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

Messages
5,537
Edit My Images
Yes
EVERY wider lens will do that with busy/detail areas like grass and leaves etc. The Zeiss has really good OOF areas. What are you trying to compare it against? EDIT The bits around the top of the building could be editing or CA, without seeing the original raw we won't know.
I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens. ;)

I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.

Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
 
Messages
14,721
Edit My Images
No
I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens. ;)

I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.

Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
Thank you ;). You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,922
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol

There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.

I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
 
Messages
5,537
Edit My Images
Yes
Thank you ;). You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
I'm comparing them to similar shallow depth of field pics I've seen over the years. Obviously not that particular combo, because I didn't know what that was, and haven't known exactly what the camera/lenses of other images I've seen in the past, but to me the oof areas in those pics was enough out of the ordinary for me to comment. If Raymond had said it was a 40 year old Cosina or whatever lens then I wouldn't have been too surprised, that it is a very expensive modern lens surprised me. :eek: If you feel they are what is to be expected for the most part though, then again, I bow to your superior knowledge. :) When I factored in the cost of the lens, then that was when I would have been really unhappy. ;)

I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will. :)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol

There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.

I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
Apparently canon is better and has good bokeh.

I bet the AF is better and it's better weather sealed (never thought I'd ever say that about Sony gear!).
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will. :)
Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,033
Edit My Images
No
Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
 
Messages
6,540
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
We all know when things, anything, gets to a certain point it’s all great and there is no twice as good for twice the price.

You’d think some £2000 headphones is 10x as good as £200 ones?

After a certain point it’s all about the micro details and what you prefer.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
Sure, if you like a decentred, purple halo, only truly sharp from f2 lens lottery lens. :rolleyes:
It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.

Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
As Raymond pointed it out its law of diminishing returns which is especially true in photography.
SZ as it stands now is the cheaper option for me. I can sell it back at no loss, sigma will definitely incur a loss since I'll have to buy it new.
If I could get e-mount sigma used I'd definitely buy it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,721
Edit My Images
No
It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.

Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.

So your first SZ was a dud and you're getting another?
Old vintage lenses sometimes do render nicely and so do some older non-vintage lenses like canon 85mm/1.2L. but that's not because they are soft lol.

No my first Zeiss was great. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. A wedding dress shop owner wanting it to shoot models wearing their wedding dress. I even told them it'd cheaper to buy sigma or samyang but they wanted the Zeiss.

I bought another because I found one in LCE and they agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously. Also they tested the lens for me on a tripod which was nice.
I did intend to get sigma but I don't want to pay full new price for it. Rather keep the Zeiss till I find a used one at a good price.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
Sounds like samyang have ironed out their AF further in 24mm f2.8. it's seems nearly silent and reliable. They seem to be iteratively fixing their AF with every new lens. Here's hoping we'll see a small 85mm f1.4 like the canon EF version with good AF.
 
Messages
14,721
Edit My Images
No
Old vintage lenses sometimes do render nicely and so do some older non-vintage lenses like canon 85mm/1.2L. but that's not because they are soft lol.

No my first Zeiss was great. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. A wedding dress shop owner wanting it to shoot models wearing their wedding dress. I even told them it'd cheaper to buy sigma or samyang but they wanted the Zeiss.

I bought another because I found one in LCE and agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously.
But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues. Regarding the Samyang, within 5 minutes I preferred the Sigma but I'll run some more tests.

Good luck with the new lens.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues.
I purposefully didn't say better. It's subjective.

I like the Zeiss. I have nothing against sigma. I had it in a-mount and preferred it to Sony (thier a-mount 35mm/1.4 G sucks also :p )
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
You are mis-quoting me.

Overall better lens is not same as saying better rendering.
Overall includes AF, build, size, ergonomics, video usage etc.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,033
Edit My Images
No
You are mis-quoting me.

Overall better lens is not same as saying better rendering.
Overall includes AF, build, size, ergonomics, video usage etc.
Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
 
Messages
14,721
Edit My Images
No
morning peeps

friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"

can you advise?

cheers
Quick way, shoot a brick wall wide open and fill the frame, then turn the camera upside down and shoot again. Take into lightroom the soft side will move from left to right or vice versa when reviewing the images.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
Didn't spot any great advantage for the Sony in terms of af, build, size or ergonomics. They're both pretty similar there. Don't use video to comment.
Sony is definitely better weather sealed (or rather sigma isn't at all). The AF was smoother and faster than my a-mount version and I don't suspect the DSLR lens will do better on mirrorless.
FE35 is slightly smaller but slightly fatter. So about equal as you say.
Zeiss also has aperture ring and for video AF is once again better with Zeiss with option of clickless aperture.
But of course YMMV and not really be bothered by these
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
morning peeps

friend of mine has ordered a used zeiss 35mm 1.4 and was wondering how he should test for the famous "issue"

can you advise?

cheers
he can do the quick test twist suggested.

for more information my post from 50 pages ago :D

as the saying goes...
every lens ever made is decentered ;)
if you can't find it you just haven't got equipment sensitive enough :D

Anyway here's some material for you to read and figure out how to properly test your lens for de-centering
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ntered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover/
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/testing-for-decentering-by-eye/
https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/

Re-iterating what much clever people than me have said, a lot of people incorrectly test their lens and cry wolf which results in many copies sent back. That said there is a fair bit of sample variable in the FE35/1.4 but its not like every other lens is going to be bad. Also a lot of these lenses are not decentered they simply have slightly asymmetrical focussing (mine does very very slightly) which won't affect your photographs apart from brick walls. You can test for this also.
 
Messages
14,721
Edit My Images
No
Sony is definitely better weather sealed (or rather sigma isn't at all). The AF was smoother and faster than my a-mount version and I don't suspect the DSLR lens will do better on mirrorless.
FE35 is slightly smaller but slightly fatter. So about equal as you say.
Zeiss also has aperture ring and for video AF is once again better with Zeiss with option of clickless aperture.
But of course YMMV and not really be bothered by these
Okay, so a few things..... youre comparing the DSLR version to the mirrorless version, they are NOT the same. So you should really try one.

1) The Sigma FE ARTs have a weather seal on the mount.
2) The AF has changed from the DSLR lenses, its MUCH smoother and quietly swoops, acts like a mirrorless lens during stills.
3) FE35 is 72mm vs 67mm filter of the ART.
4) Does anyone actually use the manual aperture on an AF lens?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
4,697
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so a few things..... youre comparing the DSLR version to the mirrorless version, they are NOT the same. So you should really try one.

1) The Sigma FE ARTs have a weather seal on the mount.
2) The AF has changed from the DSLR lenses, its MUCH smoother and quietly swoops, acts like a mirrorless lens during stills.
3) FE35 is 72mm vs 67mm filter of the ART.
4) Does anyone actually use the manual aperture on an AF lens?
They haven't changed the AF motors and I'd be very surprised if it's as good as FE35

1) - sure but not rest of the lens. Sony is missing on mount (for some insane reason)
2) what about video?
3) sure, I prefer 67mm because it matches my other lens
4) - yes

It's a DSLR lens hacked to work for mirrorless. There is no getting away from that.
 
Last edited:
Top