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

The last one is the sort of bird shot I might attempt.

Another thing to think about is that new lenses may be technically better but will they still be working in 30 years time? I suppose the more mechanical modern lenses will still be useable long after their AF circuitry has crumbled away but the trend now is more for fly by wire lenses and I guess that when the electronics dies you wont be able to AF them? Dunno.

I have electronic gear that's 30 years + old but I've kept it going myself and that's something that I wont be able to do with a modern lens as the surface mount tech and printed connection leads etc probably aren't realistically fixable on the dining room table plus I'm getting old too.

I did think about costs and longevity and the possibility of switching systems when I bought the A7 and that's partly why I still only have three native lenses, the kit lens which I never use and was on reflection a waste of money and the excellent 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8. All my other lenses are manual and will still hopefully be useable on some future Sony or Nikon in another 30 years time.
 
I managed to get out and use the A7rii a bit over the last couple of days and I certainly can't complain about the image quality, generally holds up very well against anything that I've used before with excellent detail and very pliable RAW files.

Handling however does remain an issue for me although the A7rii seems to get things right that the older bodies didn't but the same issue thats always reared its head for me (small buttons) is still an issue but its only really with AF point selection, I am missing that focus stick that Fuji put on their bodies and is on the A9!!!!!

Also seem to be using it with the Battery Grip predominantly to make it comfortable for me to hold which kind of negates the size gains from the small body a bit, tried an L Grip which is very handy for using a tripod but doesn't quite add enough extra grip to the body for me.
 
Last edited:
addicknchips said:
For sigma lenses you'll get better/more af features. Plus it's a fraction of the price of the metabones.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I did notice its relatively cheap at the moment! Not 100% sure its Sigma glass I'm looking at though, possibly Canon and maybe even Tamron.
 
Well contrary to what I intended I picked up a GM 24-70 yesterday, after reading reviews which basically all rave about how good it is v other systems.

I had intended picking up a 24-70 with either a Canon f4 or Tamron 24-70 but it seemed that native might b the better option... while its large it doesn't feel as ridiculous on the A7rii as I expected, unfortunately it seemed be sharp in the centre and right hand side but not so good at the left. Will need to test it some more but looks like I'll need to swap it, although I am a bit concerned that QC on the Sony "own" lenses doesn't seem Great.
 

Attachments

  • 20170516_230144-02.jpeg
    20170516_230144-02.jpeg
    110.7 KB · Views: 21
I think that pictures of the body and lens combinations on line tend to make the lenses look big but in the hand and by the eye maybe you get the true sense of how bulky and heavy they are.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Well contrary to what I intended I picked up a GM 24-70 yesterday, after reading reviews which basically all rave about how good it is v other systems.

I had intended picking up a 24-70 with either a Canon f4 or Tamron 24-70 but it seemed that native might b the better option... while its large it doesn't feel as ridiculous on the A7rii as I expected, unfortunately it seemed be sharp in the centre and right hand side but not so good at the left. Will need to test it some more but looks like I'll need to swap it, although I am a bit concerned that QC on the Sony "own" lenses doesn't seem Great.
Click to expand...

The battery grip probably comes in very handy - pardon the pun- with that lens. Another photo with it at 70mm and without the grip would be interesting.
 
Also both are surprisingly small :eek:

Its cheaper than canon equivalent and about the same as sigma equivalent but in a smaller package.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Also both are surprisingly small :eek:

Its cheaper than canon equivalent and about the same as sigma equivalent but in a smaller package.
Click to expand...

They're saying the 12-24mm is half the size of the Sigma. I had the Sigma and used it on my 20D and 5D and it is a fantastic lens so if Sony can get anywhere near that lens they'll have worked wonders.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yikes
Click to expand...

They're (Sony) still aiming for the higher end and the prices are eye watering but possibly in line with other also eye wateringly priced higher end lenses from the competition. I'm still keeping my A7 kit light and for wide angle I have a 9-18mm for MFT, that lens on my GX80 or GX7 makes for a very compact combination.
 
might is corrected in jpg but voigtlander 10mm, 12mm and 15mm are very good at controlling distortions and also pretty small. So its not impossible.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I take it that was a corrected jpg? I'd be amazed if Sony have created a 12mm lens with zero distortion on full frame :0)
Click to expand...

nandbytes said:
might is corrected in jpg but voigtlander 10mm, 12mm and 15mm are very good at controlling distortions and also pretty small. So its not impossible.
Click to expand...

Time will tell but carrying out some post capture corrections seems to be becoming the norm these days but however it's done may not really matter.

The original non Art Sigma 12-24mm lens I had was just fantastic and displayed no distortion in real world images but I do remember looking at a technical review which showed a sort of wave affecting straight lines rather than the more usual bending but as I said I never saw it in real world images.
 
Last edited:
Yeah - moustache distortion.
Probably visible if shooting flat horizons or grids, but not sure how much real-world effect it would have.
 
Durbs said:
Yeah - moustache distortion.
Probably visible if shooting flat horizons or grids, but not sure how much real-world effect it would have.
Click to expand...

I never saw it when shooting horizons. Maybe the "waves" were too small and close together. Whatever, I never saw it.
 
There are rumors of a future Canon mirrorless with EF mount, Thom Hogan comments and thinks Nikon will go the same way...

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/canon-is-coming-canon-is.html

I think that whatever Canon make will be a BIG seller. I can see how those with thousands invested in Canon lenses could be tempted to an EF mirrorless but the "I must have a Canon" even if it's just an entry level product with a kit lens crowd do phase me and I do wish that people would drop the brand snobbery and just buy the best product for them.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
There are rumors of a future Canon mirrorless with EF mount, Thom Hogan comments and thinks Nikon will go the same way...

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/canon-is-coming-canon-is.html

I think that whatever Canon make will be a BIG seller. I can see how those with thousands invested in Canon lenses could be tempted to an EF mirrorless but the "I must have a Canon" even if it's just an entry level product with a kit lens crowd do phase me and I do wish that people would drop the brand snobbery and just buy the best product for them.
Click to expand...

Personally I think Canon and Nikon will have to try very hard, I don't think people will blindly buy something that has a Canon badge on it like they might have done in the past, if that was the case then the existing Canon M would have been wildly successful and it isn't. It makes sense to keep the EF mount but it's going to seriously compromise how small they can make a mirror less body, not necessarily a bad thing though because some of the bodies are really not ergonomic currently.
 
And more on the 16-35 and 12-24mm...

Kevin Raber of Luminous Landscape is at a Sony event and will post example pictures on Friday, for now he says "The lenses, by the way, are really nice."
 
chrism_scotland said:
Personally I think Canon and Nikon will have to try very hard, I don't think people will blindly buy something that has a Canon badge on it like they might have done in the past, if that was the case then the existing Canon M would have been wildly successful and it isn't. It makes sense to keep the EF mount but it's going to seriously compromise how small they can make a mirror less body, not necessarily a bad thing though because some of the bodies are really not ergonomic currently.
Click to expand...

Didn't Canon go to No1 in the CSC market recently? (I forget what it's called... M something or other?) A camera that is by some accounts a rather ho-hum thing.
 
woof woof said:
And more on the 16-35 and 12-24mm...

Kevin Raber of Luminous Landscape is at a Sony event and will post example pictures on Friday, for now he says "The lenses, by the way, are really nice."
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will both be top notch and hopefully worth the money. Personally neither would appeal to me over the 16-35 f4 , but I'm sure they will appeal to many.
 
The original Sigma 12-24mm together with their 50 and 85mm f1.4's were the lenses that lead me to move from my APS-C 20D to the FF 5D and for a time the 12-24mm was my most used lens on both bodies. It was a good lens on the 20D and a monster on the 5D and only the cost and bulk will stop me buying one for my A7, the Oly 9-18mm on MFT will have to satisfy my wide angle lust as it's very compact and cheap.
 
Canon/Nikon could come up with something clever like variable flange distance.

i.e. backward compatible mount (like EF-S) that automatically collapses if you attach a dedicated mirrorless lens.
That will win them time to come up with lenses optimised for short flange.

I must admit, I rather like canon's lens lineup and will follow the developments very closely
 
odd this thread keeps unsubscribing itself from alerts... anyway the sony 16-35mm f/2.8 is actually smaller than the nikon 16-35mm f/4 which is quite a feat and is also making me jealous... :cautious:

but still I agree on canon lens line up being very nice. Love their 100mm f/2 and 40mm f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
I've changed my mind about the 12-24, it doesn't take filters so I'd really have to ponder it more. In my m43 days the 7-14 (14-28 equiv) didn't take filters and I got by with that but I'd prefer a lens that did. The Sony 10-18 works surprisingly well between 12-16mm as a ff lens and can can filters from 13mm (below 13mm vignetting occurs) so really I should just keep using that with the 16-35.
 
I am keeping my 16-35mm simply for this reason. I use IR filters for IR photography. I could buy square filters and I am sure there'll be a filter holder eventually for it but I personally prefer circular filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top