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

ancient_mariner said:
I'm quite tempted by the 70-180, and now I have the 12-24 Sigma, I might consider swapping the 24-105 for Tammy's 28-70. But at the moment I'm just finding the pictures I take with wider range zooms dissatisfying, and it's more from that perspective than anything else. Chances are that if I see a pic on TP that's processed and presented well I'll have no idea what camera and lens was used to take it.
Click to expand...

I have the Sony 12-24mm f4. Really great lens, possibly the best UWA zoom I have owned but I do not use it as much as a normal zoom. Harder to get good shots out (U)WA lenses IME. Some people take some really nice shots with them though.
 
nandbytes said:
I have the Sony 12-24mm f4. Really great lens, possibly the best UWA zoom I have owned but I do not use it as much as a normal zoom. Harder to get good shots out (U)WA lenses IME. Some people take some really nice shots with them though.
Click to expand...

I think 16-35ish is about perfect for a FF round-town walk about lens, but 12-24 is handy if the widest other lens stops at 28mm. The real drag is having to change lenses.
 
Can anyone tell me, if I were to buy the very inexpensive 16-50 kit lens for a bit more focal reach, would I be massively disappointed? Obviously the rest of the sigma trio or the Sony 16-55 f2.8 would be better IQ, but how bad is the kit lens, is it just not sharp or is it worth having in my camera bag?
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Can anyone tell me, if I were to buy the very inexpensive 16-50 kit lens for a bit more focal reach, would I be massively disappointed? Obviously the rest of the sigma trio would be better IQ, but how bad is the kit lens, is it just not sharp or is it worth having in my camera bag?
Click to expand...

The kit lens is an interesting one lol, if you turn off the camera corrections and shoot RAW its actually a 14-50mm which is kinda neat.
On the other hand the sharpness sucks and barely gets there around f8 at wide ends. the long end is pretty soft.

All in all its probably a good little lens for video and vlogging, i wouldn't use it for stills. IQ wise it just may be the worst kit lens along with the 16mm/2.8 which is possibly the worst prime lens!
 
nandbytes said:
The kit lens is an interesting one lol, if you turn off the camera corrections and shoot RAW its actually a 14-50mm which is kinda neat.
On the other hand the sharpness sucks and barely gets there around f8 at wide ends. the long end is pretty soft.

All in all its probably a good little lens for video and vlogging, i wouldn't use it for stills. IQ wise it just may be the worst kit lens along with the 16mm/2.8 which is possibly the worst prime lens!
Click to expand...

Thanks nandbytes, that confirms it for me, I'll cross it off my list!
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks nandbytes, that confirms it for me, I'll cross it off my list!
Click to expand...

The older 18-55mm kit lens while not a stunner by any means is an OK lens to keep in your bag and also cheaper. Its also fairly compact.

In general would really suggest saving up for a nice lens. the 16-55mm/2.8 is the one to have. its the best in its class. That lens along with the 70-350mm really made APS-C e-mount attractive again.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
The older 18-55mm kit lens while not a stunner by any means is an OK lens to keep in your bag and also cheaper. Its also fairly compact.

In general would really suggest saving up for a nice lens. the 16-55mm/2.8 is the one to have. its the best in its class. That lens along with the 70-350mm really made APS-C e-mount attractive again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd like the 16-55 f2.8 but too much for my pocket at the moment. That 18-55 f3.5-5.6 on mpb I can get for £94.. It has OSS as well. So you reckon it would be worth having and is fairly sharp? I'm only thinking of stills, not video.
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Yeah, I'd like the 16-55 f2.8 but too much for my pocket at the moment. That 18-55 f3.5-5.6 on mpb I can get for £94.. It has OSS as well. So you reckon it would be worth having and is fairly sharp?
Click to expand...
Would you not be better off with the Sony 18-135? I have one and it‘s very good. Gets good reviews on Youtube.
 
Merlin5 said:
Yeah, I'd like the 16-55 f2.8 but too much for my pocket at the moment. That 18-55 f3.5-5.6 on mpb I can get for £94.. It has OSS as well. So you reckon it would be worth having and is fairly sharp? I'm only thinking of stills, not video.
Click to expand...

for £94 no

I'd look for one around £50-60 off ebay. for that amount its worth keeping about for time when you really fancy a zoom.
 
Stephen L said:
Would you not be better off with the Sony 18-135? I have one and it‘s very good. Gets good reviews on Youtube.
Click to expand...

Hmm yeah, but even so, that's still quite a jump in price from the 18-55. And also, as I have a 70-350mm, I'm thinking I might not need much beyond the 55mm long end. But I don't know, lol, decisions, decisions! :D
 
nandbytes said:
for £94 no

I'd look for one around £50-60 off ebay. for that amount its worth keeping about for time when you really fancy a zoom.
Click to expand...

Ah interesting. Ok, I'll consider looking on ebay for a cheaper one.
 
Main reason for wanting to save money is because I'm also thinking of buying a macro lens, and the Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG Macro Art is the one I'm considering.
 
Merlin5 said:
Main reason for wanting to save money is because I'm also thinking of buying a macro lens, and the Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG Macro Art is the one I'm considering.
Click to expand...

I am not really for DSLR lenses ported over for mirrorless especially on APS-C bodies as they become bulky and AF isn't the best even though for macro itself its not end of the world.
have a look the 70mm is basically the same size as their new 105mm if you take the flange distance difference into account (i.e. sigma inbuilt adapter for their DSLR lens)

I would also suggest looking at the laowa 65mm macro which give you 2x magnification but is a MF lens.

1604661775568.png
 
nandbytes said:
I am not really for DSLR lenses ported over for mirrorless especially on APS-C bodies as they become bulky and AF isn't the best even though for macro itself its not end of the world.
have a look the 70mm is basically the same size as their new 105mm if you take the flange distance difference into account (i.e. sigma inbuilt adapter for their DSLR lens)

I would also suggest looking at the laowa 65mm macro which give you 2x magnification but is a MF lens.

View attachment 297888
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't realise it's a lens designed for DSLR.
 
Just in case anyone is interested in the Nikon 85mm f2 AI-S.

I took mine out today on my A7. I only had an hour but I managed to park up and walk a few hundred yards before I had to head back.

fgq8tcO.jpg


ciAHmFf.jpg


lcgpthI.jpg


The build quality seems to be excellent but I sort of wish I'd gone for the AI as it has a longer focus throw, All these Nikon lenses seem very susceptible to flare. I don't remember my Rokkors being this susceptable so I'll get them out and do a comparison when I have time.

These two close up pictures were taken with my +4 close up filter.

1iKli2w.jpg


fLESwzE.jpg


This lens isn't great at close distance and in fact seems quite soft but for me it's just about acceptable. I don't intend to use this as a close up lens but I just thought I'd give it a go.

And lastly a sort of action shot at f2, the colours look a bit off possibly as it's shot through the car windscreen.

M9HMbK2.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just in case anyone is interested in the Nikon 85mm f2 AI-S.

I took mine out today on my A7. I only had an hour but I managed to park up and walk a few hundred yards before I had to head back.

fgq8tcO.jpg


ciAHmFf.jpg


lcgpthI.jpg


The build quality seems to be excellent but I sort of wish I'd gone for the AI as it has a longer focus throw, All these Nikon lenses seem very susceptible for flare. I don't remember my Rokkors being this susceptable so I'll get them out and do a comparison when I have time.

These two close up pictures were taken with my +4 close up filter.

1iKli2w.jpg


fLESwzE.jpg


This lens isn't great at close distance and in fact seems quite soft but for me it's just about acceptable. I don't intend to use this as a close up lens but I just thought I'd give it a go.

And lastly a sort of action shot at f2, the colours look a bit off possibly as it's shot through the car windscreen.

M9HMbK2.jpg
Click to expand...
Like the colour rendering.
 
Quite old world I think and for once I had some nice light, sun with mist.
 
Hi

I love my tamron 28-75 lens

What the

28-200 and 70-180 like pls
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Hi

I love my tamron 28-75 lens

What the

28-200 and 70-180 like pls
Click to expand...

Both are awesome
The 70-180mm especially is a very sharp lens even sharper than the RF 70-200 and 70-200GM by looks of it.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Both are awesome
The 70-180mm especially is a very sharp lens even sharper than the RF 70-200 and 70-200GM by looks of it.
Click to expand...

Have you still got it? Would you have it over the sony then?
 
rookies said:
Have you still got it? Would you have it over the sony then?
Click to expand...

No I sold it I'll probably buy it again next spring/summer

I've got the 28-200mm now for the A7C to keep things small and light.

I would most definitely buy it over the GM. It's a better lens IMO.
 
nandbytes, now you've had it a few days can you tell me about the A7c and the shutter... do you have to manually change to the electronic shutter to shoot faster than 1/4,000?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
nandbytes, no you've had it a few days can you tell me about the A7c and the shutter... do you have to manually change to the electronic shutter to shoot faster than 1/4,000?
Click to expand...

Yep
There is also no way to turn off EFCS which kinda annoys me more.
 
Last edited:
Is there any drawback to using the electronic shutter all the time?

PS.
If anyone has any examples of pictures affected by efcs I'd like to see them. I have mine on just about all the time and I'm yet to see something and think "Ah Ha! EFCS has spoiled that."
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Yep
There is also no way to turn off EFCS which kinda annoys me more.
Click to expand...
What downside is there to the EFCS, the fact my A7R didn't have one was one of the big downsides, constant blurry photos from the shutter.
 
woof woof said:
Is there any drawback to using the electronic shutter all the time?

PS.
If anyone has any examples of pictures affected by efcs I'd like to see them. I have mine on just about all the time and I'm yet to see whomething and think "Ah Ha! EFCS has spoiled that."
Click to expand...

Fully silent shutter has banding issues along with issues of rolling shutter. Not to mention I think you only get 12-bit RAWs.

A9/ii are pretty much the only bodies where permanently using silent shutter is viable.

robj20 said:
What downside is there to the EFCS, the fact my A7R didn't have one was one of the big downsides, constant blurry photos from the shutter.
Click to expand...

For the most part it's fine.
Can slightly ruin your bokeh at around 1/4000s and also may cause some exposure issues again around 1/4000s.
Have a read of this

What’s the fastest shutter speed you should use with EFCS on the a7RII? - the last word

Yesterday I looked at shutter travel time for silent shutter operation on the Sony a7RII. Incidentally, we noted that the electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) pretty faithfully emulated the acceleration of the mechanical second curtain, at least at 1/500 second. On the Nikon D810, EFCS stops...
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com

Though the testing with A7Rii I think A7C has a higher clearance speed than the A7RII body. So you are probably fine till 1/2000s.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top