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

I watched a couple of reviews of the Sony 24-50mm f2.8 and they said it's very good. I compared it to my 28-70mm f3.5-5.6, 95mm f1.8 and also to my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. It doesn't look too big. I think the kit lens and the 85mm are about as big as I want to go but this f2.8 isn't significantly bigger than any of them.

1-Untitled-1.jpg

I'm tempted to give one a try but what's holding me back is that I've tried zooms before and I always end up swapping back for a prime. My thinking this time is that one camera with a zoom and the other with a prime might be nice although another option is a 24mm on one and the 40mm on the other. I'll have to have a think and maybe try my kit zoom of Panasonic and see if I can get used to a zoom.
 
woof woof said:
I watched a couple of reviews of the Sony 24-50mm f2.8 and they said it's very good. I compared it to my 28-70mm f3.5-5.6, 95mm f1.8 and also to my Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. It doesn't look too big. I think the kit lens and the 85mm are about as big as I want to go but this f2.8 isn't significantly bigger than any of them.

View attachment 435946

I'm tempted to give one a try but what's holding me back is that I've tried zooms before and I always end up swapping back for a prime. My thinking this time is that one camera with a zoom and the other with a prime might be nice although another option is a 24mm on one and the 40mm on the other. I'll have to have a think and maybe try my kit zoom of Panasonic and see if I can get used to a zoom.
Click to expand...
It looks a nice lens, I just think the range is too limiting for me and for a very small size and weight penalty the 20-70mm f4 is more useful to me.
 
woof woof said:
There may be times when I'd find f4 limiting.
Click to expand...
Depends what you're after I guess, but if I'm wanting shallow DOF or more light then I'd use a prime, if I'm using a zoom it's normally for landscape, cityscape etc so I'm shooting at f8-11 (y)
 
snerkler said:
Depends what you're after I guess, but if I'm wanting shallow DOF or more light then I'd use a prime, if I'm using a zoom it's normally for landscape, cityscape etc so I'm shooting at f8-11 (y)
Click to expand...

I should get out of the low light mindset as I don't tend to take pictures in low light these days.

On another note.

I've just received my film era lenses back and luckily they were marked up with the shops rating so I could take a look and see if I agreed, just for fun. Two were marked as "ugly" but I just don't see it. One is a little worn but overall I'd say pretty average really, not tatty, and the other I'd say is in good condition. But what do I know? I took a good luck at the lens which they said needs repair and I don't think it does. The focus ring is stiffer than some but not IMO overly so and it is uniform throughout its travel and tbh I've never thought it a problem and in fact I like the stability it gives so I wont be getting it "repaired." I've always thought that lens was my best film era 24mm.

I think I'll do as accidental (sorry I haven't got a name :D) suggested and just use them in rotation again. I was like Christmas opening them all up :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I should get out of the low light mindset as I don't tend to take pictures in low light these days.

On another note.

I've just received my film era lenses back and luckily they were marked up with the shops rating so I could take a look and see if I agreed, just for fun. Two were marked as "ugly" but I just don't see it. One is a little worn but overall I'd say pretty average really, not tatty, and the other I'd say is in good condition. But what do I know? I took a good luck at the lens which they said needs repair and I don't think it does. The focus ring is stiffer than some but not IMO overly so and it is uniform throughout its travel and tbh I've never thought it a problem and in fact I like the stability it gives so I wont be getting it "repaired." I've always thought that lens was my best film era 24mm.

I think I'll do as accidental (sorry I haven't got a name :D) suggested and just use them in rotation again. I was like Christmas opening them all up :D
Click to expand...

You could have 'mount' months - this month I'll be using Minolta MD, next month I'll use Nikon F, then that way you have some options within the month :)
 
woof woof said:
I should get out of the low light mindset as I don't tend to take pictures in low light these days.

On another note.

I've just received my film era lenses back and luckily they were marked up with the shops rating so I could take a look and see if I agreed, just for fun. Two were marked as "ugly" but I just don't see it. One is a little worn but overall I'd say pretty average really, not tatty, and the other I'd say is in good condition. But what do I know? I took a good luck at the lens which they said needs repair and I don't think it does. The focus ring is stiffer than some but not IMO overly so and it is uniform throughout its travel and tbh I've never thought it a problem and in fact I like the stability it gives so I wont be getting it "repaired." I've always thought that lens was my best film era 24mm.

I think I'll do as accidental (sorry I haven't got a name :D) suggested and just use them in rotation again. I was like Christmas opening them all up :D
Click to expand...
What do they mean by "ugly" :thinking:
 
Mr Perceptive said:
You could have 'mount' months - this month I'll be using Minolta MD, next month I'll use Nikon F, then that way you have some options within the month :)
Click to expand...

I used to take two, three or four lenses out with me but more recently the most I've taken is two. But yes, taking two of the same mount would make the most sense.

snerkler said:
What do they mean by "ugly" :thinking:
Click to expand...

I thought they meant scruffy, poor condition. I've had a look and I don't see any particular reason why they singled these two out but I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I think the Zuiko 35mm is in good condition (the casing looks good and the lettering looks bright and clear) and the 50mm is pretty average. I think the Miranda 24mm is in similar condition to the Zuiko 50mm but they've graded it as Excellent. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason either looking at the lens casings or through them.

I'm not overly upset that I withdrew from the sale. I did sell a biscuit tin full and that allowed me to box some more up so they'll all wrapped in bubble wrap and in tins in the same draw and waiting to be used now.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I should get out of the low light mindset as I don't tend to take pictures in low light these days.

On another note.

I've just received my film era lenses back and luckily they were marked up with the shops rating so I could take a look and see if I agreed, just for fun. Two were marked as "ugly" but I just don't see it. One is a little worn but overall I'd say pretty average really, not tatty, and the other I'd say is in good condition. But what do I know? I took a good luck at the lens which they said needs repair and I don't think it does. The focus ring is stiffer than some but not IMO overly so and it is uniform throughout its travel and tbh I've never thought it a problem and in fact I like the stability it gives so I wont be getting it "repaired." I've always thought that lens was my best film era 24mm.

I think I'll do as accidental (sorry I haven't got a name :D) suggested and just use them in rotation again. I was like Christmas opening them all up :D
Click to expand...

Mr Perceptive said:
You could have 'mount' months - this month I'll be using Minolta MD, next month I'll use Nikon F, then that way you have some options within the month :)
Click to expand...

I think WE should pick the lens mount that Alan should use every week :) :ROFLMAO:
 
LeeRatters said:
I think WE should pick the lens mount that Alan should use every week :) :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I haven't had a lot of time for photography recently and haven't been out for a couple of weeks now but hopefully coming to the end of things now and things might get a little more back to normal.
 
LeeRatters said:
Aside from my mates wedding last weekend, I've not really been out for a few weeks myself.
Click to expand...

Just a mixture of legal wrangles which are hopefully comping to a close, stress, depression, IBS and all the rest plus I've had a bug or maybe covid (someone I knew had it and might have passed it on to me) for a couple of weeks. Just the joys of life getting in the way of important things like hobbies :D

0ne from my last trip out. A7 and TTA 50mm f2.

1-DSC07283.jpg
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
It looks a nice lens, I just think the range is too limiting for me and for a very small size and weight penalty the 20-70mm f4 is more useful to me.
Click to expand...
I thought so too - until I bought one.
I wanted a fast(ish), wide(ish) lens for night stuff like auroras.
It had to be a zoom.
Up to now, I have found it perfect for my needs.
I'm surprised how quickly I've grown to enjoy this lens.
It won't be my everyday lens, that accolade goes to my 24-105 on the a1 or Tamron 28-200 on a7c
Granted, perhaps one day I'll trade the 24-105 for a 20-70 ;)
 
I was very excited to see a very unexpected showing of the Northern Lights last night (ironically the 24-50mm lens would have been perfect :LOL:). Far from the best photos as I just grabbed my camera and 'ran' to curbar edge so no time to find a suitable spot to get an interesting foreground, but I was just happy to see them.

More on Flickr

Edit: IQ doesn't look great on here :thinking:

1.

A7R01445-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

2.

A7R01448-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

3.

A7R01458-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

4.

A7R01473-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

5.

A7R01478-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

6.

A7R01480-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

7.

A7R01492-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

8.

A7R01496-Enhanced-NR by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Edit: IQ doesn't look great on here :thinking:
Click to expand...
Just done some quick comparison checks of same images i have across other sites and matched the pages to the image sizes TP is worst AVF just a tad better FBook much much better Flickr better still and using the Mac photo app sublime.
There all the same brightness to my eyes at the sizes they are displayed on here but something like contrast sharpness is out you can easily see the variations from the watermarks.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I wonder if the variation of quality is a browser issue? Images seldom look soft here to me using Firefox, but some often complain of poor image quality.
Click to expand...
Could well be, I generally use Chrome (on Mac) but sometimes use Safari. The weird thing is it's not consistent, sometimes my images look OK and sometimes they are noticeably degraded despite me using the same settings all the time.
 
Usually and unless things look really bad I just assume that other peoples pictures are sharp on their pc. Like mine sometimes are.
 
trevorbray said:
Any joy Toby ?
Click to expand...
Just tried it and it works thanks. It imports with the picture settings (eg B&W) and then I can save it as jpeg or tiff. When I compare it to the using the Camera B&W profile in LR it's quite different, the LR version is darker and more contrast. I checked that the imaging edge app didn't have D-range optimiser on or anything.

I will try shooting raw and jpeg combined at some point and will compare the imaging edge raw conversion with the jpeg to see if there's any difference (y)
 
Last edited:
the_accidental said:
View attachment 436136
Speaking of adapted lenses earlier in the thread, finally got hold of one of these, one of the main reasons I was trying out the A mount adapters.

Such a compact setup for the reach, can’t wait to get out with it.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know what image quality is like, mirror lenses - like the Sigma cat 600 I have - can be surprisingly poor.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would be interested to know what image quality is like, mirror lenses - like the Sigma cat 600 I have - can be surprisingly poor.
Click to expand...
Only been out for a quick test all is working well, despite it being a lovely autumn day it’s been quite windy and I was shooting hand held so I think that was hampering things a bit, but overall quite pleased. The lack of CA (typical of a reflex ) is really nice, as is having AF (atypically).

No proper tests of quality yet, as I say it was looking promising, but about the only one worth sharing was this playing around with the extreme tele compression for a slice of landscape:

https://flic.kr/p/2qnjdHg

You should be able to click through for full res. The others are too boring to share really! I’ll share more when I have something a bit better.
 
the_accidental said:
Only been out for a quick test all is working well, despite it being a lovely autumn day it’s been quite windy and I was shooting hand held so I think that was hampering things a bit, but overall quite pleased. The lack of CA (typical of a reflex ) is really nice, as is having AF (atypically).

No proper tests of quality yet, as I say it was looking promising, but about the only one worth sharing was this playing around with the extreme tele compression for a slice of landscape:

https://flic.kr/p/2qnjdHg

You should be able to click through for full res. The others are too boring to share really! I’ll share more when I have something a bit better.
Click to expand...

That certainly gives some nice compression for a very different view!
 
the_accidental said:
Only been out for a quick test all is working well, despite it being a lovely autumn day it’s been quite windy and I was shooting hand held so I think that was hampering things a bit, but overall quite pleased. The lack of CA (typical of a reflex ) is really nice, as is having AF (atypically).
Click to expand...

That looks quite impressive to me. I imagine it'll look lovely filling a screen or printed.

I bought two frames today, £6 each. They're A4 with the surround in place and A3 without. I just went for white frames to match the ones I put up in the hallway a while ago. I'd cropped and resized some pictures to match the traditional print and frame sizes which rather annoyingly do not match A sizes or camera output sizes so I'll have to do them again to match these frames :D
 
ancient_mariner said:
I would be interested to know what image quality is like, mirror lenses - like the Sigma cat 600 I have - can be surprisingly poor.
Click to expand...
So I've done more testing today, and continue to be impressed. I've used/owned mirror lenses in the past, and this exceeds them, the colour is particularly vibrant, IMO. I do think the resolution of my sensor (33Mp) slightly exceeds the lenses resolving power, without post-processing it doesn't have the precise sharpness of some of my modern lenses. OTOH I was shooting a 500mm f/8 handheld in flat light so it could also be that! Of course you get the unusual bokeh but it's not so bad in many use cases.

I took a selection of test shots, most not interesting to share, and some of family that I don't wish to share, but if there's a particular sort of deficiency you see in your sigma you're interested in, let me know and I'll see if I have something similar?

A couple of examples, you should be able to get full res at "all sizes" if you wish to pixel-peep, all handheld though:

A wooden garage door, shot at around 5-6m, so fairly near MFD, lots of fine detail to see resolution:
https://flic.kr/p/2qnpE4Q

A snapshot of a motorbike at maybe 30-50m, a good example of a subject with some mid-distance behind to show off the worst of the "busy" bokeh without going to the extremes of background Christmas trees etc! It does to my eye roll fairly smoothly off the plane of focus at least. Chrome on the bike as ever a good CA test, no fringing there on the high contrast.

https://flic.kr/p/2qnwrNb

The weight and handling is lovely of course, for comparison, it's the same weight as the E mount 24-105/4, and only 5mm longer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top