Sony A7x lounge

danialsturge wrote in post #17912135
A7 - do you have to adapt it?

Sorry should have added its canon mount and requires a metabones (viltrox doesn't work with it)

xpfloyd wrote in post #17912149
Sorry should have added its canon mount and requires a metabones (viltrox doesn't work with it)

Not a problem!

danialsturge wrote in post #17912152
Not a problem!

Af Would be no use on the a7. Forgot to add that

xpfloyd wrote in post #17912168
Af Would be no use on the a7. Forgot to add that

Yea, I have an unused EF-E adapter because the AF is so useless on the A7.

Kind of has a vintage look to it--thanks!!

navydoc wrote in post #17912022
This is a Tin sugar scoop I made in Metal Shop when I was in the 7th grade. The year was 1959. My mom used it in her sugar canister until 1973 and I've used it in mine ever since. That's a total of 57 years. It's not very pretty now nor was it when I first made it but I think the craftsmanship has held up OK.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Dvpr​Vq craftmanship by Gene, on Flickr

They don't make it like they used to Gene.

danialsturge wrote in post #17912131
Who here uses the Samyang 85mm f/1.4? I'm yearning for this focal length, but there's no way I can afford the Batis at the moment! What are people's thoughts regarding: ability to manual focus i.e. focus ring? Does it have a confirmation chip for data? does this lens suffer from Samyang's quality control issues?

jocau wrote in post #17912138
I believe Lucas (EverydayGetaway) owns that lens.

I do indeed

I love mine. The focus ring is very well dampened and it's very easy to quickly nail focus on my a7S, even at f1.4 (where I personally find it very sharp). I don't think they make one with electronic contacts for Sony, but pretty sure they do for Canon so it may work if you have an electronic EF adapter. Yes, the QC isn't the greatest, my 85mm is the only lens I've ever had to return for a new copy do to a faulty aperture, but my second copy has been great.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17912237
I do indeed

I love mine. The focus ring is very well dampened and it's very easy to quickly nail focus on my a7S, even at f1.4 (where I personally find it very sharp). I don't think they make one with electronic contacts for Sony, but pretty sure they do for Canon so it may work if you have an electronic EF adapter. Yes, the QC isn't the greatest, my 85mm is the only lens I've ever had to return for a new copy do to a faulty aperture, but my second copy has been great.

Thanks, all good to know! Hadn't thought about getting the canon one and doing is that way, food for thought.

jocau wrote in post #17911688
I've heard that story before, but then the holy trinity was 35-50-85.

The holy trinity is always subjective.....but it basically boils down to wide angle, normal/medium telephoto, & telephoto.

I'm not really a 50mm guy, so for me its 35, 85, 135

jocau wrote in post #17911699
To all you portrait shooters out there. Would you prefer a 135mm F/2 lens or a 200mm F/2.8 lens (and why)?

I've never used a 200 prime, but I do on occasion use my 70-200 on the long-end. 200mm makes for an awkward working distance....unless you're framing a head-shot, you'll basically be shouting at your subject. Fluid interaction with your subject is part of portrait photography, so 200mm isn't really a preference outside of candid photos.

mystik610 wrote in post #17912280
The holy trinity is always subjective.....but it basically boils down to wide angle, normal/medium telephoto, & telephoto.

I'm not really a 50mm guy, so for me its 35, 85, 135

I've never used a 200 prime, but I do on occasion use my 70-200 on the long-end. 200mm makes for an awkward working distance....unless you're framing a head-shot, you'll basically be shouting at your subject. Fluid interaction with your subject is part of portrait photography, so 200mm isn't really a preference outside of candid photos.

Im not a tele guy at all lol.

For me its something like 15, 35, 50. I could easily live with just the 16-35, FD35TS and Leica 50 summilux. One UWA to WA for general stuff, city trips, landscapes etc, one Tilt Shift for perspective correction or creative uses, and one for sharp and smooth thin DOF work / portraits. I just cant get away with a >100mm lens for portait. Just feels like i need to stand like 20 meters away from my subject which makes it very unpersonal IMO.

But having different lenses for different styles and situations is just too much fun :P

davidfarina wrote in post #17912285
Im not a tele guy at all lol.

For me its something like 15, 35, 50. I could easily live with just the 16-35, FD35TS and Leica 50 summilux. One UWA to WA for general stuff, city trips, landscapes etc, one Tilt Shift for perspective correction or creative uses, and one for sharp and smooth thin DOF work / portraits. I just cant get away with a >100mm lens for portait. Just feels like i need to stand like 20 meters away from my subject which makes it very unpersonal IMO.

But having different lenses for different styles and situations is just too much fun :P

Hah I don't prefer the tele photo lengths either....but sometime they're a necessity (more flattering FOV or need to compress the background to keep distracting stuff out).

My walking holy trinity is currently 25-35-85. I really need something wider....

davidfarina wrote in post #17912285
Im not a tele guy at all lol.

For me its something like 15, 35, 50. I could easily live with just the 16-35, FD35TS and Leica 50 summilux. One UWA to WA for general stuff, city trips, landscapes etc, one Tilt Shift for perspective correction or creative uses, and one for sharp and smooth thin DOF work / portraits. I just cant get away with a >100mm lens for portait. Just feels like i need to stand like 20 meters away from my subject which makes it very unpersonal IMO.

But having different lenses for different styles and situations is just too much fun :P

People start to look ugly when you're not using (short) telephoto lenses. Take a look at this headshot taken at different focal lengths. I'd rather not go below 70mm and definitely not below 50mm.

jocau wrote in post #17912351
People start to look ugly when you're not using (short) telephoto lenses. Take a look at this headshot taken at different focal lengths. I'd rather not go below 70mm and definitely not below 50mm.

Depends how you frame them. No head shots or head and shoulder shots below 50mm......but half or full body shots are fine and because these FOV's pull more of the background into the frame, make for better environmental portraits.

jocau wrote in post #17912351
People start to look ugly when you're not using (short) telephoto lenses. Take a look at this headshot taken at different focal lengths. I'd rather not go below 70mm and definitely not below 50mm.

I know that this can be the case, but it depends on the distance to the subject and the type of person. You cant generalize it and say that everyone will look ugly when a 50mm lens is used...

mystik610 wrote in post #17912360
Depends how you frame them. No head shots or head and shoulder shots below 50mm......but half or full body shots are fine and because these FOV's pull more of the background into the frame, make for better environmental portraits.

Exactly!