Sony a7(R): Best thing that happened to Canon users this year.

It looks like a 100% crop.

DTBaan wrote in post #17148908
on the d800 with the 24-70 though, yes! must have grip for comfort and balance :P

I use the 24-70mm Mark II on the a7R, and being that this set up is half a kilo lighter than the 5D3+24-70mm Mark II I find it easier to handle in spite of the lack of a big grip.
The 24-70mm Mark II performs quite specularly on the a7R. It is a much better lens than Nikon's 24-70mm, and the Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm 2.8 for that matter as well. The Canon 24-70mm Mark II out resolves Canon bodies, on the a7R it provides the same sharpness that you get out of Sony's primes, like the 35mm and 55mm.

lmyamen wrote in post #17152382
Playin around with the Voigtlander 35 at the farmers market this morning.

Great shot. Is it the 1.2 or 1.4?

Thanks, it is the 1.4!

Mornnb wrote in post #17148779
The grip kind of defeats the point of the camera, might as well get a Nikon d800e.
It's easier to change batteries, they're small and light.
Although I suppose it will act as a good damper against shutter vibrations.

The "point" of having an a7R, for me, has nothing to do with it being small. Just tell me how will I mount my TS-E 17 and 24 II to a D800E? The whole "point" of having an a7R, for me, is being able to use all my Canon-mount glass on on a body with a 36MP sensor with excellent dynamic range.

DTBaan wrote in post #17148908
^5, me too! :P

Honestly David, I have no use for it even when I shot some events. I rather change the battery than have the extra extension. I'm sure if you are using heavy lenses then it would be a good use. I'm just using lightweights at the moment.

on the d800 with the 24-70 though, yes! must have grip for comfort and balance :P

Thanks Baan...sounds like it would be a waste of $300.

lmyamen wrote in post #17152660
Thanks, it is the 1.4!

I've been thinking of adding that and the 21mm to my list of lenses I want to get.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17152720
The "point" of having an a7R, for me, has nothing to do with it being small. Just tell me how will I mount my TS-E 17 and 24 II to a D800E? The whole "point" of having an a7R, for me, is being able to use all my Canon-mount glass on on a body with a 36MP sensor with excellent dynamic range.

Same. I use it as a walk around camera with Sony glass and a landscape/architecture camera with Canon glass. Given the quality of Canon lenses, the TS-E's and the 24-70mm Mark II specifically, it is better as a landscape camera than the D800E.
For everything else it's the 5D Mark III, for event shooting it's quick response and AF system are quite vital.

That's pretty much what I do too. A7r and sony lens for compact walk around, kid stuff, AF lens etc. a7r and 16-35 for landscape stuff to get the extra pixels, IQ and dynamic range. A7r and 135l for portrait type stuff and anything else I need reach for that doesn't move to quick. Due to my re-shuffling this year my lens count is low at the moment but I think I will be adding more sony and canon lenses depending on what sony release in the near future. Wouldn't mind an AF 135 lens if it was good quality

Love the grip personally. Move it from the A7r to the A7s depending on need. I tend to grip all my bodies, and have gripped the A6000 too.

xpfloyd wrote in post #17153025
That's pretty much what I do too. A7r and sony lens for compact walk around, kid stuff, AF lens etc. a7r and 16-35 for landscape stuff to get the extra pixels, IQ and dynamic range. A7r and 135l for portrait type stuff and anything else I need reach for that doesn't move to quick. Due to my re-shuffling this year my lens count is low at the moment but I think I will be adding more sony and canon lenses depending on what sony release in the near future. Wouldn't mind an AF 135 lens if it was good quality

Sell your 135L and get the Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 since it's a lot better than your Canon. It's one of the highest rated lenses on DXOMark (link 1 and link 2).

jocau wrote in post #17153256
Sell your 135L and get the Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 since it's a lot better than your Canon. It's one of the highest rated lenses on DXOMark (link 1 and link 2).

Remember that hardly any Canon lens can get rated high on DXOMark, because the Canon lenses has not been tested with any high-resolution full-format sensor. The 70D is the body that best tests the resolution of the lenses - but it has too small sensor to give comparable tests to when other lenses are tested with full-format 36MP cameras like D800E or A7R.

pwm2 wrote in post #17153274
Remember that hardly any Canon lens can get rated high on DXOMark, because the Canon lenses has not been tested with any high-resolution full-format sensor. The 70D is the body that best tests the resolution of the lenses - but it has too small sensor to give comparable tests to when other lenses are tested with full-format 36MP cameras like D800E or A7R.

Doesn't matter. Put both lenses on a 5D3 and the Zeiss still wins (*click*). And then there's also the famous micro contrast of Zeiss lenses.

jocau wrote in post #17153292
Doesn't matter. Put both lenses on a 5D3 and the Zeiss still wins (*click*). And then there's also the famous micro contrast of Zeiss lenses.

the zeiss is a winner for sure, but the win is a small victory. Take a look at the field map specs for both lenses, the zeiss and canon do remarkably well wide open. Microcontrast differences will be small at best, we're not exactly comparing APS-C to FF sensors right here, we're comparing one super optic vs the other.

You're talking about 20P-Mpix vs 22P-Mpix on a 22MP body... both lenses are sensor limited on the 5D3 so it's conjecture at this point.
Take this as a comparison, the Sigma 35mm scores 19P-Mpix on the 5D3 and 30P-Mpix on the D800E. Also of interesting note is the 24-70mm Mark II scores 18P-Mpix, and it is quite obviously sensor limited on the 5D3 considering how much detail it generates on the a7R.
The FE 55mm scores 30P-Mpix on the a7R. And my 24-70mm Mark II from first hand experience is generating close to it's sharpness.
We should also expect both 135mm lenses to deliver over 30P-Mpix on the a7R.

The Zeiss is not only sharper than the Canon, it does something else I especially appreciate: it has very very high contrast wide open. Photograph a b&w sign and the blacks are impressively black against the white. I've seen the side by side aperture comparison mounted to a 5D III by Lloyd Chambers and the difference between the two lenses is more significant than you might think from a DXO sharpness score.

I nearly sold mine last week though. I want to have a realtively minimal lens kit, and since I have the 70-200L II, it's a duplicated focal length...but my heart wasn't in it.

That said I've always been a huge fan of the 135L, and still am. It has a gorgeous bokeh and rendering quality. Nothing but respect and appreciation from me for the awesome Canon 135L.

One more note about the 135mm on the a7R: I notice with telephotos that the EVF goes a little wierd - a little choppy - because the frame-rate is a bit slow making it a bit jarring to focus. Sometimes I'll throw on a monopod just to reduce the jittery EVF caused by the hand-shake. The shake is not awful. Awful is trying to use the Zeiss 2/135mm in Live View on a 5D III equipped with a Zacuto Z-Finder.

I found the Zeiss' autofocus very slow, the Canon locked on and tracked much better so all round the canon wins, yeah!

But seriously, Zeiss is lovely to use and a bit better iq to boot. I wish I could have one for more than a play in the shop, I also wish could buy the Otis line up too. Perhaps when and if I buy a camera that makes MF nice to use...