Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

AlanU wrote in post #19004280
I think this would be a perfect opportunity to visit a store and check both out.

In my particular case the Tamron 17-28mm came out after I purchased the GM16-35mm. Since it did not exist at the time I was in the market there was really only the native GM16-35 f/2.8 for a fast f/2.8 option.

Questions you should ask yourself is if 28mm is long enough for you for other purposes. 17mm is only 1mm difference than 16mm but some may find an issue with that.

Once you hand hold the 17-28mm and want small form factor you may just be over the moon in saving $1300 USD vs buying the GM16-35mm. The Tammy 17-28mm is tiny!!!

I use my UWA zoom lens for general purpose. 35mm is extremely important and is worth for me to go with the GM.

In post processing I think in many cases IQ wise the Tammy vs GM can be equalized and almost on par. The thing about lenses is we all may have some sort of preference to how the glass renders. For example my recent purchase of the Sigma 24-70mm ART zoom, it seems to render different to all of my Sony dedicated glass. The colour and render is much more pleasant straight out of camera vs even my Gmaster 16-35mm or Tamron 28-75mm.

If I wasn't so stuck on requiring 35mm on the long end my "sensibility" would push me to go Tamron and use the extra cash on other lenses to supplement the gear bag.

Thanks for your perspective! Since picking up the 105Art, I've been toying with the idea of selling the magnificent 50 Art in favor of a wider range zoom. Currently using an adapted Rokinon 14mm, the 50Art, and the 105Art, so there are a lot of gaps in focal length. I could probably get by with either a 16-35 or 24-70 to fill a lot of that. I tend to enjoy using primes more, but I do find myself a little limited with my current setup. I will never part with this 105!

Dlee13 wrote in post #19004119
The aperture ring? Funny you say that as that’s the one thing I don’t like about the lens haha. I much prefer what Canon done with their RF lenses and made the customizable ring. I remember the other day I was wondering why my exposure was so dark all of a sudden and it was because of that ring! lol

You cover a lot of range with that kit! My next trip will probably be 18mm, 24 GM and FE 85mm!

I thought it was just your preference of processing your pictures :P

Dlee13 wrote in post #19004119
The aperture ring? Funny you say that as that’s the one thing I don’t like about the lens haha. I much prefer what Canon done with their RF lenses and made the customizable ring. I remember the other day I was wondering why my exposure was so dark all of a sudden and it was because of that ring! lol

You cover a lot of range with that kit! My next trip will probably be 18mm, 24 GM and FE 85mm!

I dont like the ring either, I'm more of a fan of nothing on the lens, no buttons, switches, anything like the tamrons, just for the sake of consistency. I have IS, AF/MF mapped, so dont need it. I have one of the lens creep rubber bands on the aperture wheel, no accidents.

Dlee13 wrote in post #19004119
The aperture ring? Funny you say that as that’s the one thing I don’t like about the lens haha. I much prefer what Canon done with their RF lenses and made the customizable ring. I remember the other day I was wondering why my exposure was so dark all of a sudden and it was because of that ring! lol

You cover a lot of range with that kit! My next trip will probably be 18mm, 24 GM and FE 85mm!

You can turn it all the way to one end and it will be controlled like other lenses by the camera.

Morning Mist

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ioQ​DJn

vipergts831 wrote in post #19003700
I agree with you both which is why I loved the files I got out of the original A7S. 12 mp gives you such a nice film grain in digital. The R4 shows noise almost instantly when going above iso 200 but I expected that with such a high MP sensor. Both different beasts.

Below a couple of shots with the A7S which I hope to pick up second hand in the next year or so to compliment the R4.

Both taken with the fantastic Sony 55 1.8. The flower shot was a straight raw to jpeg conversion. Nothing applied to it. The second is of my then fiancé (now wife).

Hosted photo: posted by vipergts831 in
./showthread.php?p=190​03700&i=i38347062
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by vipergts831 in
./showthread.php?p=190​03700&i=i73807528
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Interesting Omar, the a7s2 with the ibis isn't' being considered? I'm waiting to see what the a7r3 has to offer. I still remember the joke David A. made with these pictures, shot in the dark with shadows recovered lol

Ben DDS wrote in post #19004318
Thanks for your perspective! Since picking up the 105Art, I've been toying with the idea of selling the magnificent 50 Art in favor of a wider range zoom. Currently using an adapted Rokinon 14mm, the 50Art, and the 105Art, so there are a lot of gaps in focal length. I could probably get by with either a 16-35 or 24-70 to fill a lot of that. I tend to enjoy using primes more, but I do find myself a little limited with my current setup. I will never part with this 105!

Ditch the Rok 14 and forget about the 16-35 get the well received ART Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Sony mount. The only way I would buy the 16-35 if I didn't want to deal with the bulbous front and the filters on the Sigma

https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1609​212

Why I changed to Sony.

bobbyz wrote in post #19004308
Not sure what is a cooked RAW file. I am using both with LR and C1 and in both Fuji RAW files look the same to me as Sony. Once I have some time, I will do side by side shots.

BTW - I was reading an old article about GFX50s on fstopper. The author said, he found that colors from GFX50s were a bit off. He used to shoot Nikon. Then he did side by side and also compared to real life subjects and guess what, Fuji was the real life. Personally for me I don't care much. One of these days I would be proficient enough in PP to adjust colors. For now it is mostly defaults for me.

Cooked RAW is a rather blunt way to say "Fujifilm film look" I suppose. There is a distinct look that Fuji has which is appealing to the masses. I will admit I do not have much experience with GFX files If you took a Sony and Fuji aps-c (NON GFX large format sensor) Be observant and look at the RAW files shooting a landscape photo with a UWA zoom lens on a sunny day. It's incredibly difficult to make the Sony landscape image look painterly/canvas/carto​on like.

The Fuji image completely shapes differently when you post process in lightroom. IF I added Canon RAW files to the mix I'd say they also can look canvas like if you try to lift shadows in landscape photos. Sony images retains a very realistic look in many cases.

Seems Sony is much more "RAW" without a strong "branding" or cooked manufactured signature look compared to Fuji APS-c.

Fuji RAW files for my previous workflow with that system was almost effortless in Lightroom. You can make the images easy on the eyes with so little effort. Sony Raw files definitely feel a lot more different post processing.

Fuji files has an almost instant "easy on the eyes" look. I prefer Sony wildlife, landscape images vs Fuji aps-c. In my automotive events documentation I enjoy using Sony a lot more than my Canon system. Due to realism.

Ben DDS wrote in post #19004241
Congrats! I'd really like to hear your thoughts as I'm in the market for a landscape lens by this summer. I'm stuck between this and the Tam 17-28 which is a similar focal length to the 16-35 you sold.

I think it really depends on what you use the lens for. I prefer primes and with my use, I don't really need a UWA from what I've realized.

When I travel, I use my 35mm majority of the time and only carry the 16-35 with me if I want to shoot an urban landscape and want something really wide. In these instances, I am often on a tripod so can easily just make a panorama if 24mm isn't wide enough.

Being wider than 35mm, 24mm is a bit more versatile too so I find I can replace my zoom with it. I also plan to buy either the Samyang 18mm f/2.8 or if released, the Sigma 16mm f/2 (currently a patent only) and use that for if I REALLY need something super wide. The Samyang is really small and light so both that and the 24mm will be roughly the same weight as the 16-35.

Actually IQ wise, I love the 24GM. I took a self portrait of sorts and it's way too sharp to actually post as my skin looked so horrible! haha.

DTBaan wrote in post #19004360
I thought it was just your preference of processing your pictures :P

haha yeah 6 stops under exposed , has a real unique look to it

Charlie wrote in post #19004366
I dont like the ring either, I'm more of a fan of nothing on the lens, no buttons, switches, anything like the tamrons, just for the sake of consistency. I have IS, AF/MF mapped, so dont need it. I have one of the lens creep rubber bands on the aperture wheel, no accidents.

Can't say I disagree with you, even with lenses that have buttons I use the body to change all the settings. I don't mind how some of the lenses have the focus hold button that you can use for Eye AF.

TRhoads wrote in post #19004368
You can turn it all the way to one end and it will be controlled like other lenses by the camera.

Yeah I have it clicked and on A but can still move easily like the other day. I remember in Jared Polin's review he found it getting knocked onto f/16 too.

Back from a quick trip to Florida. Poof not feeling well on the trip but saw what we could. Here's one from
Merrit Island/Blackpoint drive.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipA​Khw

Bianchi wrote in post #19004461
Ditch the Rok 14 and forget about the 16-35 get the well received ART Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Sony mount. The only way I would buy the 16-35 if I didn't want to deal with the bulbous front and the filters on the Sigma

https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1609​212

It's definitely been a lens I've been considering. The bulbous element on the Rok 14 is a little annoying as I prefer front screw in filters.

AlanU wrote in post #19004464
Cooked RAW is a rather blunt way to say "Fujifilm film look" I suppose. There is a distinct look that Fuji has which is appealing to the masses. I will admit I do not have much experience with GFX files If you took a Sony and Fuji aps-c (NON GFX large format sensor) Be observant and look at the RAW files shooting a landscape photo with a UWA zoom lens on a sunny day. It's incredibly difficult to make the Sony landscape image look painterly/canvas/carto​on like.

The Fuji image completely shapes differently when you post process in lightroom. IF I added Canon RAW files to the mix I'd say they also can look canvas like if you try to lift shadows in landscape photos. Sony images retains a very realistic look in many cases.

Seems Sony is much more "RAW" without a strong "branding" or cooked manufactured signature look compared to Fuji APS-c.

Fuji RAW files for my previous workflow with that system was almost effortless in Lightroom. You can make the images easy on the eyes with so little effort. Sony Raw files definitely feel a lot more different post processing.

Fuji files has an almost instant "easy on the eyes" look. I prefer Sony wildlife, landscape images vs Fuji aps-c. In my automotive events documentation I enjoy using Sony a lot more than my Canon system. Due to realism.

Does the camera know if I am taking landscapes or portrait? The colors etc should be the same way, isn't it? I am not a landscape person but here is one shot I took with XT1, which is pretty old camera and I used the 18-55mm kit lens. I did my best to process the shot. Not sure what the painterly, canvas, cartoon look you keep mentioning.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipz​3Lf

bobbyz wrote in post #19004505
Does the camera know if I am taking landscapes or portrait? The colors etc should be the same way, isn't it? I am not a landscape person but here is one shot I took with XT1, which is pretty old camera and I used the 18-55mm kit lens. I did my best to process the shot. Not sure what the painterly, canvas, cartoon look you keep mentioning.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipz​3Lf 20190811_Family_1670 by Vishi A, on Flickr

Sony FF would have done better but due to larger sensor, colors wise won't be much different. After all, Sony, Fuji, Nikon are all using the same sensor tech.

I uplifted shadows with little post processing with this Fuji image. The cartoon look will happen if you try to lift shadows. This also easily happens with Canon files......NOT Sony files. Bobby in the summer take photos with your A7r4 of a landscape/trees. You will see the realism in the image that would be difficult to achieve a canvas/artistic painting look.

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (974871)

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (969025)

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (968136)

adding 2 stops with A7RIII isn't a problem in low ISO such as 320 as far as i remember.


with the A7RIV zoom to 1/1, here's how it looks. is this normal because it's 1/1 with 61mp? uncompressed