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

I have all in camera NR, lens compensation to OFF. Do everything in Lightroom 5 :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Woof - I love using old lenses on digital, particuarly on full frame hence I kept my 6D :) What I'm saying is that most mainstream lenses are now at least pretty good from wide open, so there's no way we should step backwards and make things worse again.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Sony should make things worse. All I'm saying is that not every lens needs to be amongst the worlds best AF lenses as per other manufacturers and indeed some of Sony own. At the mo and apart from the kit lens Sony seem to be aiming very high for A7 lenses and although I'm very happy that they are I'd also like to see more humble offering that are good but just not necessarily the worlds best ever... We may get that at some point, lets wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Are G lenses optically equal to Zeiss or meant to be lower end? The prices seem quite similar.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
Are G lenses optically equal to Zeiss or meant to be lower end? The prices seem quite similar.
Click to expand...

I would say yes, the Sony G lenses can be as good as the Zeiss offerings.
The Sony 70-200mm f4 G OSS lens is sharp, its very good glass.
Just because a lens is missing that blue Zeiss logo doesn't make it any less better optically.
 
same quality, zeiss should give you a zeiss look, while G stuff will render differently, its best to look at how a lens renders when picking, see what you prefer :)
 
Dunno about G v Zeiss.

I keep thinking back to the Sigma 50 and 85mm f1.4's I used to have. Both are IMVHO outstanding lenses but quite reasonably priced. The 50mm in Canon fit is £319 (all UK prices...) and the 85mm is £649. Just thinking about the Sigma 50mm as I have the Sony 55mm f1.8 (and there is no FE 85mm yet) which is £849 and it may be a better lens than the Sigma but I'd be perfectly happy with lenses of the quality of these Sigma's.
 
Rizvan said:
I would say yes, the Sony G lenses can be as good as the Zeiss offerings.
The Sony 70-200mm f4 G OSS lens is sharp, its very good glass.
Just because a lens is missing that blue Zeiss logo doesn't make it any less better optically.
Click to expand...

I think I'd have reservations about resale value and general saleability of a G lens, particularly if theres a Zeiss version available at the same speed, FL and price. Or do they remain clever enough not to overlap.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
I think I'd have reservations about resale value and general saleability of a G lens, particularly if theres a Zeiss version available at the same speed, FL and price. Or do they remain clever enough not to overlap.
Click to expand...

At the moment Sony tend not to overlap their FE Zeiss and G lenses but they don't really have many lenses in the FE line-up at present. :)
 
Just in case anyone is interested... as the light is good here today I had another look at the Minolta 50mm f1.2 v Minolta 50mm f1.4 v Sony 55mm f1.8...

At 100%

In the centre of the frame the f1.2 is a tad soft wide open and the f1.4 looks quite good wide open. The f1.2 displays a little more glow/bloom/fringing.
Things are just about equal at f2 with maybe just a slight nod in favour of the f1.4 and from then on the f1.2 is sharp enough in the centre of the frame and there's really not a lot if anything in it between the two lenses.
The 55mm f1.8 is sharp from f1.8.

At the edges of the frame the f1.2 can't quite match the f1.4 at any aperture up to f4 at which point I stopped.
The 55mm f1.8 is much shaper than both the older lenses at the edges and is better at f1.8 than the older lenses at f4.
The 55mm may be better in the corners at f4 than at f1.8 but even at 100% there's not much in it, if anything. It's a very good lens and sharpness seems to be maintained across the frame very impressively.

As I said the other day... if looking to buy the Minolta 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 the smart move would be the f1.4 as it's just... better. The f1.2 gives you f1.2 so there's that in its favour but nothing else that I can see :D It's worth it to me though just to use now and again :D

For whole image shots for viewing on screen and I'd imagine in quite large prints too the old Minolta lenses are ok :D and indeed performance in the centre of the frame stands up quite well to pixel peeping from f2 onwards. The f1.2 isn't as good as the f1.4 but both are IMVHO good enough even at the edges for whole images.

The 55mm f1.8 is just... very impressive :D

PS. After all these lens changes I checked the sensor at f22 and there's a hint of a dust bunny here and there at 100% but honestly nothing to worry about and definitely no defined dark blobs. What a change from my Canon DSLR's! :D
 
Last edited:
I didn't think anyone would be interested :D

I do know that these old lenses can't match a modern lens especially wide open and at the edges of the frame but there's the joy of using them, the look that they give and the fact that they're cheap :D
 
Your conclusion around the fast 50s fit what I've found too. I tried the famous Rokkor 58/1.2 which is way too glowy at wide apertures. I found the Nikkor 55/1.2 better but both were well beaten by a Contax mount Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 @ f/2.8.

The Fuji 35/1.4 on crop thrashes any of the above when compared with the others wide open on full frame and at f/2, probably at smaller apertures too. Modern lenses are just something else!

Caviet - if you're looking for character then many older lenses have it in spades.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I tried the famous Rokkor 58/1.2 which is way too glowy at wide apertures.
Click to expand...

I did consider going for that but these things don't crop up every day so I went for the one I got. There's an FD f1.2 at Ffordes if anyone fancies one... :D

I said earlier that the smart buy would be the f1.4 but actually the f1.8 would be the smartest buy.

My first old lens was a Minolta 55mm f1.7 and its only real problem was susceptibility to flare. I moved on to the MD's as I read that they had better coatings and that seems to be the case as I haven't had any significant unexpected flare issues with them.

Thinking about the f1.2, it might actually be a match for my Olympus 50mm f1.4 which seems to be the weakest f1.4 I have.
 
Last edited:
Pictures and specs...

35mm f1.4...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...m-f1-4-fe-lens-costs-1699-euro/#disqus_thread

One comment is that it's twice the price of the Sigma Art. I haven't checked to see if that's true but if it is this new Zeiss will have to be a very good lens as the Sigma generally gets very good reviews.

20mm f2, this is one that could interest me...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-first-full-specs-and-images-of-the-new-sony-28mm/#disqus_thread

90mm f2.8 macro, I think I'd prefer 150mm..

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...sony-fe-90mm-f2-8-g-macro-lens/#disqus_thread

24-240mm...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...m-fe-lens-on-sale-for-999-euro/#disqus_thread

Any takers for these?
 
manualfocus-g said:
Interesting about the Zuiko, I haven't tried that one. I have the 50/1.8 which is weak at larger apertures.
Click to expand...

I have the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 and as I said the f1.4 is a bit soft but it looks ok after sharpening, needs more of it than my other f1.4's though. I find that my f1.8 is actually sharp wide open, maybe there's some sample variation.
 
woof woof said:
Pictures and specs...

35mm f1.4...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...m-f1-4-fe-lens-costs-1699-euro/#disqus_thread

One comment is that it's twice the price of the Sigma Art. I haven't checked to see if that's true but if it is this new Zeiss will have to be a very good lens as the Sigma generally gets very good reviews.

20mm f2, this is one that could interest me...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-first-full-specs-and-images-of-the-new-sony-28mm/#disqus_thread

90mm f2.8 macro, I think I'd prefer 150mm..

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...sony-fe-90mm-f2-8-g-macro-lens/#disqus_thread

24-240mm...

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-...m-fe-lens-on-sale-for-999-euro/#disqus_thread

Any takers for these?
Click to expand...
Really like the look of the Zeiss 35mm if the price is right, I'm currently deciding whether to move across from my D800 to a smaller setup of the A7r/A7ii and a 35mm prime would be lovely, but if its that expensive it makes a D750 and a Sigma 35mm potentially cheaper if not as portable.....
 
I think this mount business needs sorting out, certainly as far as the independents go, Tamron had a good idea.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Really like the look of the Zeiss 35mm if the price is right, I'm currently deciding whether to move across from my D800 to a smaller setup of the A7r/A7ii and a 35mm prime would be lovely, but if its that expensive it makes a D750 and a Sigma 35mm potentially cheaper if not as portable.....
Click to expand...

You could always go for a Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8 :D
 
The FD 50mm f1.2 that was at Ffordes is no longer listed but they now have a Zuiko 50mm f1.2 :D
 
None of them interest me in the slightest. Macro is too short for me i liked 100mm on a crop so 90mm on a FF is not going to be long enough.
 
robj20 said:
None of them interest me in the slightest. Macro is too short for me i liked 100mm on a crop so 90mm on a FF is not going to be long enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, I liked my 150mm f2.8 so will almost certainly wait. I may get the 28mm though as ideally I'd like 28, 50 and 85mm and 150mm f2.8, maybe a 135mm but maybe not.
 
Can anyone confirm if I buy a grey import A7 that is NTSC then I won't be able to view the video on a pal hd tv. I have never bought an imported camera before so need to way up the pros (price obviously ) against warranty and features ie ntsc, firmware etc.
Many thanks
 
Mine is grey and can be set to either, came set to PAL by default.
 
I wouldn't worry about it as modern TV's handle both NTSC & PAL signals these days.
 
The annoying thing is if like me you prefer NTSC the camera warns you each time you switch it on.
 
robj20 said:
The annoying thing is if like me you prefer NTSC the camera warns you each time you switch it on.
Click to expand...

Correct, I have the same warning.
Sony should do firmware update the way Fuji do them, listening to their customer base.
 
New FE lenses are out.
Sony has also stated its releasing a lens firmware update to improve camera start up times (existing lenses too) :eek:
 
$1600 for the 35mm 1.4 is 'brave'. The Sigma 35 Art was launched at $900 and whilst I've no doubt the Sony/Zeiss will be a fantastic lens, you've got to really want a native 35 to pay that much.
 
Should come in at about £1k on panamoz i would think. I hope we get a wide prime at some point, would love to see a 14mm f2.8
 
rodd1000 said:
It might even be the cheaper of the three when it's been out a while. Let's see how it performs.
Click to expand...

Agreed, look at the price history of the 55…

Sony_FE_55mm_f1.8_ZA_Carl_Zeiss_Sonnar_T_Lens_graph.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top