Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sony Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Sony Cameras 
Thread started 30 Mar 2015 (Monday) 05:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Considering an A7S but stuck on lense choice

 
romanv
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
     
Mar 30, 2015 05:42 |  #1

Hey,

I've previously had a Canon 600D and my trio of lenses I settled on were a Sigma 10-20, Samyang 35mm F1.4, and 55-250mm.

I tried a few longer lenses but hated the weight and bulk. Also, ISO 800 was about the limit!

A lot of my daytime shots were stoppped down to get plenty of depth of field, and night time shots wide open but always trying to maximise DOF.
I also hated the size of full frame cameras so never really considered them an option.
I sold all of my stuff about 6 months ago to pursue some other hobbies but feeling the urge again, haha.

I recently found out about the A7S and it just ticks so many boxes for me!

My main interests are low light photography for landscape purposes, and a bit of amateur hour with some film making, and of course both of the above in normal daylight as well.

I'm not keen to lug around a whole backpack full of gear anymore, so want to keep things compact.

I'm not exactly an oil baron so I'm already stretching the budget to own a single lense for the camera to start with.

My best two options look to be either the 55mm Sony/Zeiss F1.8 or the Mitakon 0.95 50mm.

Where I'm a bit stuck though is deciding which one!

I feel like I'm already making a possibly regrettable commitment to low light by opting for the A7S, so why not push that extra bit further and have the 0.95? It needs to be extreme to be worth the cost.
But I havent seen any sample pictures taken in a landscape sort of context, I'm unsure that it will have enough DOF when at infinity focus for what I'd like to do. Has anyone used one of these lenses for this?

The 55mm Zeiss looks ball bustingly sharp, but then its ability to resolve lots of detail goes a bit to waste with 12mp when it's meant for 36?
Kinda seems like you're paying for an A7R worthy lense that wont ever see it's potential.
I'm also concerned that F1.8 will dampen the fun of low light shots, and I would regret spending a lot and not opting for at least F1.4.

Soo... maybe the lack of sharpness of the 0.95 gets soaked up a bit by the low megapixel count, and looks great.

Cant decide! Any thoughts appreciated from anyone who's used one or both.

Ideally I'm after a small/light/discrete looking F1.4 or lower, 45-55mm with autofocus and Sony E F mount.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,135 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 348
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Mar 30, 2015 05:58 |  #2

What about get a tripod for your 600D 1st? Tripod is the most underrated item.

BTW 55mm / 50mm is somewhat very boring after while.

Anyway AF is very important - Zeiss 1,8/55 has my vote.


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by romanv. (3 edits in all)
     
Mar 30, 2015 06:17 |  #3

I sold my 600D and all of the gear to go with it - except for my tripod!

EDIT:

I guess this is an example of a 600D photo where I think I could explore a similar look in a lot lower light if I had cleaner high ISO:

https://500px.com …derhaas?from=us​er_library (external link)

As I only had a few opportunities in fading light until ISO 800 just wasnt enough, and the next step up gets really ugly.

Or the other thing, is I'll need to stop down a bit more to get similar DOF on a full frame so need to compensate with ISO, which I can do just fine with the A7S.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,072 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7364
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Mar 30, 2015 15:28 |  #4

I don't subscribe to the theory that super-sharp lenses are wasted on lower resolution cameras. I would recommend the FE 55mm f/1.8 over the Mitakon.

If it were me, I'm not sure I wouldn't go for the 24-70mm, which performs very well in the 35-50mm range. Yes it's 2 1/3 stops slower, but you're concerned about DOF and the a7S high-ISO capabilities can compensate for the 2 1/3 stops.

Still, if you're convinced you can live with a fixed focal length, then you should really love the FE 55mm f/1.8. It is a wonderfully lightweight lens.

Speaking of DOF, there is a rather strange thread here on the 55mm f/1.8 that you might want to read through: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/12768​96 (external link) I've owned the lens and it was perfect for me (I only sold it because it's a bit redundant with my Zeiss Otus 1.4/55mm ZE).


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by romanv.
     
Mar 30, 2015 18:53 |  #5

Hey thanks for that.

Hmmm nah, there's no way I'd be willing to go for F4 or whatever as widest aperture, if I was, I would go for the A7R instead.

I guess the thing is - Going to F1.4 necessitates bulkier glass, there's just no way around that.

So perhaps the 1.8 is a pretty good compromise of everything.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Mar 30, 2015 20:41 |  #6

You said you were interested in low-light landscapes.

Thing is, low-light landscapes generally doesn't mean you need high ISO, since you typically shoot these on a tripod (the singular exception being night skies without star trails).

I'd be looking at the A7r instead - these should be available for cheap fairly soon, with the A7rII being imminent. When shooting landscapes mounted on a tripod, it's far and away superior to the A7s.

Of course, if you're shooting things that move in low-light conditions, you'll need the ISO.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by romanv.
     
Mar 30, 2015 21:30 as a reply to  @ Shadowblade's post |  #7

Yeah I've done heaps of long exposures on a tripod with F1.4, and it's awesome.

I get what you're saying, and yeah it's a tough decision to lose the MP for sensitivity.

But yeah there are a few things that would be cool to be able to do while it's darker, and winter is starting here so I really need a hobby that works well in the dark haha.

Being able to record video is obviously a big one, but also being able to incorporate some people into night shots without needing to expose for 20 seconds would be cool too. I've got a few moonlit type shots in mind which I think could be cool if I had the ISO for it.

Or another thing, there's a certain magic at around the 1/2 second shutter mark for making water/waves look whispy and awesome, it would be cool to have more flexibility in when I could shoot these types of shots.

If I was less concerned about low light ability I'd probably be looking at getting a micro four thirds rather than other full frame options.

I think I'm swaying towards the f0.95 at this stage... But maybe I should rent an A7S with the F1.8 first and see what it's actually like.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,550 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5589
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 30, 2015 22:06 |  #8

I'ved used the mitakon for a few months, and I really like the lens. It's a good full T stop faster than the 55, and has noticeably more background blur than the 50 1.2. It was my brother's lens, optics were decent, however, there is a very distinct color cast. Not bad, just different, a film like look. If the lens were lighter, I'de still be shooting with it, however it's obnoxiously heavy.

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2922/14752507365_f540884afd_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/otCs​tg  (external link) Butterfly play 1 (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14581875639_c8f759283e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/odxV​AX  (external link) Butterfly play 3 (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5561/14565858728_7346bd9e35_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oc8Q​kj  (external link) Butterfly play 2 (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5591/14565856479_e3824acf38_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oc8P​Ex  (external link) Horned Cow 2 (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/14768517395_5c0db0a89d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ov3v​Gg  (external link) Creepy clowns 3 (external link) by charlie617 (external link), on Flickr

nailing focus was no harder than nailing focus with the 50/1.2, I find longer focal lengths like 85/1.2 and 135/2 harder to nail.

Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by romanv. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 31, 2015 02:12 |  #9

Hey thanks Charlie! Appreciate the feedback. I love that last shot.

Do you have any pictures where you've focused at near infinity, while wide open? Or stopped down to F1.2 or F1.4 etc?

As that's what I'm curious about for this lense but havent seen any examples shot that way.

Or even if it was an example from the 50 1.2, I just want to get an idea of how much foreground you lose.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
romanv
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
223 posts
Likes: 93
Joined Jul 2012
Post edited over 4 years ago by romanv.
     
Apr 01, 2015 15:47 |  #10

Ahh well I've committed, ordered the camera today. :)

I didnt by a lense with it, instead I ordered a Canon mount adapter.

As I've already got a Sigma 28 F1.8 for Canon to get the ball rolling, and buying a 50mm F1.4 or 1.8 for Canon is ballzillions cheaper than the F E equivilents.

And a lot easier to sell as well.

Will see how it goes! Both my 28mm and a Canon 50 are very compact so hopefully the adaptor wont seem like too much of a pain.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2015 22:38 |  #11

Have you considered the Sigma 50/1.4 Art? It's much better than any of the Canon 50mm lenses (equal to the Zeiss Otus), will AF on your Canon bodies and still not particularly expensive.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,072 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7364
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 4 years ago by David Arbogast. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 01, 2015 22:46 |  #12

Shadowblade wrote in post #17501436 (external link)
Have you considered the Sigma 50/1.4 Art? It's much better than any of the Canon 50mm lenses (equal to the Zeiss Otus), will AF on your Canon bodies and still not particularly expensive.

The Sigma is a great lens, but not quite "equal"...there is still a performance gap. It is indeed an outstanding value and I agree with the recommendation; it is equal or bettern than the Otus in some areas (center sharpness).


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 01, 2015 23:13 |  #13

David Arbogast wrote in post #17501451 (external link)
Not equal...there is still a significant performance gap there. Sure, it's a great value and I agree with the recommendation, and it is as good as the Otus in some areas (center sharpness) but it is not equal to the Otus. The Sigma "bokeh"? No, not in the same league.

I shoot landscapes - I wouldn't know bokeh if I saw it!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,072 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7364
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Apr 01, 2015 23:21 |  #14

Shadowblade wrote in post #17501468 (external link)
I shoot landscapes - I wouldn't know bokeh if I saw it!

At landscape apertures, your evaluation is spot on. The Sigma is amazing. :)


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 02, 2015 02:39 |  #15

David Arbogast wrote in post #17501479 (external link)
At landscape apertures, your evaluation is spot on. The Sigma is amazing. :)

From f/4 to f/11, the Sigma actually has better edge and corner sharpness than the Otus. Beyond f/11, both lenses are largely limited by diffraction. Wide-open, the Otus has sharper edges and corners - the crossover point seems to be around f/2.8.

That said, just about the only time you'll be shooting wider than f/2.8 and still have in-focus corners is when shooting night skies.

Again, this is just sharpness - I have no idea about bokeh. Usually, when I see bokeh, I've screwed something up.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,564 views & 1 like for this thread
Considering an A7S but stuck on lense choice
FORUMS Sony Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Sony Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bestmassagerreviews
1012 guests, 364 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.