it is clinical havent used the lens and use other camera brands, because they must be fanboys o_O
Click to expand...

I think some have a view about Zeiss and maybe a different view when it's a Zeiss/Sony, yes, and maybe the lens would be better received by some if it was an M mount Zeiss or a Zeiss/Nikon or whatever. You're always going to get a bit of that from some people who think Sony should stick to making games consoles. You probably wont get that from people who aren't gear heads but you'll see that from people on forums from time to time. Another yes is to that maybe some don't take the time to use the lens in different situations with different subjects and compositions and distances to understand what goes on as if they did the some wouldn't make the contradictory statements that are there to be read and seen on forums and blogs.

Some seem to believe they can pick up a lens and make a judgement in the time it takes to take a few sample picture or film a blog and I'm sure they can but it may not be a judgement that tells you the things that extended use over time would tell.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think some have a view about Zeiss and maybe a different view when it's a Zeiss/Sony, yes, and maybe the lens would be better received by some if it was an M mount Zeiss or a Zeiss/Nikon or whatever. You're always going to get a bit of that from some people who think Sony should stick to making games consoles. You probably wont get that from people who aren't gear heads but you'll see that from people on forums from time to time. Another yes is to that maybe some don't take the time to use the lens in different situations with different subjects and compositions and distances to understand what goes on as if they did the some wouldn't make the contradictory statements that are there to be read and seen on forums and blogs.

Some seem to believe they can pick up a lens and make a judgement in the time it takes to take a few sample picture or film a blog and I'm sure that can but it may not be a judgement that tells you the things that extended use over time would tell.
Click to expand...

To an extent that is true, the Zeiss lenses (modern v classic) use different optical formulas, a lot of them havent been updated in years, besides adding some coatings. So there will be a difference in image properties. Its why you have so many vintage lenses of the same FL.

Some will slam a lens and some will defend their purchase. Whats new.

I found the 55 renders nicer up close than from distance, like a lot of sonys 1.8 lenses (not to say its a bad thing as some might want sharpness over all else etc.). It doesnt take me long to know if a setup gives me the look I want because I know what I look for, because I mostly shoot one type subject at varying distances indoors and outdoors. I dont have to spend a year with it or take it to mt Everest to know what it performs like in cold weather with snow everywhere.

Youre right about the bloggers and YT reviewers, to many of them trying to make a quick buck by talking a lot of uninformed crap (wrong specs, poor testing etc) and posting really rubbish samples/clips.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Well, no, because as you know, certain people can and cant see pop (another IQ thats fairly difficult to define), or to varying degrees, its like saying well cant you just add clarity and itll pop. You know from experience lenses render very differently.
Click to expand...
True. I’ve always regarded clinical as meaning too ‘crisp’/sharp but as you say it’s probably not that simple. I do like those examples on the previous page though (y)
 
snerkler said:
True. I’ve always regarded clinical as meaning too ‘crisp’/sharp but as you say it’s probably not that simple. I do like those examples on the previous page though (y)
Click to expand...

Not for me, I dont mind a sharp lens, after all, I love the way the ARTs render and some dont. Just the way it is.
 
Sharpness is important to a point. I do favour lenses that have some character and therefore it's rare to have a lens ticking both boxes of absolute sharpness and the very best creamy rendition possible, there's normally a compromise (135GM etc aside). Coming from the Nikon, I preferred the rendition of my old 35G over my 35ZA...just. But when I look back at the sharpness and critical focus, the Sony is in a different league and that trumps the rendition every time. The overall package is just much better. My 85G was extremely temperamental with AF consistency, the 85 GM, like all the lenses I've got/tried, don't suffer those inconsistencies. I am far more pleased with the output and consistency since moving over.
 
twist said:
To an extent that is true, the Zeiss lenses (modern v classic) use different optical formulas, a lot of them havent been updated in years, besides adding some coatings. So there will be a difference in image properties. Its why you have so many vintage lenses of the same FL.

Some will slam a lens and some will defend their purchase. Whats new.

I found the 55 renders nicer up close than from distance, like a lot of sonys 1.8 lenses (not to say its a bad thing as some might want sharpness over all else etc.). It doesnt take me long to know if a setup gives me the look I want because I know what I look for, because I mostly shoot one type subject at varying distances indoors and outdoors. I dont have to spend a year with it or take it to mt Everest to know what it performs like in cold weather with snow everywhere.

Youre right about the bloggers and YT reviewers, to many of them trying to make a quick buck by talking a lot of uninformed crap (wrong specs, poor testing etc) and posting really rubbish samples/clips.
Click to expand...

I can see how one type of picture will make a judgement easier. For a wider mix it'd take Father Christmas levels of superpowers to fit it all in for the more normal internet review or blog.

I used to be heavily into cars and one thing I remember from those days was that some claimed to be able to get to grips with a car PDQ and whilst that may be true for some things like for example racing on one track in the outside big wide world it used to take me months to cover the different conditions, surfaces, environments and road layouts to make an informed judgement. I do think the same is true to an extent with photography gear as you can make a quick judgement which may be pretty useful for one genre but it could well take a lot more time to form a wider opinion.
 
twist said:
Not for me, I dont mind a sharp lens, after all, I love the way the ARTs render and some dont. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Interesting you say this as most acknowledge that Sigma plumbed for absolute sharpness across the range, over rendition. Proof that we are too critical in the age of pixel peeping.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Sharpness is important to a point. I do favour lenses that have some character and therefore it's rare to have a lens ticking both boxes of absolute sharpness and the very best creamy rendition possible, there's normally a compromise (135GM etc aside). Coming from the Nikon, I preferred the rendition of my old 35G over my 35ZA...just. But when I look back at the sharpness and critical focus, the Sony is in a different league and that trumps the rendition every time. The overall package is just much better. My 85G was extremely temperamental with AF consistency, the 85 GM, like all the lenses I've got/tried, don't suffer those inconsistencies. I am far more pleased with the output and consistency since moving over.
Click to expand...

I think one problem with some Sony lenses is that sharpness seems to have been high on the list of wants when they were designed. Once that's accepted other aspects of the look they give maybe become more understandable.

I don't need to make massive pictures and I try to stop myself pixel peeping so although I do look to see how sharp lenses are I also try to assess if they're sharp enough for me and my uses and how that sharpness or lack off affects what I'm trying to get.
 
Livin The Dream said:
The other point is that not everyone is into creamy bokeh renditions. I'm just a self-confessed bokeh whore..
Click to expand...

Even bokeh varies with subject, composition and distance and with aperture too. A good example of this is the e mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 I have which some would simply dismiss as awful. With stuff like foliage and twigs and stuff it can look awful but with a less messy background it can look lovely and stopped down IMO it has a wonderful bokeh character.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Interesting you say this as most acknowledge that Sigma plumbed for absolute sharpness across the range, over rendition. Proof that we are too critical in the age of pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

You see it on a lot of forums though, people only commenting on sharpness, not any other quality. I like the Sigmas because to my eye they offer really nice depth with good contrast and strong colour.
 
twist said:
You see it on a lot of forums though, people only commenting on sharpness, not any other quality. I like the Sigmas because to my eye they offer really nice depth with good contrast and strong colour.
Click to expand...
That's right..... sometimes lens rendering, out of focus area's, contrast and even colour outputs make lenses shine and sharpness isn't everything.
 
twist said:
You see it on a lot of forums though, people only commenting on sharpness, not any other quality. I like the Sigmas because to my eye they offer really nice depth with good contrast and strong colour.
Click to expand...

One of the LOL moments for me is when people say pictures aren't sharp based on 1000 pixel wide or there abouts pictures posted online via photobucket or some other site. I'd rather be the judge if I have the picture in front of me and if I don't I'd rather include the opinion of the person who took the picture.

I remember someone who thankfully hasn't posted in this thread for a while dismissing a 35mm Voigtlander lens I had as crap and claiming a posted picture was unacceptably soft seemingly basing their opinion largely on experiences with a 75mm Voigtlander. That's a stretch and another stretch. There's always room for opinions but I think it's worth remembering they're sometimes only opinion and others are free to have their own.

And another thing :D

There was a time when people went for what many would see today as a softer and less contrasty look and also a time when the OOF areas were areas you weren't meant to be looking at. Times change.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun.

This is a 100% crop from a picture I've just taken for Mrs WW. We don't have a document scanner so I used my A7 and Sony 35mm f1.8 at f2.8.

zG6MXFd.jpg


:D

The length of the unbroken character strings always amazes me. I think this language must have been developed by women, women who talk fast and don't take a breath :D
 
Livin The Dream said:
Interesting you say this as most acknowledge that Sigma plumbed for absolute sharpness across the range, over rendition. Proof that we are too critical in the age of pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Not to sure this is the case with the 85 and 135 Arts.

See this for example, 85 1.4, GM v Samyang V ART. The whole videos pretty interesting but the first bit wont really be of much interest to people photographers.

View: https://youtu.be/pTkwu-H3n-c?t=1123
 
Last edited:
On the sharpness vs rendering side of things, I still reckon that the Viltrox 85 f1.8 and Samyang 50 f1.4 I used to own had some of the nicest rendering of any lenses I've owned. One of the Viltrox test pictures is about halfway up my top-10 images on Flickr, and while that's not saying too much, the bokeh is a key part of that particular image.

Viltrox FE AF 85 f1.8 PFU RBMH-7 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
How serious a problem is shutter failure on the A73 - I’ve seen so many reports of this happening and quite early on too? Is it a huge risk buying this camera or am I worrying for nothing?
 
Some have said that they tend to go early on and if used a lot on the fastest shutter setting? I don’t machine gun so?? If early on, will be covered under warranty if you buy from a reputable retailer.
 
twist said:
Not to sure this is the case with the 85 and 135 Arts.

See this for example, 85 1.4, GM v Samyang V ART. The whole videos pretty interesting but the first bit wont really be of much interest to people photographers.

View: https://youtu.be/pTkwu-H3n-c?t=1123
Click to expand...

Just watched this. I had the 135 art with the Nikon and loved it. I'd happily have one again, awesome lens. Maybe next year, one or the other, if we come out of this mess the other side ok..
 
Livin The Dream said:
Just watched this. I had the 135 art with the Nikon and loved it. I'd happily have one again, awesome lens. Maybe next year, one or the other, if we come out of this mess the other side ok..
Click to expand...

You're right, what a mess!

Choosing between the 85 and 135 art is torture, both are fantastic, similar size, similar weight, similar pricing, both optically incredible.
 
twist said:
You're right, what a mess!

Choosing between the 85 and 135 art is torture, both are fantastic, similar size, similar weight, similar pricing, both optically incredible.
Click to expand...

I'd like a 135 or 200 even for the additional compression. It's a specific, occasional use lens but do love that 'look.' Nice to have but 85 is more useable for everyday, plus the working distance is better generally.
 
Livin The Dream said:
An old snap but you can see the onions in it at the edges..

48628397613_d58e283bb5_b.jpg


And another background, a tad swirly...

48587392562_60f02c7d5b_b.jpg
Click to expand...
First one looks a bit messy, but these two look ok to me. I can live with oniony bokeh as long as it’s not distracting.
 
Got to say I'm pretty impressed with the Samyang 18mm f2.8, appears nice and sharp across the frame and without a great deal of edge and corner distortion. OK so it's the first UWA prime I've used so nothing really to compare it too, but it looks better than my Nikon 18-35mm, and noticeably better than the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4.
 
snerkler said:
Got to say I'm pretty impressed with the Samyang 18mm f2.8, appears nice and sharp across the frame and without a great deal of edge and corner distortion. OK so it's the first UWA prime I've used so nothing really to compare it too, but it looks better than my Nikon 18-35mm, and noticeably better than the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4.
Click to expand...

I see you got the 28 f2 after all. Have you used it? What do you think?
 
Livin The Dream said:
I see you got the 28 f2 after all. Have you used it? What do you think?
Click to expand...
Yeah I got it to try as I'm not sure what's going to work best for me as a walkabout lens, 28mm or 35mm although there's no doubt that the compact nature of the 35mm f2.8 is a definite bonus.

I like the colour and overall rendering of the 28mm, the bokeh is quite pleasing for a lens like this imo. There is noticeable distortion in the corners though.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I got it to try as I'm not sure what's going to work best for me as a walkabout lens, 28mm or 35mm although there's no doubt that the compact nature of the 35mm f2.8 is a definite bonus.

I like the colour and overall rendering of the 28mm, the bokeh is quite pleasing for a lens like this imo. There is noticeable distortion in the corners though.
Click to expand...

35 is small enough to pocket while the 28mm is on the camera. I like the 28.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I got it to try as I'm not sure what's going to work best for me as a walkabout lens, 28mm or 35mm although there's no doubt that the compact nature of the 35mm f2.8 is a definite bonus.

I like the colour and overall rendering of the 28mm, the bokeh is quite pleasing for a lens like this imo. There is noticeable distortion in the corners though.
Click to expand...
addicknchips said:
35 is small enough to pocket while the 28mm is on the camera. I like the 28.
Click to expand...

I still think the 28 would be perfect to complement the 55 as a travel/light option for me. I know the distortion is said to be noticeable but fixable in post. It's cheap too. I was thinking about the 35 1.8 instead and decide whether that would replace the 35ZA at some point? The 35 2.8 looks a great little lens. Most of my wedding was shot with it and I'm mightily impressed.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I still think the 28 would be perfect to complement the 55 as a travel/light option for me. I know the distortion is said to be noticeable but fixable in post. It's cheap too. I was thinking about the 35 1.8 instead and decide whether that would replace the 35ZA at some point? The 35 2.8 looks a great little lens. Most of my wedding was shot with it and I'm mightily impressed.
Click to expand...
Not the best pic but here's an example with a 1:1 crop on the A7RIV (so hefty crop). I'm pretty sure I had lens corrections set on LR too. Shot at f8


Screenshot 2020-03-27 at 10.41.31 by TDG-77, on Flickr

Screenshot 2020-03-27 at 10.37.44 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Livin The Dream said:
I still think the 28 would be perfect to complement the 55 as a travel/light option for me. I know the distortion is said to be noticeable but fixable in post. It's cheap too. I was thinking about the 35 1.8 instead and decide whether that would replace the 35ZA at some point? The 35 2.8 looks a great little lens. Most of my wedding was shot with it and I'm mightily impressed.
Click to expand...

One big plus for the 35mm f1.8 is the close focus ability, but I don't know how close the 28mm will focus. I like having a reasonable close focus ability for flower, berry and other smaller stuff out in the world. The big plus for the 35mm f2.8 for me is that it's so small.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
One big plus for the 35mm f1.8 is the close focus ability, but I don't know how close the 28mm will focus. I like having a reasonable close focus ability for flower, berry and other smaller stuff out in the world. The big plus for the 35mm f2.8 for me is that it's so small.
Click to expand...
28mm MFD is 29cm in AF, 25cm in MF, 35mm f1.8 is 22cm plus it's a longer focal length so has better magnification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top