Sony A7x lounge

mystik610 wrote in post #18094298
I agree with you regarding the size point. There's a certain enjoyment that comes out of a smaller set-up that you don't get shooting with a large zoom. It's the reason I use the Loxia 21, and RX1RII a lot, and never use my 24-70II. It's also the reason I haven't run out and bought the 24-70 GM already, even though I really should be using a native lens for events.

Yes and no. For size, yes. But only if you take one or two primes with you on an outing. I have the bad habit of taking 4 or 5 with me, at which point the weight and size advantage goes away. All of a sudden I'm carrying just as much weight, only I also have to fumble around with swapping lenses after every other shot.
There's something to be said for a zoom in that situation.

rcarlton wrote in post #18094586
Excellent lens. Lighter than I thought. Comparable in size to Canon EF 24-105 f4L.

That's not bad at all! The way people were describing it (with some hyperbole, apparently) I thought it was a boat anchor! I can carry around something like that quite easily (basically did with the EOS 16-35/4).

sony weight 31.25 oz

Canon + metabones = 33.7

If the optics warrant it, then there is a perfectly fine reason.

Puckman wrote in post #18094630
If the optics warrant it, then there is a perfectly fine reason.

Based on lensrental analysis the Sony matches Canon and Nikon versions so it's hard to explain the build in non detachable "adapter"

Better optics are not a reason behind bigger size

85GM

rcarlton wrote in post #18094586
Excellent lens. Lighter than I thought. Comparable in size to Canon EF 24-105 f4L.

It's a 2-pound lens. Not light to me.

From everything I've read, the 24-70gm matches canon, with slightly better bokeh, but awkward stopped down focusing. I do have the Canon version, and don't particularly like using it, but will on some occasions.

It costs a lot less than GM, and it can collect dust without me worrying about resale hit.

mystik610 wrote in post #18094667
85GM

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=180​94667&i=i228493321
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

The bokeh is strong with this one.

Beautiful.

Maybe I need a 85 GM for my yorkies...they're worth it, right?

Charlie wrote in post #18094682
From everything I've read, the 24-70gm matches canon, with slightly better bokeh, but awkward stopped down focusing. I do have the Canon version, and don't particularly like using it, but will on some occasions.

It costs a lot less than GM, and it can collect dust without me worrying about resale hit.

By this logic, there's really no point having all these fancy native lenses (Batis etc).
Could be using the canon equiv for about half the price or less. I can get a used 24-105/4 for about $600 and be done with it.
Why spend $3000 or more on these Zeiss lenses?

Been wanting to do this for a while. Taken with the Tokina 90 Macro and lit with my iphone.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KG84​VC

Puckman wrote in post #18094702
By this logic, there's really no point having all these fancy native lenses (Batis etc).
Could be using the canon equiv for about half the price or less. I can get a used 24-105/4 for about $600 and be done with it.
Why spend $3000 or more on these Zeiss lenses?

I'm referring to the canon 24-70 f2.8 ii, not 24-105. it cost me 1400 a year back. Using viltrox adapter with it, since that particular lens doesnt need metabones for AF performance..... so it's permanently mounted to an adapter.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18094621

That ridiculous in my opinion, there is no reason why a native lens is the same size as a lens with adapter attached.

From that image it looks like the GM is a DSLR design and the adaptor is basically built in. I know nothing about lens design though so that could be nonsense

xpfloyd wrote in post #18094706
Been wanting to do this for a while. Taken with the Tokina 90 Macro and lit with my iphone.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KG84​VC Lens Cleaner by xpfloyd, on Flickr

That is fantastic. Amazing work Eddie!