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

Much praise for the Sony 85mm f1.4...

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine: “outstanding performance” | sonyalpharumors

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine (Click here). This is their conclusion: The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as the lens will last for many years. The previous design has lasted in the marketplace for the past seven years and is still a great lens. This makes the cost per year much more viable. For top performance and hard professional use, the new lens could be the one of choice. Value is not just about price and includes a myriad of other factors.
The original lens was an Editor’s Choice in 2016 and the new lens can now join it as an Editor’s Choice in 2024."

My bold and I think that is a bold claim. Depends on what they mean by "many" I suppose. I do have electronic devices which have lasted over 40 years but I think most have needed some fettling in that time. Lenses which I do believe will last for many years are manual primes :D as there's no electronics to crumble away and no ribbon cables or connectors to degrade and fail.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Much praise for the Sony 85mm f1.4...

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine: “outstanding performance” | sonyalpharumors

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine (Click here). This is their conclusion: The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as the lens will last for many years. The previous design has lasted in the marketplace for the past seven years and is still a great lens. This makes the cost per year much more viable. For top performance and hard professional use, the new lens could be the one of choice. Value is not just about price and includes a myriad of other factors.
The original lens was an Editor’s Choice in 2016 and the new lens can now join it as an Editor’s Choice in 2024."

By bold and I think that is a bold claim. Depends on what they mean by "many" I suppose. I do have electronic devices which have lasted over 40 years but I think most have needed some fettling in that time. Lenses which I do believe will last for many years are manual primes :D as there's no electronics to crumble away and no ribbon cables or connectors to degrade and fail.
Click to expand...

Many years could be 10 years of professional use. I suspect a current lens used by a wedding tog for 5 years now will shoot more frames than one used by a pro for 40 years with a film camera.
 
I occasionally get irrational desires for an old digital back for my Hasselblad and then 10 mins later close the tabs of eBay searches for an old phase one back…

(Yes I know they’re mostly tethered and FireWire only, bus powered at that… I like a project )
 
woof woof said:
Much praise for the Sony 85mm f1.4...

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine: “outstanding performance” | sonyalpharumors

Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM II Lens Review by ePhotozine (Click here). This is their conclusion: The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

"The new lens sits comfortably at the top of the tree, unfortunately so does the price, so the new Sony is for those who want the outstanding performance and can meet the cost. This could be excellent value as the lens will last for many years. The previous design has lasted in the marketplace for the past seven years and is still a great lens. This makes the cost per year much more viable. For top performance and hard professional use, the new lens could be the one of choice. Value is not just about price and includes a myriad of other factors.
The original lens was an Editor’s Choice in 2016 and the new lens can now join it as an Editor’s Choice in 2024."

By bold and I think that is a bold claim. Depends on what they mean by "many" I suppose. I do have electronic devices which have lasted over 40 years but I think most have needed some fettling in that time. Lenses which I do believe will last for many years are manual primes :D as there's no electronics to crumble away and no ribbon cables or connectors to degrade and fail.
Click to expand...
I can see this being a very desirable lens. If I shot with 85mm a lot I think I'd be tempted, but I don't and for my use I'm happy with the Siggy (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Many years could be 10 years of professional use. I suspect a current lens used by a wedding tog for 5 years now will shoot more frames than one used by a pro for 40 years with a film camera.
Click to expand...

I'm just a bit skeptical when reading claims of longevity for modern equipment with electronics, moving parts and interconnections and that's what these lenses are. I hope this lens will give years of service but I do think that we shouldn't expect kit like this to still be in use in 30, 40 or 50 years time like some film era kit is as once the electronic gremlins get working things can stop working and the repair if it can be economically done at all might well cost more than the quick clean up an lube and old Rokkor or FD may need :D

I know I'm being a bit pedantic here :D
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I can see this being a very desirable lens. If I shot with 85mm a lot I think I'd be tempted, but I don't and for my use I'm happy with the Siggy (y)
Click to expand...

I keep think about the Online Photographer and his "Letter to George" in which our hero is advised to spend thousands over years but end up with a decent camera and 35 and 85mm f1.8's. If you substitute the f1.8's for more upmarket f1.4 GM's I think the argument still holds up and that a 35 and 85mm f1.4 and a decent camera will be all many people "need".

Letter to George

Dear Mr. Johnston, Thank you for your response attempting to assist me in my Nikon purchase. However, I find your recommendation preposterous and extremely strange coming from a so-called expert. First of all, the D700 at $2,450 is far beyond...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Not me of course as I'll need a 4/5 Voigtlanders and several biscuit tins full of film era primes too.
 
woof woof said:
I keep think about the Online Photographer and his "Letter to George" in which our hero is advised to spend thousands over years but end up with a decent camera and 35 and 85mm f1.8's. If you substitute the f1.8's for more upmarket f1.4 GM's I think the argument still holds up and that a 35 and 85mm f1.4 and a decent camera will be all many people "need".

Letter to George

Dear Mr. Johnston, Thank you for your response attempting to assist me in my Nikon purchase. However, I find your recommendation preposterous and extremely strange coming from a so-called expert. First of all, the D700 at $2,450 is far beyond...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Not me of course as I'll need a 4/5 Voigtlanders and several biscuit tins full of film era primes too.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me :)
 
I'd better not buy the 85 then. It's bad enough now: do I choose to take the 35 or 50? Having a 3rd choice is going to be too much. :p
 
Different strokes for different folks of course but if that page is serious (maybe it's tongue in cheek although their follow up suggests not), personally I'm against recommending expensive one size fits all solutions into fields which are highly varied with no one size fits all solution. Taking that advice would likely have killed any interest in photography before it started along with my bank account and even now would be a useless set up for me.
 
Last edited:
JohnMcL7 said:
Different strokes for different folks of course but if that page is serious (maybe it's tongue in cheek although their follow up suggests not), personally I'm against recommending expensive one size fits all solutions into fields which are highly varied with no one size fits all solution. Taking that advice would likely have killed any interest in photography before it started along with my bank account and even now would be a useless set up for me.
Click to expand...

It's important to work from what is good for you, rather than just adopting other people's views wholesale.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'd better not buy the 85 then. It's bad enough now: do I choose to take the 35 or 50? Having a 3rd choice is going to be too much. :p
Click to expand...
I do have that third choice and when I go to portrait events I do take it with me but often it doesn't come out of the bag.
 
I can recommend an 85 (or 75 as I have) as an excellent "toddler lens" (or small child) they're often zooming about the place, so the speed of the prime is nice, and the reach helps you get a photo despite them whizzing away from you/up a climbing frame etc.

Conventionally it's a staged portrait lens, but the reach helps for environmental portraits of unwilling/impatient subjects!
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'd better not buy the 85 then. It's bad enough now: do I choose to take the 35 or 50? Having a 3rd choice is going to be too much. :p
Click to expand...

You could replace both the 35 and 50 with a 40mm. That'd cut down on the decision making and make the kit even more minimalistic.

I keep think I could use my 85mm f1.8 more and I did enjoy using my Oly 85mm f2 a few weeks ago but the Sony is big and heavy and it does have AF but it's not that snappy IMO. I have looked at the Sima 90mm f2.8 as it is AFAIK bit smaller and lighter.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It's important to work from what is good for you, rather than just adopting other people's views wholesale.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Plus: when reading or watching programmes about photography, I recommend distinguishing between those who try to impress by the use of expensive, specialised equipment and those who have good technical reasons to use such lenses and other tools.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
Different strokes for different folks of course but if that page is serious (maybe it's tongue in cheek although their follow up suggests not), personally I'm against recommending expensive one size fits all solutions into fields which are highly varied with no one size fits all solution. Taking that advice would likely have killed any interest in photography before it started along with my bank account and even now would be a useless set up for me.
Click to expand...

John, are you talking about that piece from the Online Photographer? If you are, as you half suspect it is clearly tongue in cheek and remember that the point of it is not to recommend a one size fits all solution but to save time and money.

I happen to pretty much agree with it though :D but that's because I mostly use one prime in the 28/35/40/50mm sort of range. Lenses like these are pretty much do it all lenses for me and I could manage very well with just a 35 and an 85 but the 85mm would be mostly in a drawer and would only be used once a year and I also use close up filters now and again on my 35mm-ish lenses. I do accept that not everyone is like me and I do know that there are many things that a 35mm even when paired with an 85mm can't do very well at all, such as birds in flight, sports action, wide angle stuff etc.

If the Online Photographer isn't what you were talking about, my mistake... Carry On :D

Just for fun.
At the moment I have a 35mm f1.4 on my A7, a 40mm f2.5 on my A7III, a 14mm f2.5 (28mm equiv) on my GX80 and a 100-400mm on my GX9 but that hardly gets used. That for me is a very versatile set up :D
 
woof woof said:
You could replace both the 35 and 50 with a 40mm. That'd cut down on the decision making and make the kit even more minimalistic.
Click to expand...

TBH no, 40mm is neither fish nor fowl, a bit like the 55 f1.8 that's not quite a 50. Also isn't it MF? IIRC you mentioned those lenses give a slightly 'funky' look to the image, where as I really like the way these 2 render an image, especially the 35. To me, the rendering is more important than whether I get a hairs-breadth depth of field, although edge to edge sharpness wide open is nice too.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Agreed.

Plus: when reading or watching programmes about photography, I recommend distinguishing between those who try to impress by the use of expensive, specialised equipment and those who have good technical reasons to use such lenses and other tools.
Click to expand...

We do have to accept that the kit does matter and no matter how good your eye and your technique is there are some fields of interest in which those things have to be accompanied by expensive specialised kit otherwise you could spend your life trying to get a picture which you'd get much more easily with that expensive specialised kit.

Looking at the pictures you've posted on his forum I don't think you need expensive specialist kit and I'm sure you can tell from my pictures that I don't either but just a glimpse at other peoples pictures will tell you that other people do need expensive specialist kit and without it they'd have a fraction of the pictures they have.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH no, 40mm is neither fish nor fowl, a bit like the 55 f1.8 that's not quite a 50. Also isn't it MF? IIRC you mentioned those lenses give a slightly 'funky' look to the image, where as I really like the way these 2 render an image, especially the 35. To me, the rendering is more important than whether I get a hairs-breadth depth of field, although edge to edge sharpness wide open is nice too.
Click to expand...

Funky? Do you mean the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4? If that's it, it does give a funky look but mostly only at something like f1.4 and just stopped down a bit and in specific instances such as when shooting MFD or close and also with complex / messy scenes, think foliage and complex messy backgrounds and that sort of thing and it does quite quickly calm down depending on distance, complexity and aperture as you start stopping down.

I think I do prefer 35mm to 40mm but maybe only because I've taken so many pictures with 35mm lenses and of course there isn't a Sony 35mm f2.x mini G only the old 35mm f2.8 and the new 40mm f2.5 G is IMO the better lens. I suppose what's always in the back of my mind is that I think back to the simplicity of my first camera which had a 43mm lens so really 35 or 40 or even 50mm does me well although these days I tend to like 35/40 a bit more than the bit tighter 50mm.

As I'm used to 35mm I often now where to stand and for 40mm it's very close and often not even a step but a slight lean back, but I am getting used to 40mm. Remember also that you can't foot zoom without changing perspective but 40mm is pretty ok for me.
 
Last edited:
A Sony 50mm f2.5 G review, just posted yesterday. Some may be familiar with these mini G lenses but I do like this guys reviews...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Sony FE 50mm 2.5 G - phillipreeve.net

ContentsIntroductionSample ImagesSpecificationsDisclosureHandling / Build QualityAutofocusVignettingSharpnessInfinity (42mp Sony A7rII)Portrait 1.5 m (42mp Sony A7rII)Close 0.31 m, 1:4.3 (42mp Sony A7rII)Flare resistanceComaDistortionBokehClose DistanceMid DistanceLong DistanceSunstarsChromatic...
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

They also link the 40mm f2.5 review...

phillipreeve.net

Review: Sony FE 40mm 2.5 G - phillipreeve.net

The Sony FE 40mm 2.5 G is a compact high performance E-mount lens. Despite its small size, is it actuallly a
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net

I have the 24mm f2.8 and the 40mm f2.5.
 
woof woof said:
John, are you talking about that piece from the Online Photographer? If you are, as you half suspect it is clearly tongue in cheek and remember that the point of it is not to recommend a one size fits all solution but to save time and money.

I happen to pretty much agree with it though :D but that's because I mostly use one prime in the 28/35/40/50mm sort of range. Lenses like these are pretty much do it all lenses for me and I could manage very well with just a 35 and an 85 but the 85mm would be mostly in a drawer and would only be used once a year and I also use close up filters now and again on my 35mm-ish lenses. I do accept that not everyone is like me and I do know that there are many things that a 35mm even when paired with an 85mm can't do very well at all, such as birds in flight, sports action, wide angle stuff etc.

If the Online Photographer isn't what you were talking about, my mistake... Carry On :D

Just for fun.
At the moment I have a 35mm f1.4 on my A7, a 40mm f2.5 on my A7III, a 14mm f2.5 (28mm equiv) on my GX80 and a 100-400mm on my GX9 but that hardly gets used. That for me is a very versatile set up :D
Click to expand...
I am talking about that and I'm not sure it is tongue in cheek especially if you read the follow up article that's linked to it. The view expressed is certainly a common one and not just amongst photography either to the point I've seen very irate articles on designs or products a site has recommended against but become popular in its own right because people have done their own thing.
 
JohnMcL7 said:
I am talking about that and I'm not sure it is tongue in cheek especially if you read the follow up article that's linked to it. The view expressed is certainly a common one and not just amongst photography either to the point I've seen very irate articles on designs or products a site has recommended against but become popular in its own right because people have done their own thing.
Click to expand...

I don't read TOP now as IMO he's moved away from photography a little and drifted into lifestyle and political comment too much for me but I did read his blog almost daily for a long time and IMO that post is not 100% serious and it is IMO in line with how he's posted/blogged for years.

Of course I could be wrong but IMO and just to be clear anyone who does think that 35/85 is seriously a do it all for everyone possibly hasn't thought about it for long enough or perhaps just doesn't have an open mind. For eg. I'm just not interested in taking pictures of birds in flight. I can see the appeal and I can look at the pictures and imagine the skill and patience involved and I can imagine the kit which is needed but it's just not for me. Having seen the appeal I realise that neither a 35 or an 85mm will quite cut it and there are many other things for which 35/85 just doesn't cut it.

And BTW, I wasn't seriously suggesting that 35/85 is a do it all for everyone but it just could be for me. Mostly I do use 28-50 with occasional forays to wider or longer.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH no, 40mm is neither fish nor fowl, a bit like the 55 f1.8 that's not quite a 50. Also isn't it MF? IIRC you mentioned those lenses give a slightly 'funky' look to the image, where as I really like the way these 2 render an image, especially the 35. To me, the rendering is more important than whether I get a hairs-breadth depth of field, although edge to edge sharpness wide open is nice too.
Click to expand...

The Voigtlander 40/1.2 in E mount isn't funky at all imo - It is MF though!
 
LeeRatters said:
The Voigtlander 40/1.2 in E mount isn't funky at all imo - It is MF though!
Click to expand...

There's something to point at with most lenses and if there isn't we can still point at them and say "clinical" or "lacking in character."

I've been thinking about the following ways to spend some money and create some interest and motivation.

1. Rebuy a 40mm f1.2 and trade in the 35 and 50mm f1.2's because I'm finding 50mm is often a bit tight and TBH I don't think the 35mm f1.2 is as good as the 40 or 50mm f1.2's. It's good enough but I can't stop myself from pixel peeping and seeing that it isn't as good as the other two f1.2's. I don't know what to do with the 50mm f2 apo as I'm not using it but it is just an excellent lens, it is IMO outstanding and technically the best lens I've ever had. The 35mm f1.4 is the weakest of the Voigtlanders I have but it's very compact and light and I like that so I can't bring myself to sell it.

2. Buy the 28mm f1.5 but that doesn't help with point 1.

3. Buy a Sony 24-50mm f2.8 but it's bigger and heavier than I'll be happy with and I've tried to get comfortable with zooms before and I always end up putting them away and going back to primes.
 
woof woof said:
I keep think I could use my 85mm f1.8 more and I did enjoy using my Oly 85mm f2 a few weeks ago but the Sony is big and heavy and it does have AF but it's not that snappy IMO.
Click to expand...
Maybe there is a fault with your copy?

85 f/1.8 is supposedly one of the fastest a.f lenses in the system.
 
f/2.8 said:
Maybe there is a fault with your copy?

85 f/1.8 is supposedly one of the fastest a.f lenses in the system.
Click to expand...

I don't know that focus speed is a common fault, hunting could be but that's not it and IMO it just isn't all that quick on my A7 but then again few lenses are fast on my A7. I haven't used it on my A7III yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top