Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

I knew the Nikkor 300mm PF worked a charm for BIF (even with the 1.4TCiii) on the a9.
Now I see it works for perched bierds on the a7Riii for great detail and bokeh even wide open
at F4. The Nikkor 300PF is just as sharp as the EOS 300ISii I shed a while back but obviously
not F2.8---that's OK, I can wield this lens all day and then some.
It's not perfect for the A7Riii, occasionally it will just lock up and the combo is not on
Commlite's official list. For a 'Sony 300mm prime' I can live with the hick ups.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2bMU​6Mf

vinmunoz wrote in post #18725240
just for fun.

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=187​25240&i=i3258815
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=187​25240&i=i126711508
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hehe nicely done!

randy98mtu wrote in post #18725175
I have a couple quick things if anyone cares to comment:

- The outside of the first knuckle on my right hand feels bruised. Every time I pick up my A7R, I am reminded of this pain because my knuckle inherently ends up supporting the camera against the lens. Anyone else have this "issue"?

- Any thoughts on the 24-240 for a travel lens? I'm tired of swapping lenses (especially with the mirrorless)

- Did some shooting with the A7Riii and Canon 70-200 f/4 IS - this thing continues to impress me. I noticed a couple weeks ago when I was blindly filtering shots that the hit rate in a SkyZone was much higher with the A7Rii than with the 5D4. Though in fairness, with both set to -2/3 exposure compensation, the A7Rii was shooting at faster shutter speeds and slightly darker images. Not a big deal with any of these sensors.

the 24-240 would be good for travel, i am a member of this facebook grop sony alpha users i think and theres this man from china who posts pictures from an A9+24-240 and they are impressive!

i would bring either a 28/2 or 55/1.8( or 50/1.8 ) in my pocket though just to be sure

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18725228
Ed we're hoping for Sandhills at Bosque less than 2 months from now. Thanks for wetting the appetite with the great dance capture.

No problem Robert. I'm lucky I only had to travel about 2 hours for these. As of last week there are about 5,000 of them at the Merced NWR. Bosque is on my bucket list though.

rantercsr wrote in post #18725057
the 85 GM is sold..

today with the 55 1.8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/N68x​Yz DSC07156-Edit-2 by Randall Herrera, on Flickr

the tones really give me that vintage feel

mystik610 wrote in post #18725170
I want a second AD600 for studio use....

The "problem" is that the a7rIII shooting speed and eye-AF have me flying through shots faster than the AD200 dual head can even keep up. Cycle speeds on those mini-strobes are not the best even when using them in the dual head. Have lots of shots where the fill light did not fire.

Used the a7rII as a second body and did not have issue with the shots. Mr. Turtle's slow shooting speed gives sufficient time for lights to cycle between shots lol

how many strobes do you currently own? with your post i guess 1 AD600 and 2 AD200s?

randy98mtu wrote in post #18725175
I have a couple quick things if anyone cares to comment:

- The outside of the first knuckle on my right hand feels bruised. Every time I pick up my A7R, I am reminded of this pain because my knuckle inherently ends up supporting the camera against the lens. Anyone else have this "issue"?

- Any thoughts on the 24-240 for a travel lens? I'm tired of swapping lenses (especially with the mirrorless)

- Did some shooting with the A7Riii and Canon 70-200 f/4 IS - this thing continues to impress me. I noticed a couple weeks ago when I was blindly filtering shots that the hit rate in a SkyZone was much higher with the A7Rii than with the 5D4. Though in fairness, with both set to -2/3 exposure compensation, the A7Rii was shooting at faster shutter speeds and slightly darker images. Not a big deal with any of these sensors.

I've thought about getting the 24-240 for travel too. I tend to overthink things when I travel and I guess it all depends on where we are going and who will be going with. In the end I just can't give up a poor performing lens vs a high quality lens. Just how I feel. My goto travel has really worked itself into a 16-35 2.8 and a 50mm prime.

randy98mtu wrote in post #18725175
I have a couple quick things if anyone cares to comment:

- The outside of the first knuckle on my right hand feels bruised. Every time I pick up my A7R, I am reminded of this pain because my knuckle inherently ends up supporting the camera against the lens. Anyone else have this "issue"?

- Any thoughts on the 24-240 for a travel lens? I'm tired of swapping lenses (especially with the mirrorless)

- Did some shooting with the A7Riii and Canon 70-200 f/4 IS - this thing continues to impress me. I noticed a couple weeks ago when I was blindly filtering shots that the hit rate in a SkyZone was much higher with the A7Rii than with the 5D4. Though in fairness, with both set to -2/3 exposure compensation, the A7Rii was shooting at faster shutter speeds and slightly darker images. Not a big deal with any of these sensors.

i have the 24-240, i originally used it on my first a7 now on a7iii, in good light its awsome, kinda heavy but its a good feeling heavy, not plasticky feeling at all, focuses very fast on the a7iii, if i am heading out for the day ill take it and the 50mm1.8, between those 2 should cover most images, i find 24mm to be wide enouhg for most things and if not ill shoot a pano with it, for the price and versatility i like it and would buy it again, i shot a bike event and used it exclusively, along side my olympus as well

typical and required tourist shot Fort Pulaski NM

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2aM5​z4A

Talley wrote in post #18725469
I've thought about getting the 24-240 for travel too. I tend to overthink things when I travel and I guess it all depends on where we are going and who will be going with. In the end I just can't give up a poor performing lens vs a high quality lens. Just how I feel. My goto travel has really worked itself into a 16-35 2.8 and a 50mm prime.

it's a tough call, I think the lens is a bit too big for travel, and if I had to choose 1 zoom, I think I'de favor the tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-240...

I'de have to consider if I planned on shooting outdoors a LOT vs a combination of inside and outside.... however if know in advance that I'll have a lot of wide open spaces, the 24-240 will go instead.

Beaches, mountains, outdoors, hikes 24-240 > 28-75

Indoors, tight spaces, dark places, people 28-75 > 24-240

it's not a super high end lens by any stretch of the imagination, but I made peace with it, and quite happy having it around. My high quality option is carrying the 28-75 + CYZ 100-300 or even OM 200 f5 prime.... and I dont feel happy carrying all that weight most of the time.

regardless of where I go, the 12-24, 35 f2.8, and 50 f1.8 will go along, so weight of those are a consideration. In the future, I may also add the 10-18 and CV 21 or samyang 24mm f2.8. Considering all the accessories that come with me to a shoot, camera gear size reduction becomes just a little more important. Making peace with some gear has really helped me with size, and a ultra range zoom helps keep size and weight in check.

in the end, it's about making peace with said gear, that's a question that only you can answer or find.

Do you have a link to some of his pictures?

how do you like the Sony FE 12-24 Sir ? i'm tempting to get one but couldn't find any reviews of it in here.

BJ_Nguyen wrote in post #18725616
how do you like the Sony FE 12-24 Sir ? i'm tempting to get one but couldn't find any reviews of it in here.

I tested it. looks good to me.

here were my test shots.

https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215768​9450884666

Charlie wrote in post #18725578
it's a tough call, I think the lens is a bit too big for travel, and if I had to choose 1 zoom, I think I'de favor the tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-240...

I'de have to consider if I planned on shooting outdoors a LOT vs a combination of inside and outside.... however if know in advance that I'll have a lot of wide open spaces, the 24-240 will go instead.

Beaches, mountains, outdoors, hikes 24-240 > 28-75

Indoors, tight spaces, dark places, people 28-75 > 24-240

it's not a super high end lens by any stretch of the imagination, but I made peace with it, and quite happy having it around. My high quality option is carrying the 28-75 + CYZ 100-300 or even OM 200 f5 prime.... and I dont feel happy carrying all that weight most of the time.

regardless of where I go, the 12-24, 35 f2.8, and 50 f1.8 will go along, so weight of those are a consideration. In the future, I may also add the 10-18 and CV 21 or samyang 24mm f2.8. Considering all the accessories that come with me to a shoot, camera gear size reduction becomes just a little more important. Making peace with some gear has really helped me with size, and a ultra range zoom helps keep size and weight in check.

in the end, it's about making peace with said gear, that's a question that only you can answer or find.

Honestly nothing wrong with picking up a RX100VI for travel if you want a long zoom option. IQ is "ok" for travel perhaps like the 24-240 but smaller sensor but at least you have that option of being super light and a second quick to reach option. Pricewise it's decent. It's range is a 24-200 too albeit a kind of stretch for low light use. Either option you wouldn't really want to use for low light.

So now I have 12-24 and 16-35GM and I'm feeling them both out see which one is the keeper. For what it's worth on the travel the 2.8 does make a pretty big difference and has a more "normal" style range. It's 4.5oz heavier by my measurements than the 12-24. It doesn't go as wide though and that 12-24 is really nice weight/balance for what it is. Range is awesome. 12mm is great and honestly doesn't leave much for wider.

12mm is pretty wide but my 12mm fisheye puts a smackdown on it Much much wider by 10 fold.

I'm thinking 12mm fisheye, 16-35GM and 55 1.8 and 28-75 Tamron. That tamron is really great but I've quickly realized what the "GM" means.... it's bokeh is really really something special and even beats the Canon 16-35 III.

Talley wrote in post #18725715
Honestly nothing wrong with picking up a RX100VI for travel if you want a long zoom option. IQ is "ok" for travel perhaps like the 24-240 but smaller sensor but at least you have that option of being super light and a second quick to reach option. Pricewise it's decent. It's range is a 24-200 too albeit a kind of stretch for low light use. Either option you wouldn't really want to use for low light.

So now I have 12-24 and 16-35GM and I'm feeling them both out see which one is the keeper. For what it's worth on the travel the 2.8 does make a pretty big difference and has a more "normal" style range. It's 4.5oz heavier by my measurements than the 12-24. It doesn't go as wide though and that 12-24 is really nice weight/balance for what it is. Range is awesome. 12mm is great and honestly doesn't leave much for wider.

12mm is pretty wide but my 12mm fisheye puts a smackdown on it Much much wider by 10 fold.

I'm thinking 12mm fisheye, 16-35GM and 55 1.8 and 28-75 Tamron. That tamron is really great but I've quickly realized what the "GM" means.... it's bokeh is really really something special and even beats the Canon 16-35 III.

having a lower quality long camera is certainly an option, and the RX100 is pretty tiny. Images seem ok...... below ISO 400 , it's a supercharged cell phone basically.

I'm not sure I would buy one in all honesty, just borrowing for the current time. If feels like the R2/R3 @ 6400 would produce much better images than the RX100 above ISO 400. Disclaimer, using the RX100 V not VI. That said, putting in a little raw time with the RX100 files does seem to help a lot, so covering FF from 12-75mm and having something ultrasmall and light for longer stuff is certainly plausible, and I'de give it consideration.

I'll have to use it more to see if I want to live with it or not. Size wise, it's amazing, but if it cant take nice photos, then it's pointless. I'll put it on a tripod later to see what it can really do at lower ISO's.