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

4wd said:
That's the only lens I have so far for A7iii, hard to fault.
In APS-C mode it has decent reach, more often a little lacking at wide end in confined spaces (like congested Whitby streets on Goth weekend where it was hard to use)
I am tempted to get the 16-35 F4 Zeiss
Click to expand...

I had the 16-35mm f4. Its a great lens though the 24-105mm will be better at 35mm. Its very sharp wide open especially at the UWA 16-24mm end which is where you’d want it for.

Personally went for the laowa 15mm f2 for the f2 aperture and future nighttime/astro work. I used to have the voigtlander 15mm f4.5 also which is also really nice, small, sharp UWA lens if you don’t need the speed. The voigtlander makes beautiful sunstars even wide-open. Worth buying it just for that if that’s your thing.

You can’t go wrong with most of the UWA options on e-mount, they all have their positives. Just go with whatever serves your purpose best.
 
clicktor said:
Be interested to hear your thoughts on the two in terms of usage. I think they are obviously both fantastic lenses optically and operationally. It comes down to usage scenarios and focal range. I'm really torn between the two. On the one hand, one of the reasons I moved to Sony Full Frame was because I wanted to have more shallow DOF in a versatile walk about zoom lens (i.e. without having to get the primes out). So compromising slightly with the f/4 kind of goes against the grain of my original movement to Sony as I knew about the Tamron lens. I was about to pull the trigger but held back because there are so many times in the past where I have just wanted that little bit more reach at the long end. The 24mm wide is just a bonus really. Size and weight difference is minimal with the Sony about 100g more. I think at full 105mm at f4, the bokeh is going to be as acceptable as the Tamron at f/2.8, but it's the shorter focal lengths that are going to be nicer with the Tamron like 30-55 range.

Argh! Then the other side of me says just get the bargain Sony kit lens for £140 as a walk about compact lens and get a couple more primes. Dunno. I already have the Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 and I'm personally really happy with it and could never justify the Zeiss 55mm additional cost. I take a lot of portrait and people shots.
Click to expand...

Operationally Sony is better because you get switches for stabilisation, AF/MF and a customisable button on the lens. Also now most of my lenses have a customisable button so now operation between them is the same i.e. consistent. Previously tamron didn’t have it so I kinda lost a customisation and muscle memory played up lol.

Build and size wise you there is a noticeable difference (even though it may not seem it). Sony is fatter with a metal build (77mm filter diameter) and tamron is sleek with a plasticy build (67mm filter diameter). I am not one of the people that believes heavy metal build is always better, so I preferred the tamron in this respect (though I think I am in the minority, majority will tell you Sony is better). But both are weather sealed.

So main reason for owning either of the lens (for me) is a decent walkabout plus for shooting landscape, travel and family+kids portraits and/or candid. For landscape and travel Sony was better option for me. The extended range on both sides is a massive benefit. It should cover me rather well.
For family+kid tamron was better, also because 50% of those were shot indoors where tamron wins really thanks to f2.8.
But its all a compromise in the end and I have made my choice for now. I am known change lenses quite often, so you never know… I may go back ;)
 
135mm gmaster is about an inch longer than the 85mm f1.4. $1,900 so £2k over here perhaps with how we seem to get stitched up.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
135mm gmaster is about an inch longer than the 85mm f1.4. $1,900 so £2k over here perhaps with how we seem to get stitched up.
Click to expand...
Think it's USD $1800 which means I think it'll be £1800. We'll see...

I would have been more interested if this worked with teleconveters. Doesn't look like it does, which is a shame :(
A-mount version worked with TCs.
 
woof woof said:
For what it's worth... The first leaked picture of the 135mm f1.8...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-firts-leaked-image-of-the-new-sony-135mm-f-1-8-gm-lens/

Who's buying?
Click to expand...

When it was first confirmed I wasn’t interested at all as I couldn’t see me using it much.

Read the press release and it did look interesting. Have no doubt that it will be exceptional, but probably not enough for me to buy one.

Since then watched a few videos etc on it. Now thinking probably have to have one.

G Master innit. :cool:
 
I can see it being popular for tight portrait shots but for any other portait the subject and photographer are going to have to communicate by phone. Bit long for me :D but one of my fav shots of the mrs was taken with a 135mm, in my case Minolta Rokkor f2.8.
 
nandbytes said:
Operationally Sony is better because you get switches for stabilisation, AF/MF and a customisable button on the lens. Also now most of my lenses have a customisable button so now operation between them is the same i.e. consistent. Previously tamron didn’t have it so I kinda lost a customisation and muscle memory played up lol.

Build and size wise you there is a noticeable difference (even though it may not seem it). Sony is fatter with a metal build (77mm filter diameter) and tamron is sleek with a plasticy build (67mm filter diameter). I am not one of the people that believes heavy metal build is always better, so I preferred the tamron in this respect (though I think I am in the minority, majority will tell you Sony is better). But both are weather sealed.

So main reason for owning either of the lens (for me) is a decent walkabout plus for shooting landscape, travel and family+kids portraits and/or candid. For landscape and travel Sony was better option for me. The extended range on both sides is a massive benefit. It should cover me rather well.
For family+kid tamron was better, also because 50% of those were shot indoors where tamron wins really thanks to f2.8.
But its all a compromise in the end and I have made my choice for now. I am known change lenses quite often, so you never know… I may go back ;)
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. :)
I think I am more drawn to the Tamron right now and the wallet would certainly prefer it. I guess there is always the crop mode for those times when I absolutely need 100mm+ not that I have even tried it on my 50mm at time of writing this. :p
 
I can’t see Sony moving many at that price when the Sigma is half the cost and exceptional. How much better can it be against the siggy? It’s a fl that is a bit niche too, so questionable as to how many will be attracted, wonder what their expectation is. Now if the price fell to within 30% higher than the Sigma price, it would be a tougher decision for those that do consider cost.
 
Last edited:
Livin The Dream said:
I can’t see Sony moving many at that price when the Sigma is half the cost and exceptional. How much better can it be against the siggy? It’s a fl that is a bit niche too, so questionable as to how many will be attracted, wonder what their expectation is. Now if the price fell to within 30% higher than the Sigma price, it would be a tougher decision for those that do consider cost.
Click to expand...

Going forward I think Sony are going to have issues shifting a lot of their higher end lenses. Before mirrorless there was always the argument for oems to say that third party glass had a.f issues, but that’s no longer possible. I guess Nikon can still do that as they aren’t making their tech available to everyone else.
 
Anyone using the Sony 28mm F2? See it can be had grey new for £299.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I can’t see Sony moving many at that price when the Sigma is half the cost and exceptional. How much better can it be against the siggy? It’s a fl that is a bit niche too, so questionable as to how many will be attracted, wonder what their expectation is. Now if the price fell to within 30% higher than the Sigma price, it would be a tougher decision for those that do consider cost.
Click to expand...

Well is a bit shorter and lighter than sigma. It also has the customisable button, switches, AF limiter and aperture ring. It probably also has slightly faster AF and better video AF. That's worth the premium to some people and the GM badge :D

It would have been more appealing if it was compatible with teleconverters but doesn't seem like it is :-/
 
clicktor said:
Be interested to hear your thoughts on the two in terms of usage. I think they are obviously both fantastic lenses optically and operationally. It comes down to usage scenarios and focal range. I'm really torn between the two. On the one hand, one of the reasons I moved to Sony Full Frame was because I wanted to have more shallow DOF in a versatile walk about zoom lens (i.e. without having to get the primes out). So compromising slightly with the f/4 kind of goes against the grain of my original movement to Sony as I knew about the Tamron lens. I was about to pull the trigger but held back because there are so many times in the past where I have just wanted that little bit more reach at the long end. The 24mm wide is just a bonus really. Size and weight difference is minimal with the Sony about 100g more. I think at full 105mm at f4, the bokeh is going to be as acceptable as the Tamron at f/2.8, but it's the shorter focal lengths that are going to be nicer with the Tamron like 30-55 range.

Argh! Then the other side of me says just get the bargain Sony kit lens for £140 as a walk about compact lens and get a couple more primes. Dunno. I already have the Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 and I'm personally really happy with it and could never justify the Zeiss 55mm additional cost. I take a lot of portrait and people shots.
Click to expand...

It really depends on how much use you think it will get..... I went for the 28-70mm kit zoom & it did get a fair bit of use but (especially since I've picked up the Voigtlanders) it's not had much use for the past 6 months!! I've never been a general everyday zoom type of person tough.
 
nandbytes said:
Well is a bit shorter and lighter than sigma. It also has the customisable button, switches, AF limiter and aperture ring. It probably also has slightly faster AF and better video AF. That's worth the premium to some people and the GM badge :D

It would have been more appealing if it was compatible with teleconverters but doesn't seem like it is :-/
Click to expand...

Very slight improvements, granted. Is the aperture ring a positive thing? Didn’t note the incompatibility with teleconverters.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Very slight improvements, granted. Is the aperture ring a positive thing? Didn’t note the incompatibility with teleconverters.
Click to expand...

sometimes small things make a big difference ;)
especially if you are used to having somethings like the button on the lens lol. It gets ingrained into muscle memory.

I use the aperture ring on my 24GM, used it on the zeiss 35 when I had it. Though its not something I'd pay 50% extra for :p

The don't know if its incompatible but since the release notes didn't mention it I assumed as much.
 
clicktor said:
Cheers for that. :)
I think I am more drawn to the Tamron right now and the wallet would certainly prefer it. I guess there is always the crop mode for those times when I absolutely need 100mm+ not that I have even tried it on my 50mm at time of writing this. :p
Click to expand...

I've been reading a lot of reviews over the last few days :p particularly about these 2 lenses. My take is that the Tamron shows good central sharpness wide open and improves just a little stopped down but actually peaks at f5.6. The 24-105 by comparison is sharp and gets sharper and over a greater area of the frame. For me, I would choose the 24-105 because I want a lens that I can walk aound with that's flexible but good for landscape, architecture etc. If I MUST separate from the BG then I'll try to make sure the subject is close & BG far away - or use a prime that I always carry too. ;) But it sounds like the Tammy might be better for you, if you care less for 'landscape' sharpness and want shallower DoF.
 
nandbytes said:
sometimes small things make a big difference ;)
especially if you are used to having somethings like the button on the lens lol. It gets ingrained into muscle memory.

I use the aperture ring on my 24GM, used it on the zeiss 35 when I had it. Though its not something I'd pay 50% extra for :p

The don't know if its incompatible but since the release notes didn't mention it I assumed as much.
Click to expand...

Isn't that button in a really awkward place if holding in portrait orientation?
 
nandbytes said:
sometimes small things make a big difference ;)
especially if you are used to having somethings like the button on the lens lol. It gets ingrained into muscle memory.

I use the aperture ring on my 24GM, used it on the zeiss 35 when I had it. Though its not something I'd pay 50% extra for :p

The don't know if its incompatible but since the release notes didn't mention it I assumed as much.
Click to expand...

I don’t use the aperture rings on either my 35 or 85, guess just used to a dial.

I have set eye af up on the 85 GM button for the hell of it, but mindful not to get too used to it as currently nothing else has one.
 
Well guys got over the gas with camera body keeping my a7iii going add a couple of lens me think. A macro lens not sure which though. And maybe a 35mm
 
addicknchips said:
Isn't that button in a really awkward place if holding in portrait orientation?
Click to expand...
It's slightly awkward but for small lenses I have got used to still pressing it with my thumb. For bigger lenses like 100-400 and 70-200 GM there are 3 buttons so it's actually easier than on smaller lens to use in portrait orientation.

Once the next firmware comes out I shouldn't need it for the eyeAF anyway since it'll be real time. I'll probably reuse it to toggle APS-C crop mode which makes it less awkward since I don't need to have it constantly pressed.
 
Last edited:
Here I was all set to get the A7RIII for pixels etc and now you all have me second guessing myself. I generally do print photos/have them framed quite large though so I think the pixels are more important for me than others.
 
Stephen Devine said:
Here I was all set to get the A7RIII for pixels etc and now you all have me second guessing myself. I generally do print photos/have them framed quite large though so I think the pixels are more important for me than others.
Click to expand...
Why the AF in A7RIII is pretty good. We were discussing difference with A7RII.
 
Im truly interested in switching to the Sony and not asking these to start anything, so please keep the fanboyism in check, I know it seems to have taken over a lot in here.

I've now spent a fair bit off time looking over images on the likes of Flickr and such like and I don't know if I hold standards to high or expected to much, but there seems to be so many soft and miss focus shots especially wide open, defiantly comparing the d750 images to the a7iii there doesn't seem to be any higher of a hit rate for what I would class as sharp portraits.
this was looking at non studio/flash images anyway.

So is the AF and eye AF actually as good as everyone makes out, all I hear is praise on how great and revolutionary it is but can't see the proof.
Has this camera been hyped up so much by the internet/youtube celebrity's who it seems a lot more use it for video than stills and its started a cascade of everyone jumping on.

I'm actually interested to how its better than the likes of the d750/5dm4 and if anyone has been getting hight hit rates wide open.
 
pmac said:
Im truly interested in switching to the Sony and not asking these to start anything, so please keep the fanboyism in check, I know it seems to have taken over a lot in here.

I've now spent a fair bit off time looking over images on the likes of Flickr and such like and I don't know if I hold standards to high or expected to much, but there seems to be so many soft and miss focus shots especially wide open, defiantly comparing the d750 images to the a7iii there doesn't seem to be any higher of a hit rate for what I would class as sharp portraits.
this was looking at non studio/flash images anyway.

So is the AF and eye AF actually as good as everyone makes out, all I hear is praise on how great and revolutionary it is but can't see the proof.
Has this camera been hyped up so much by the internet/youtube celebrity's who it seems a lot more use it for video than stills and its started a cascade of everyone jumping on.

I'm actually interested to how its better than the likes of the d750/5dm4 and if anyone has been getting hight hit rates wide open.
Click to expand...

I can give a recent example that might help. Up until switching to Sony I have been using Nikon Dslr's for over 15 years and the last Nikon's I had where 2 x D850's and 2 x D750's.

I had a commercial job a while back for a guy that own's 2 x seaside town B&B's who needed images for their websites, social media etc. both of them are pretty much identical buildings just a few doors down from each other. I shot the first one using the Nikon's just before moving to Sony. Looking at Lightroom, I shot 289 frames. Of the 289, around 50 of those had focus issues, either due to me or down to the equipment. To be fair some of the O.O.F frames could have still been usable if needed. With the Nikons I have always overshot to allow for focus issues.

I had to wait to do the second one as they where having a bit of a refurb, and only got to it a couple of weeks ago, having now switched to Sony A7III's. This time around I shot less photos as I knew better what they where looking for, so came away with 214 photos. Of those 1 image was binned for focus issues. Bit of an extreme example but there you go.

Have also noticed a huge difference at weddings, bride coming down the aisle etc. is an absolute gift now, where as I always worried with the Nikons so always way overshot moments like that.

I think I actually posted in this thread after my first Sony wedding asking "was it even possible to miss focus".

Radiohead said:
Good AF can’t save crap technique but after 4 years with D750’s it’s not even close to the A9. If a shot if OOF it’s down to me and not the camera.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this.
 
Last edited:
pmac said:
Im truly interested in switching to the Sony and not asking these to start anything, so please keep the fanboyism in check, I know it seems to have taken over a lot in here.

I've now spent a fair bit off time looking over images on the likes of Flickr and such like and I don't know if I hold standards to high or expected to much, but there seems to be so many soft and miss focus shots especially wide open, defiantly comparing the d750 images to the a7iii there doesn't seem to be any higher of a hit rate for what I would class as sharp portraits.
this was looking at non studio/flash images anyway.

So is the AF and eye AF actually as good as everyone makes out, all I hear is praise on how great and revolutionary it is but can't see the proof.
Has this camera been hyped up so much by the internet/youtube celebrity's who it seems a lot more use it for video than stills and its started a cascade of everyone jumping on.

I'm actually interested to how its better than the likes of the d750/5dm4 and if anyone has been getting hight hit rates wide open.
Click to expand...
I don't think Flickr gives you a good overview of AF capabilities tbh.
The 3rd Gen A7 bodies are pretty good. A9 is even better if you can afford it. The best thing to do is see if you can try one out for a couple days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top