Sony A7x lounge

Hmm so 70-200 2.8 at $2600 plus the 2.0 at 750 which means to get 400mm I invest 3350.00 I guess that is not bad depending on the 2x diminishing the resolution.

The 70-200F2.8 is not really bad compared to the Canon counterpart right? The canon 70-200F2.8IS II?

advaitin wrote in post #18063895
Took the Voigtlander 10 to lunch Sunday with family. Bottom shot uncorrected as example.
Even with correcting from the extreme distortion you are left with a wide angle typical widening of humans. To do so takes away the rectilinear aspect and gives us more barrel distortion of lines in the background.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/J6kC​jy DSC03663a by Charles Griffin, on Flickr
Corrected

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/J6iw​P8 DSC03670a by Charles Griffin, on Flickr
corrected

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JYHe​if DSC03674a by Charles Griffin, on Flickr
Corrected

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/K2Hm​Yr DSC03688a by Charles Griffin, on Flickr
Edited and cropped.

Hosted photo: posted by advaitin in
./showthread.php?p=180​63895&i=i52503150
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by advaitin in
./showthread.php?p=180​63895&i=i102979391
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

get that lens outside for some true landscapes so we can see what it can do.random snaps r not doing it justice. haha. i would like to see this lens in mountain landscapes to see if its better than the rok 14mm which i love.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18063931
The 70-200F2.8 is not really bad compared to the Canon counterpart right? The canon 70-200F2.8IS II?

A little high price-wise...but adjusted for inflation, probably close to what the Canon sold for when it was released in 2010. I don't have enough of a need for a fast aperture telephoto to justify it, but I do appreciate that Sony has brought this to market.

genesimmons wrote in post #18063933
get that lens outside for some true landscapes so we can see what it can do.random snaps r not doing it justice. haha. i would like to see this lens in mountain landscapes to see if its better than the rok 14mm which i love.

I'm not terribly sure it will make a good landscape lens. I'm thinking architectural or industrial shots will be its more practical use.
It's so hot here that I've been putting off doing much.

Not the best subject or angle, my backyard. Top image the sun was out, second image was tilted so I edited and cropped. Diffraction effect is clear in the first image at f22.

If there's one lens the FE lineup really needs, it's a 135mm F/2 lens instead of another 35mm lens.

jocau wrote in post #18063794
Anyone else keeping an eye on the X-T2? It's one of the prettiest cameras I've seen so far. Plus lenses are more affordable than with the Sony system. And it's 14-bit lossless or uncompressed RAW all the way, no exceptions I believe. Sadly enough though it doesn't have IBIS.

It does indeed look very appealing on several levels. A base ISO 200 in an APS-C sensor, however, is a total no-damn-way deal killer for me.

jocau wrote in post #18063994
If there's one lens the FE lineup really needs, it's a 135mm F/2 lens instead of another 35mm lens.

Seriously....too many 50's and 35's...

David Arbogast wrote in post #18064005
It does indeed look very appealing on several levels. A base ISO 200 in an APS-C sensor, however, is a total no-damn-way deal killer for me.

This might interest you since you like the guy.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18063854
I really like what Fuji is doing... when I was moving between Olympus, Sony, and Canon, I was considering to move to Fuji and X-T1 was the camera I wanted to get... but after trying it, I decided against it, it was just way to sluggish, didn't like the AF system. Who knows maybe the new X-T2 is better... but at this point its not worth it.

When did you have your X-T1? The new firmware is pretty awesome in my opinion, I don't find my X-E2 to be sluggish at all, though it does sometimes lock onto the background instead of my subject which can be frustrating.

Not sure what you mean by "at this point it's not worth it" though... at what point?

xpfloyd wrote in post #18063865
I liked everything about the XT1 apart from the files. The XT2 looks interesting though and if the Sony sensor in it is as good as the a6300 then it will be a great camera. I won't be jumping though as you lose a lot of cash jumping brands as I have learned the hard way

The files are possibly my favorite part about my X-E2... they require so little PP work

As for losing cash, I buy almost everything used for that exact reason, I took a $100 hit when I sold my a7R after using it for a few months

David Arbogast wrote in post #18064005
It does indeed look very appealing on several levels. A base ISO 200 in an APS-C sensor, however, is a total no-damn-way deal killer for me.

It's literally never been an issue for me even when shooting with the 35/1.4 in bright light. The electronic shutter goes up to 1/32000s, you can shoot in as bright of light as you want with it.

My decision might have just been made for me... one of my good friends says he'd be very interested in buying my a7S if I sold it... the reason this is such a big deal is that he and I share our camera gear all the time, he borrows my lights, I borrow his go-pros and even 5Diii occasionally. I told him I'd give him the camera for $200 less than the cheapest one he could find so long as I could use it a couple times a year (for astro or low light work), he said he'll let me know soon... I'm still not positive I'll do it, but man is it tempting especially since he never sells any of his gear.

jocau wrote in post #18063994
If there's one lens the FE lineup really needs, it's a 135mm F/2 lens instead of another 35mm lens.

very true...

other lenses that would be welcome:
70(100)-400
24ish prime
20ish prime
fisheye
tiltshift
12-14ish prime

jocau wrote in post #18063994
If there's one lens the FE lineup really needs, it's a 135mm F/2 lens instead of another 35mm lens.

Agreed.

In other news, I'm a bit annoyed at my Batis 25/.
Went out shooting last night (the docks in Long Beach) and ran into an interesting phenomenon. Not sure what it could be.
Wide open, the Batis 25 looks fine, then it stops down to shoot or AF (I'm at f11, but it didn't seem to matter if it was f8 or f13) and this odd cloudy flarey thing would show up (lots of street lights and bridge lights in the scene).
This did not occur when shooting the exact same scene/orientation with the Sigma 35 or the Batis 18.

I'm at work right now, but I'll post an example when I get home.

Anyone here notice something like this when shooting the Batis?

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18064031
When did you have your X-T1? The new firmware is pretty awesome in my opinion, I don't find my X-E2 to be sluggish at all, though it does sometimes lock onto the background instead of my subject which can be frustrating.

Not sure what you mean by "at this point it's not worth it" though... at what point?

.

To much invested again, if Fuji had a fullframe maybe i would consider it, but not now...

I never had my X-T1, I did rent it before, it was maybe few months after release, I liked everything about it except the poor performance.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18064042
To much invested again, if Fuji had a fullframe maybe i would consider it, but not now...

I never had my X-T1, I did rent it before, it was maybe few months after release, I liked everything about it except the poor performance.

I'm actually very glad that Fuji stuck with APS-C, I thinnk the cheaper and smaller fast glass is a huge bonus of their system.

Puckman wrote in post #18064040
Agreed.

In other news, I'm a bit annoyed at my Batis 25/.
Went out shooting last night (the docks in Long Beach) and ran into an interesting phenomenon. Not sure what it could be.
Wide open, the Batis 25 looks fine, then it stops down to shoot or AF (I'm at f11, but it didn't seem to matter if it was f8 or f13) and this odd cloudy flarey thing would show up (lots of street lights and bridge lights in the scene).
This did not occur when shooting the exact same scene/orientation with the Sigma 35 or the Batis 18.

I'm at work right now, but I'll post an example when I get home.

Anyone here notice something like this when shooting the Batis?

i know my issue isn't prob the same as i don't have that lens but with a few of my manual lenses i think i get the same cloudy thingy u are referring to,i chalked it up as lens flare as i don't use hoods in most cases,in some cases with mine the cloud would go away if i changed position slightly or changed aperture,a wider aperture seemed to make it go away,but for most instances i wanted a narrow one for deeper field of view.i just figured it was lens flare