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

snerkler said:
There's not been many photos posted on flickr and the like using the 50mm f1.4 GM, I thought there'd be a lot more examples by now :thinking:
Click to expand...
I found that too the other day when checking it out on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
There's not been many photos posted on flickr and the like using the 50mm f1.4 GM, I thought there'd be a lot more examples by now :thinking:
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure why they released that lens. Most people who can afford one can get a used f1.2 for same price. Even in grey market there's about £200 difference in then. So if you can afford f1.4 you can likely afford f1.2. I imagine most people will just go for f1.2 despite it being bigger. Most people buying fast primes seem to care less about size/weight.
 
gilbouk said:
I found that too the other day when checking it out on Flickr
Click to expand...
I do wonder if you bought the f1.4 whether you'd always be hankering after the f1.2 :LOL:
 
nandbytes said:
I'm not even sure why they released that lens. Most people who can afford one can get a used f1.2 for same price. Even in grey market there's about £200 difference in then. So if you can afford f1.4 you can likely afford f1.2. I imagine most people will just go for f1.2 despite it being bigger. Most people buying fast primes seem to care less about size/weight.
Click to expand...
Most reviews I've seen seem to say they'd choose the f1.4 as it's nicer to use day to day and you'll only see the difference in f1.2 vs f1.4 if you compare side to side. The f1.2 was just that bit too heavy for me, if it was no heavier than the Sigma 85mm DG DN then I'd seriously consider it, but as it is it's not on my radar. I don't see any reason why I'd swap my Sammy for the new f1.4 GM either. The GM's definitely sharper on charts, but day to day I'm not sure, and there's always Topaz Sharpen AI ;)
 
I'm potentially going to a dark area this weekend so may consider a go at astro, will 35mm be wide enough as my wide angle lenses aren't fast enough being f4? Also, any tops on settings to use please, especially shutter speed as I don't have a tracker?
 
trevorbray said:
Isn’t that a given …?
Click to expand...
Interesting that the f1.2 at f1.4 is still a touch softer in the background compared to the f1.4, that's what I found too when I compared it to the Sammy.

Screenshot 2023-05-19 at 08.32.28.jpg
 
snerkler said:
I'm potentially going to a dark area this weekend so may consider a go at astro, will 35mm be wide enough as my wide angle lenses aren't fast enough being f4? Also, any tops on settings to use please, especially shutter speed as I don't have a tracker?
Click to expand...

It is and it isn't.... It's wide enough to get good images, but don't expect the full view. Unless you shoot a panorama ;)

35mm...... I'd probably go to a maximum of about 13 seconds before the stars start to trail but you might be happy with longer if you aren't too critical. Try a shot and zoom in on the screen and adjust from there. Aperture really really wide. ISO to suit the exposure.
 
snerkler said:
There's not been many photos posted on flickr and the like using the 50mm f1.4 GM, I thought there'd be a lot more examples by now :thinking:
Click to expand...
If you look on Fred Miranda you'll see pictures taken with this lens.
 
There is the 500 rule for night sky photography, meaning 500/focal length=number of seconds before you get movement.
 
LeeRatters said:
It is and it isn't.... It's wide enough to get good images, but don't expect the full view. Unless you shoot a panorama ;)

35mm...... I'd probably go to a maximum of about 13 seconds before the stars start to trail but you might be happy with longer if you aren't too critical. Try a shot and zoom in on the screen and adjust from there. Aperture really really wide. ISO to suit the exposure.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much, I’ll maybe give it a go (y)
 
LeeRatters said:
Sorry, my bad. That's my 24mm base settings.

8-10 seconds at 35mm.

The 500 rule is outdated now really. Some people go for a 300 rule. Or the NPF rule which gives an even shorter shutter speed.
Click to expand...

Yes there's is 300. Why do you think 500 is outdated?

I haven't done much of this, just practiced for my dreamed of cruise but my priority has been keeping the ISO down rather than sticking to a formula. With my 24mm f2.8 or 20mm f1.8 the settings will vary but both give acceptable one shot results for me at speeds between 12 and 30 seconds without the need for any special post capture magic but this is just night sky rather than milky way captures. Complex formulas and pixel pitches aren't for me :D
 
woof woof said:
Yes there's is 300. Why do you think 500 is outdated?

I haven't done much of this, just practiced for my dreamed of cruise but my priority has been keeping the ISO down rather than sticking to a formula. With my 24mm f2.8 or 20mm f1.8 the settings will vary but both give acceptable one shot results for me at speeds between 12 and 30 seconds without the need for any special post capture magic but this is just night sky rather than milky way captures. Complex formulas and pixel pitches aren't for me :D
Click to expand...

Because following the 500 rule will capture star trailing rather than pin point stars ;) It is affected by sensor size or pixel density too.

300 is certainly the way to go if you want trailing to be pretty much non existent.
 
nandbytes said:
I'm not even sure why they released that lens. Most people who can afford one can get a used f1.2 for same price. Even in grey market there's about £200 difference in then. So if you can afford f1.4 you can likely afford f1.2. I imagine most people will just go for f1.2 despite it being bigger. Most people buying fast primes seem to care less about size/weight.
Click to expand...
I'm probably going for the 50 1.4, that weight and size makes a big difference on a long day. And whilst the f1.2 would be lovely (and seems to have the attached 1.2 bragging rights) the 1.4 will certainly be up to the job.
 
nandbytes said:
Because pixel peeping is more prominent these days :D
Basically higher res sensors show the star smearing more clearly than when the 500 rule was thought of
Click to expand...
LeeRatters said:
Because following the 500 rule will capture star trailing rather than pin point stars ;) It is affected by sensor size or pixel density too.

300 is certainly the way to go if you want trailing to be pretty much non existent.
Click to expand...

I can see the points raised and I'll add to the above what I usually say on things like this which is start at the end result you want and work back to decide the kit and the settings. For low light shots with the cameras and lenses I have and assuming no heavy cropping for me there's a balance between lens performance wide open and stopping down a bit to achieve better performance. For eg. my 20mm f1.8 shows coma, I think that's what it's called, towards the edges at f1.8 and if looking closely you will see that and reducing it, if you want to, means stopping down and that could lead to higher ISO and/or longer shutter speeds and/or star trails being visible in a one shot exposure. So it's all a balance and you can introduce other steps like stacking and NR.

I also consider the hassle and time involved in post capture processing as I aim to be a mostly full frame filling the screen or a rare A4 or even rarer A3 print person except when taking close up shots when I'll sometimes happily crop to 100%.

I do know that you two are on another level to me and want different (better) results. For me there's no way at the moment I'm going to do calculations involving pixel pitches or phone apps or even bother with multiple exposure stacking or beyond the norm for me NR. These things and mostly sticking to full screen pictures leads me to different settings such as appropriate apertures for lens performance and ISO's from 200 to 800 and shutter speeds from 12 to 20 odd seconds. I do have some wide open shots at ISO 200 at 25 and 30 seconds and short star trails are visible if you look closely. ISO 200 isn't really a necessity even with my A7 as even ISO 800 looks good enough for me and that can give the option of stopping down for lens performance and/or increasing the shutter speed.

Toby. I hope the back and forth discussions on this have been a help :D
 
Last edited:
T_J_G said:
I'm probably going for the 50 1.4, that weight and size makes a big difference on a long day. And whilst the f1.2 would be lovely (and seems to have the attached 1.2 bragging rights) the 1.4 will certainly be up to the job.
Click to expand...
I think that would be my choice too, as lovely as the f1.2 is it's just a bit of a chore to use.
 
T_J_G said:
I'm probably going for the 50 1.4, that weight and size makes a big difference on a long day. And whilst the f1.2 would be lovely (and seems to have the attached 1.2 bragging rights) the 1.4 will certainly be up to the job.
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
I think that would be my choice too, as lovely as the f1.2 is it's just a bit of a chore to use.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate that since I'm the same, I think we are in the minority
 
Just done a quick test with the 35mm GM, initial thoughts are that it's heavier than I thought it would be, but perfectly fine, it's very sharp and it's the best lens I've had to date in terms of both corner sharpness and lack of (as in no) difference in corner sharpness between the 4 corners. I can't see any CA's.

Whilst on the subject of CA's, I know the theoretical difference between longitudinal and lateral CA's as is one is longitudinal is the inability to focus colours on the same plane and lateral are not on the same axis, but how does this translate into what you see on an image? The places I mainly see CA's is edges of the frame, especially when something's heavily backlit, and then also either side of the plane of focus on shallow DOF, but where else do you look for them and which is which? Google isn't really helping me outside of the theory.
 
nandbytes said:
While I appreciate that since I'm the same, I think we are in the minority
Click to expand...

I always think 1.2 lens are often bought for the bragging rights (was same in early days with the Fuji 56 1.2) as a working professional weighing it up the 50 1.4 makes more sense to me. At the moment, although I'm so indecisive I may change my mind by dinner time.
 
T_J_G said:
I always think 1.2 lens are often bought for the bragging rights (was same in early days with the Fuji 56 1.2) as a working professional weighing it up the 50 1.4 makes more sense to me. At the moment, although I'm so indecisive I may change my mind by dinner time.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be for me, the f1.2 renders beautifully and that extra butteriness is almost worth putting up with the weight for, but not quite.
 
nandbytes said:
35GM certainly has a wonderful rendering.
Click to expand...
I found when I had my Samyang 35mm f/1.8 it was my least used focal length. Particularly for taking photos of people, the 45mm just gave nicer results. I do think the 35mm f/1.4 does produce stunning photos - and it would probably be a lens I would use more given the beautiful rendering
 
T_J_G said:
Everyone needs new fancy glass
Click to expand...
I'd love a bag full of G Masters tbh. They are a thing of beauty. The last time I was as excited was when I got my hands on the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II - I still miss that lens. Forgive me posting Canon in the Sony thread.

AF8A2042 1 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A7690 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A7693 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
 
gilbouk said:
I found when I had my Samyang 35mm f/1.8 it was my least used focal length. Particularly for taking photos of people, the 45mm just gave nicer results. I do think the 35mm f/1.4 does produce stunning photos - and it would probably be a lens I would use more given the beautiful rendering
Click to expand...
Probably my least used too when it comes to primes, I’d say 50mm is my most used followed by 85mm and 35mm last. Im hoping to use the 35mm more for car events and paddock/garage photos. I like 50mm for this but sometimes it’s not wide enough or you have to stand back and then folk stand/walk in front of you.
 
gilbouk said:
I'd love a bag full of G Masters tbh. They are a thing of beauty. The last time I was as excited was when I got my hands on the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II - I still miss that lens. Forgive me posting Canon in the Sony thread.

AF8A2042 1 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A7690 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
AF8A7693 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nice rendering on that. I reckon the Sigma DG DN Art is not far off though. I’m starting to think the Sony 85mm f1.2 rumour is just pie in the sky, plus the f1.4 GM is already too heavy, and f1.2 would likely be over 1kg.
 
T_J_G said:
I always think 1.2 lens are often bought for the bragging rights (was same in early days with the Fuji 56 1.2) as a working professional weighing it up the 50 1.4 makes more sense to me. At the moment, although I'm so indecisive I may change my mind by dinner time.
Click to expand...

I think possibly the wider you go the better the argument gets for wider apertures. For example Laowa have a lovely 35mm f0.95 which gives a physical aperture slightly bigger than a 50mm f1.4 has. Their 28mm f1.2 gives a physical aperture smaller than a 50mm f2. So, if blur is your aim with a wider lens you're looking at f1.2 and wider.
 
woof woof said:
I think possibly the wider you go the better the argument gets for wider apertures. For example Laowa have a lovely 35mm f0.95 which gives a physical aperture slightly bigger than a 50mm f1.4 has. Their 28mm f1.2 gives a physical aperture smaller than a 50mm f2. So, if blur is your aim with a wider lens you're looking at f1.2 and wider.
Click to expand...
I wonder if we’ll ever get f0.95 AF lenses :thinking:
 
snerkler said:
I wonder if we’ll ever get f0.95 AF lenses :thinking:
Click to expand...

I suppose if they thought they could sell enough... but AF at f0.95 might be even trickier than MF. I don't know. Plus of course my A7 would need ND's to keep the shutter speed down in good light.

I had a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for MFT. It was lovely and it gave me quality across the frame (when stopped down) I hadn't seen until then.
 
snerkler said:
I wonder if we’ll ever get f0.95 AF lenses :thinking:
Click to expand...
I imagine it becomes harder for AF to operate fast enough the wider the aperture, particularly with closer work. I imagine it requires fast and faster element movement to keep up with even smaller micro adjustments to get good results
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top