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

CharleyBird said:
85mm Loxia. Tempting, oh so tempting. For this amateur the Loxia are my favourites.

But it is the one focal length I know I use least, the in-between length, always preferring a 100mm or a 50mm.
Click to expand...

Yup. Ditto for me. I keep looking at the Loxia's but paying knocking on £1k per lens (ok the 50mm is cheaper) doesn't appeal to me and as I keep saying, there are many occasions when my Rokkors and other SLR MF lenses are good enough so all I'll gain with the Loxia's is better quality and a more compact set up from dropping the adapter.

My most used focal range seems to be 35 to 50 and I have manual lenses from 24 to 135mm for when I want a 24, 28, 85 or 135mm.
 
As a hobbyist I can only say that manual focus is more involving at any focal length and for me more enjoyable. Of course it's tricky for moving subjects...cars, birds, people, and more so with longer telephotos so me being rather less than expert I understand where si019 is coming from. Autofocus is easy, like driving an automatic car. But there are occasions when manual can come into its own.

Going to a party I'd take my batis 25 for group snapping which will do the business (although an auto 35 might be better); and my 100 trioplan for intimate and candid portraiits, at least half of which would fail in some way, but who cares when your not wasting film and enjoying yourself, and the goods shots are really appealing cos you got the focus & aperture bang on and the lens seems to have that bit extra zing.
Bentley auto / Lotus Elise?
Or you could take your Sony fe 24-70 gm f2.8, your Golf R.
 
As I said before (obviously not clear enough lol) like may i enjoy using manual focus lens, but the 85mm Loxia at f2.4 is just an odd combination, I have seen the marketing reasons for the specs but given the price as well they just seem to be trying to sell it on the name.
 
Hey

I have the original A7 with the kit lens and the fe 50mm 1.8.

I have £600 or so burning a hole in my pocket.....whats my next len(s)?

I shoot landscapes, street and portraits mainly.
 
moojii said:
Hey

I have the original A7 with the kit lens and the fe 50mm 1.8.

I have £600 or so burning a hole in my pocket.....whats my next len(s)?

I shoot landscapes, street and portraits mainly.
Click to expand...

The 35mm f2.8? Or the 28mm f2?

Or the 85mm f2.4 Loxia? :D
 
si019 said:
As I said before (obviously not clear enough lol) like may i enjoy using manual focus lens, but the 85mm Loxia at f2.4 is just an odd combination, I have seen the marketing reasons for the specs but given the price as well they just seem to be trying to sell it on the name.
Click to expand...

Could be right. Do you find 25mm f2 an odd combination?
 
moojii said:
Hey

I have the original A7 with the kit lens and the fe 50mm 1.8.

I have £600 or so burning a hole in my pocket.....whats my next len(s)?

I shoot landscapes, street and portraits mainly.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm sell off the 50mm f1.8 and get a 55mm f1.8, for me the 55mm f1.8 is a key lens for the FE series.
The 35mm f2.8 is good too, both perform excellent vs their footprint.
 
Rizvan said:
Mmmmm sell off the 50mm f1.8 and get a 55mm f1.8, for me the 55mm f1.8 is a key lens for the FE series.
The 35mm f2.8 is good too, both perform excellent vs their footprint.
Click to expand...

Agree about getting the 55mm f1.8, for something a bit different how about the Sony fe 70-200 f4, you should be able to just about get one in your price, differently a second hand ones. I use mine for all the styles you have listed but it depends on how you shoot.
 
Whilst I'd love a Loxia, the one I played with was a joy to use, when i bought my R2 I changed my mind at the last minute and went with the 35mm ff/2.8 as part of me felt ONLY having an MF lens was daft when the camera has such great AF features, particularly eye-AF when shooting out littl'un.

Said littl'un also rather drains the wallet, so looking at some nice M42 / FD lenses to fill the void. The FD 85/1.2 is kerrrazy expensive, but does anyone have any suggestions for solid choices for 28/50/85-90 lenses?
I have a great Helios 58mm f/2 which is fun, but feel there's a couple of classics I'm missing out on for fun. eBay is a bit overwhelming and I've ended up reading so many review sites I have no idea where to being now...!
 
Durbs said:
Whilst I'd love a Loxia, the one I played with was a joy to use, when i bought my R2 I changed my mind at the last minute and went with the 35mm ff/2.8 as part of me felt ONLY having an MF lens was daft when the camera has such great AF features, particularly eye-AF when shooting out littl'un.

Said littl'un also rather drains the wallet, so looking at some nice M42 / FD lenses to fill the void. The FD 85/1.2 is kerrrazy expensive, but does anyone have any suggestions for solid choices for 28/50/85-90 lenses?
I have a great Helios 58mm f/2 which is fun, but feel there's a couple of classics I'm missing out on for fun. eBay is a bit overwhelming and I've ended up reading so many review sites I have no idea where to being now...!
Click to expand...

Old 28s often have poor edge performance, that said there are some good ones out there. The original Konica 28/3.5 (7 element) model is well revered, whilst the later AR model is very good too. The Yashica ML 28/2.8 is excellent, as is it's more expensive cousin the Contax/Yashica Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 (which is superb).

Can't go wrong with an Asahi Super Takumar 55/1.8 for £20 or so. Step up to £100 and you could have a Contax/Yashica mount Zeiss Planar 50/1.7.

85s get expensive. The Canon FD 85/1.8 can be had cheap, or step up to a Contax/Yashica Zeiss Planar 85/2.8 for £250. Samyang 85/1.4 is also very good.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Old 28s often have poor edge performance, that said there are some good ones out there.
Click to expand...

I think "poor edge performance" needs thinking about.

There aren't going to be too many older lenses that can live with the performance of good modern lenses and also older lenses are possibly at their best stopped down a bit more than modern lenses some of which perform very well at wider apertures. Even so I think that mass market older lenses may well be a bit better than terrible in the corners especially when used to get the best out of them. Shoot them wide open and expect modern lens performance and you may be disappointed, use them to get the best out of them and maybe you will :D

I think that it's also important to keep the final product in mind... Why are we taking a picture? How is it going to be viewed? Is it to be printed or viewed on screen???? etc... Unless we're going to print BIG and view close maybe "poor edge performance" wont matter? With some subjects I think it's highly likely that edge performance wont matter too much. Anyway...

I don't file my pictures by lens but I do remember that this one was taken with an old 24mm f2.8 and from memory my old 28mm lenses aren't worse and are possibly if anything a bit better. This first picture is the whole image followed by a 100% crop of the bottom left and then a 100% crop of the bottom right. There's not enough detail in the top corners to bother with crops but I haven't noticed anything too bad in any of my pictures so this will serve as an indicator of easily achievable image quality. These aren't optimised for web use and are via Photobucket and so wont be as good as they are on my screen but hopefully they're not too bad here.







I have a few FD's and also Zuiko's and Rokkor's. When comparing my lenses if there's a clear winner it's always the Rokkor's especially with the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f2. At other focal lengths I don't see a whole lot if anything in it. I originally set out to buy Zuiko's but I drifted into the Rokkor's especially for the 50mm f1.4 and 1.2, 85mm f2 and the 24mm f2.8 which I'd read were amongst the best of the mass market easy to find stuff. Unused FD's seem to turn up from time to time and I haven't seen that with other makes, maybe there's a big warehouse or three somewhere stuffed full of unsold FD's and they're tricking them slowly out? Dunno. If looking now I'd go for Minolta Rokkor's for quality or if you're willing to mix and match maybe go for Zuiko's at 24, 28 and 50mm f1.8 as they're smaller than many of competition.

Another 24mm, just for fun :D

 
Last edited:
Using old lenses is good fun, and can save you a fortune. The point I'm making is that they are not usually comparable to modem lenses, wides in particular which may need stopping right down for even reasonable sharpness across the frame. Many never get there at all.

Whether that's important or not depends on the application and photographer, but personally I'd want my wides sharp from fairly early on, particularly if I had invested in a high resolution camera.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Using old lenses is good fun, and can save you a fortune. The point I'm making is that they are not usually comparable to modem lenses, wides in particular which may need stopping right down for even reasonable sharpness across the frame. Many never get there at all.

Whether that's important or not depends on the application and photographer, but personally I'd want my wides sharp from fairly early on, particularly if I had invested in a high resolution camera.
Click to expand...

That's all fair comment but you'll be looking a long time before you find older film era lenses that are as sharp across the frame as wide open as for example a Sony A7x series lens.

Bit long this so skip if you have a low boredom threshold :D

I think one thing that us geeks can very easily lose sight of is the final image and how it's viewed. I do think that sometimes we behave as if every picture we take is going to be printed 2m wide and viewed with a magnifying glass whereas in reality our pictures may only be viewed on screen and if they're printed at all they'll be relatively small prints or even if they're big prints they'll only be viewed closely and examined in fine detail for things like corner performance by us... Most people tend to look at what they think is the subject or maybe they'll only really look at a part of the subject (someones face?) or maybe they'll view the picture as a whole. Honestly, no one has ever looked at any of my A3 prints and said "woof woof, the edge performance of the lens you've used here is poor" and edge performance and other stuff that we'd look at is going to be a lot let obvious in pictures significantly smaller than A3.

I share a lot of pictures 2,000 pixels wide or high and saved at quality 10. Some people who know a little more or think they do might ask for a full sized picture and sometimes people say they'd like a printed picture maybe to put ion an album or frame as they know my printer prints nice pictures but often if people want a printed picture they print it themselves. I've seen pictures I've taken framed on friends and families walls or in their albums (some of my friends still have albums) and the first time I know about it is when I see it and even a 2,000 pixel wide picture can look very nice indeed when in an album or framed and mounted on a wall and viewed normally.

I just think it's worth stepping back from poor edge performance geekdom a bit and thinking about the final image and how it'll be viewed and how people are going to feel about it and in the real non forum world I don't remember any family or friends ever pointing out technical flaws in pictures I've taken.

I think another thing to think about is the settings and why we select them. Personally I choose settings to suit the picture I'm trying to make or the conditions I'm taking the picture in and also to give the kit a chance. I don't tend to take real world pictures to demonstrate the technical quality of the kit at the edge of the envelope of what's possible, I do that sort of thing when I first get the kit but once I've done that and cleared it for use I want to take real pictures not technical exercises. For example shooting with an old wide lens at f5.6 or f10 may make no difference at all to the final image so assuming conditions allow I might as well shoot at the aperture that gives the best results.

Anyway, that's my philosophy and why older lenses are very often good enough for me even into the corners and viewed at 100% :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
That's all fair comment but you'll be looking a long time before you find older film era lenses that are as sharp across the frame as wide open as for example a Sony A7x series lens.

Bit long this so skip if you have a low boredom threshold :D
Click to expand...

Ha, I'll be honest, I haven't read the rest of the post yet, will endeavour to digest a little later.

The Contax range of lenses are generally excellent at infinity, albeit the Planars need stopping down to f/2.8 (as per the ze/zf series based on the same designs). The Leica R series glass should cope too (although I haven't tested them).

Most older lenses won't be as sharp as modern lenses though, and will have obvious flaws, which is my point. Many will do a job if you are not pixel peeping or printing large of course (much like a kit zoom I guess), at which point you have to ask why you are coupling them with a high res body unless you are after character, of course :)
 
If you read/watch/listen to review etc I am sure you will have noticed a lot of talk about new lenses being designed to handle the high magapixel sensors in many new camera bodies now, this seem d to be a real theme ffrom photokina this year. There seems to a some talk about the optics but also lenes coating also. I am sure some if this is marketing hype but I am also sure that most modern lens are better than there previous versions and that improvements are slow but they do exist.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Ha, I'll be honest, I haven't read the rest of the post yet, will endeavour to digest a little later.

The Contax range of lenses are generally excellent at infinity, albeit the Planars need stopping down to f/2.8 (as per the ze/zf series based on the same designs). The Leica R series glass should cope too (although I haven't tested them).

Most older lenses won't be as sharp as modern lenses though, and will have obvious flaws, which is my point. Many will do a job if you are not pixel peeping or printing large of course (much like a kit zoom I guess), at which point you have to ask why you are coupling them with a high res body unless you are after character, of course :)
Click to expand...

If you want to use old lenses on a digital camera and get the FoV they were made to provide there aren't many choices. You can struggle with a DSLR which wasn't built to focus manually with and has no focus aids or you can mount them on one of the very few 35mm equivalent mirrorless cameras that give the original FoV and happily are equipped with focus aids. This is one of the reasons I chose the A7 and the fact that mine's 24mp is almost irrelevant to me as my 8mp Canon 20D and my 12mp 5D gave enough resolution for an A3 print.

On quality to the corners and lack of optical nasties I suppose it depends what you want. If you want 40mp pictures that stand up to pixel peeping the corners at 100% then your choices are limited and probably expensive but if you want pictures that stand up to real world viewing by normal non geek people that's something else.

si019 said:
If you read/watch/listen to review etc I am sure you will have noticed a lot of talk about new lenses being designed to handle the high magapixel sensors in many new camera bodies now, this seem d to be a real theme ffrom photokina this year. There seems to a some talk about the optics but also lenes coating also. I am sure some if this is marketing hype but I am also sure that most modern lens are better than there previous versions and that improvements are slow but they do exist.
Click to expand...

Camera and lens companies aren't going to stand still they're going to try and make better stuff all the time so we'll buy it and there has to be a clear improvement over camera phones these days but for me todays kit is good enough and apart from the advantages and features mirrorless brings it has been for some time. Not to pick on manualfocus-g but to look at the general point that set me off on all this about old lenses having poor corner performance, yes they do have relatively poor corner performance and ca and vignetting and all of the rest but for many non professional people taking pictures and for many uses I don't think this will matter, not to anyone but pixel peepers on internet forums :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
If you want to use old lenses on a digital camera and get the FoV they were made to provide there aren't many choices. You can struggle with a DSLR which wasn't built to focus manually with and has no focus aids or you can mount them on one of the very few 35mm equivalent mirrorless cameras that give the original FoV and happily are equipped with focus aids. This is one of the reasons I chose the A7 and the fact that mine's 24mp is almost irrelevant to me as my 8mp Canon 20D and my 12mp 5D gave enough resolution for an A3 print.

On quality to the corners and lack of optical nasties I suppose it depends what you want. If you want 40mp pictures that stand up to pixel peeping the corners at 100% then your choices are limited and probably expensive but if you want pictures that stand up to real world viewing by normal non geek people that's something else.



Camera and lens companies aren't going to stand still they're going to try and make better stuff all the time so we'll buy it and there has to be a clear improvement over camera phones these days but for me todays kit is good enough and apart from the advantages and features mirrorless brings it has been for some time. Not to pick on manualfocus-g but to look at the general point that set me off on all this about old lenses having poor corner performance, yes they do have relatively poor corner performance and ca and vignetting and all of the rest but for many non professional people taking pictures and for many uses I don't think this will matter, not to anyone but pixel peepers on internet forums :D
Click to expand...

Hey, you know me, I love my manual lenses :) But for someone looking at a cheaper alternative to an expensive modern lens, it's important that they understand there might be some compromises they are not happy with.

With the 50s and 85s, it might not matter so much, particularly if they're being used for portraits. I think I've been spoilt recently with some exceptional Fuji glass.

P.s. totally get your point around using a ff cam to realise the original fov on older lenses.
 
I haven't used any old style MF lenses on my Sony FE bodies :(
 
Rizvan said:
I haven't used any old style MF lenses on my Sony FE bodies :(
Click to expand...

Contrary to Woof Woof's experience, I actually find it harder to focus MF lenses through an EVF, unless the subject is static and you are zoomed in to the focus point. For me, with an optical viewfinder, things snap into focus easier and I get a much higher hit rate, particularly with moving subjects. Each to their own though!

My point, I don't use many MF lenses on mirrorless, just the Samyang 12/2 on the Fooj system and sometimes the Pentacon 135/2.8 for portraits.
 
Over on the rumor site.....
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-prepared-folks-sony-one-e-mount-surprise-end-year/

“The next generation flagship mirrorless camera from Sony will be a giant leap. It will drop a huge bomb in the imaging industry. It will not be A7III or A7RIII. It will be a new model above A7 series. I would say A9 (let’s name it as the new model). So the new A9 will have dual XQD card slot, no CFast version, only X/ QD. A9 can do UNLIMITED RAW burst, UNLIMITED. The camera wont pause for buffering. The size will be bigger than A7RII, but smaller than conventional DSLR, such as 5D3.”
Click to expand...

:D time to start raiding the piggy bank... I think it'll be the Sony A9 / A9R OR the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 G Master.
 
Nothing like hedging bets eh...

"But I repeat, I am sure there is an “E-mount” announcement in October/November but I am not sure if this will be for the new High End Camera (A9 or A8 or whatever) or a new A5300 or A7m3…"

I reckon it's the A5300 ;0)

This was in April;

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sony-is-going-really-pro-with-a-new-a9-camera/

I reckon you'd be better off going out and stretching the high end kit you already own :)

Also, to be honest, the shot above with the £20 Helios has way more character than any eye-wateringly sharp image with amazing mtf charts.
 
Last edited:
This might sound hostile, but it's not meant to be...!

Are other camera-specific threads so full of GAS? The majority of this thread seems to be focused on what's coming next, rather than what people have been doing with their existing camera.

Rumours of a newly designed menu system are welcome however :D
 
manualfocus-g said:
Contrary to Woof Woof's experience, I actually find it harder to focus MF lenses through an EVF, unless the subject is static and you are zoomed in to the focus point. For me, with an optical viewfinder, things snap into focus easier and I get a much higher hit rate, particularly with moving subjects. Each to their own though!

My point, I don't use many MF lenses on mirrorless, just the Samyang 12/2 on the Fooj system and sometimes the Pentacon 135/2.8 for portraits.
Click to expand...

This is something I find very hard to understand. With an optical VF you can only focus accurately on what you can see but with an EVF you can call up the (greatly) magnified view and see and focus on detail that is simply invisible through an optical VF. With an optical VF it's hit and miss and cover errors with depth of field zone focus like but with an EVF it's like shooting macro at a distance. With a magnified MF you can focus on an eye across the room at f1.4 or a vein on a leaf you can't even see with an OVF. But you say, takes all sorts.
 
Durbs said:
This might sound hostile, but it's not meant to be...!

Are other camera-specific threads so full of GAS? The majority of this thread seems to be focused on what's coming next, rather than what people have been doing with their existing camera.

Rumours of a newly designed menu system are welcome however :D
Click to expand...

No because this is the number one place to be if you suffer from GAS :D lol
 
Just switched to Sony A7r from canon and finding the transition pretty hard.
What lens is a must on this body? I have the ziess 24-70/f4 not a massive fan to be honest.
 
Durbs said:
This might sound hostile, but it's not meant to be...!

Are other camera-specific threads so full of GAS? The majority of this thread seems to be focused on what's coming next, rather than what people have been doing with their existing camera.

Rumours of a newly designed menu system are welcome however :D
Click to expand...

Well, I don't seem to have too much gas myself but maybe just a healthy interest in the gear :D but I can understand people wanting to talk about the new stuff and looking forward to it and that's fine as this is a gear forum... :D so we talk about the gear :D and sometimes we even post pictures too :D
 
Rubiks said:
Just switched to Sony A7r from canon and finding the transition pretty hard.
What lens is a must on this body? I have the ziess 24-70/f4 not a massive fan to be honest.
Click to expand...

Oooh, there's o much choice! :D but I suppose a lot depends on what you like, zooms? primes? what focal length etc...

Personally I mostly like the 35/50mm range and I like compact primes and therefore think that a 35 and a 50mm are pretty much mandatory :D

I have the 35mm f2.8 and the 55mm f1.8.

addicknchips said:
55 1.8.

Is exceptional
Click to expand...

Yup. A very sharp lens and the sharpest I've ever used across the frame at wide apertures. I think it's an outstanding lens. Sharpness isn't everything though, it also takes nice pictures too :D
 
Last edited:
Durbs said:
This might sound hostile, but it's not meant to be...!

Are other camera-specific threads so full of GAS? The majority of this thread seems to be focused on what's coming next, rather than what people have been doing with their existing camera.

Rumours of a newly designed menu system are welcome however :D
Click to expand...
I had a shock on Sunday got a spot on my sensor had a rocket blow see if it would clear up, looks ok now though need a test shot for making sure. If it needs cleaning I may get gas and buy a wet cleaning set of some sort.
 
border_all said:
I had a shock on Sunday got a spot on my sensor had a rocket blow see if it would clear up, looks ok now though need a test shot for making sure. If it needs cleaning I may get gas and buy a wet cleaning set of some sort.
Click to expand...

I had a shocker on my travels in Canada, didn't think to take swabs (had a blower back in the hotel), then very stupidly tried to blow off a speck of dust and er... managed to get a bit of spit onto the sensor. I swore alot.
A local-ish camera store thankfully had earbuds and alcohol which saved the day - only an afternoon of shots to save.

I do think the A7 are slightly more dust-prone as the sensor is very exposed compared to an SLR where it sits slightly further back.
Or at least that's my excuse.
 
Durbs said:
I had a shocker on my travels in Canada, didn't think to take swabs (had a blower back in the hotel), then very stupidly tried to blow off a speck of dust and er... managed to get a bit of spit onto the sensor. I swore alot.
A local-ish camera store thankfully had earbuds and alcohol which saved the day - only an afternoon of shots to save.

I do think the A7 are slightly more dust-prone as the sensor is very exposed compared to an SLR where it sits slightly further back.
Or at least that's my excuse.
Click to expand...
In truth it was my fault I was at Scarborough the wind was really strong I decided I would switch from wide to long as I removed the glass a pile of debris blew off a tree at first I thought it was on my cpl filter but soon discovered that it was internal, I had a blower in the car but distance back and forth was an issue.

Glad you found a camera shop not many around my area everything is mail order :)
 
Unfortunately it's just a side-effect of the shorter flange distance and there being no mirror in front of the sensor. It's not the end of the world though and if needs be, there's always spot healing afterwards if you don't have a blower to hand at the time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top