Sony A7x lounge

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262797
Ordered a contax 100-300. Got a deal that was too good to miss on an MM version with serial number 75xxxxx so I think it's a later one

ok...so...what is it about that lens that everyone seems to loose their mind over...I have gone through some of the thread on FM and maybe I just don't get it...what makes it so special?

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262797
Ordered a contax 100-300. Got a deal that was too good to miss on an MM version with serial number 75xxxxx so I think it's a later one

I hate you Eddie.

Congrats!

TRhoads wrote in post #18262802
ok...so...what is it about that lens that everyone seems to loose their mind over...I have gone through some of the thread on FM and maybe I just don't get it...what makes it so special?

based on my reading of the lens, it's sharper than canon's 70-200 f2.8 ii, and contrast like zeiss primes like the 100 makro planar, and through most of it's focal range. I've read posts that suggest it as sharp and more contrasty than most primes in it's range. There are posts comparing the zoom to the 180 apo lanthar, cy 100 f3.5, ect.... even to the new canon 100-400ii. That's a pretty darn high standard, and I think I've seen a comparison with the 2x converter to make the lens 600mm, resolve the moon pretty well. 2x teleconverters typically thrash image quality if you have a weak baseline.

a bag of primes in zoom format.

what I like about it is two fold.

1. I've got to have a long lens for landscape shooting, with 300mm on the long end at minimum.
2. 300mm primes are generally big, and carrying them to shoot landscapes becomes impractical if you want to shoot 100mm... it's not like smaller and wider focal lengths, which can be controlled somewhat by foot movement.

I already have the 70-300g, and it's does a good job, but I do struggle at times deciding if I should shoot my 200mm prime for ultimate quality or zoom for killer flexibility. Often, I'm happy with my 200, but I hate that it's only 200, when a scene is a little too distant and I need 300. I cant walk past the cliff edge to get closer

TRhoads wrote in post #18262802
ok...so...what is it about that lens that everyone seems to loose their mind over...I have gone through some of the thread on FM and maybe I just don't get it...what makes it so special?

It appears to be a sharp contrasty lens in a long zoom range that is fairly compact. It has similar pop to the modern Zeiss lenses.

TRhoads wrote in post #18262802
ok...so...what is it about that lens that everyone seems to loose their mind over...I have gone through some of the thread on FM and maybe I just don't get it...what makes it so special?

Charlie wrote in post #18262816
based on my reading of the lens, it's sharper than canon's 70-200 f2.8 ii, and contrast like zeiss primes like the 100 makro planar, and through most of it's focal range. I've read posts that suggest it as sharp and more contrasty than most primes in it's range. There are posts comparing the zoom to the 180 apo lanthar, cy 100 f3.5, ect.... even to the new canon 100-400ii.

Pretty much this ^^. Sharp through the range with zeiss pop/micro-contrast.

Also from a personal point of view I had started to realise I could do with a tele lens for landscape use. The shots I posted last week from the Batis 18 were heavy crops for some of them. A 100mm+ lens that day would have been perfect.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262823
Pretty much this ^^. Sharp through the range with zeiss pop/micro-contrast.

Also from a personal point of view I had started to realise I could do with a tele lens for landscape use. The shots I posted last week from the Batis 18 were heavy crops for some of them. A 100mm+ lens that day would have been perfect.

living without a long lens for landscapes is like living without an ultrawide..... just have to have it. My journey with long lenses has gone a long long way. The tamron 70-300 started it all, however, I've had many others including:

canon 100-400L
canon 70-200f4L
Sony 70-400g
tamron 70-200f2.8 VC
tamron 150-600
Canon 70-200f2.8 ii L
Canon 100-300f5.6L
Sony FE 70-300g

most were too big, 200's left me desiring more focal length, 300 was the sweet spot with weight and focal length. I'm a big fan of telephoto landscapes.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262823
Pretty much this ^^. Sharp through the range with zeiss pop/micro-contrast.

Also from a personal point of view I had started to realise I could do with a tele lens for landscape use. The shots I posted last week from the Batis 18 were heavy crops for some of them. A 100mm+ lens that day would have been perfect.

You mean 85mm?

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262286
Weird. I use my work email on there be my hotmail on here but didn't realise there were restrictions. Have you tried gmail?

Forgot I had Googlemail but that don't work either....

Charlie wrote in post #18262840
living without a long lens for landscapes is like living without an ultrawide..... just have to have it. My journey with long lenses has gone a long long way. The tamron 70-300 started it all, however, I've had many others including:

canon 100-400L
canon 70-200f4L
Sony 70-400g
tamron 70-200f2.8 VC
tamron 150-600
Canon 70-200f2.8 ii L
Canon 100-300f5.6L
Sony FE 70-300g

most were too big, 200's left me desiring more focal length, 300 was the sweet spot with weight and focal length. I'm a big fan of telephoto landscapes.

Speaking of too big, that's prbably why a long lens has never really been my thing. The weight of my 70-200mm f/4L IS is no problem, but it's just so dang long that it doesn't fit anywhere easily. I keep it in a separate bag by itself and don't often use it. For my part, from a usage standpoint, a long lens just doesn't compare to an ultrawide that gets constant use with me.

BUT, I worry about needing something long when I start camping in the Blue Ridge mountains more frequently. Every time I've gone there the 70-200mm becomes more essential to get closer to some waterfalls, cascades, and other landscape elements that can be challenging to get close to due to physical barriers.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18262842
You mean 85mm?

Do you mean a 85+ would have been perfect? The 85 would have helped a lot but probably not long enough for some of the views I was seeing

After 10 years of having her we gave one of our cats to a family member last week. This was taken the night before she left.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RHxD​3d

xpfloyd wrote in post #18262852
Do you mean a 85+ would have been perfect? The 85 would have helped a lot but probably not long enough for some of the views I was seeing

It struck me as odd that you were using an 18mm and wishing you had a 100-300mm FOV. I guess I've never used my widest lens and made the leap to wishing I had a really long lens. But, please pardon my misunderstanding...I think I grasp and appreciate where you're coming from: you were seeing additional framing possibilities not possible with your current kit.. Absolutely, I totally agree that you really need it - just seems super-ideal for your local landscapes and I can't wait to see your work with it.

After doing a resolution comparison (Batis 85mm vs EF 70-200mm f/4L IS) last week I was somewhat inclined to sell one or the other as they seemed comparable. Batis is lighter/smaller/easier to use, 70-200mm much more flexible FOV range. Conflicted.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18262849
Speaking of too big, that's prbably why a long lens has never really been my thing. The weight of my 70-200mm f/4L IS is no problem, but it's just so dang long that it doesn't fit anywhere easily. I keep it in a separate bag by itself and don't often use it. For my part, from a usage standpoint, a long lens just doesn't compare to an ultrawide that gets constant use with me.

BUT, I worry about needing something long when I start camping in the Blue Ridge mountains more frequently. Every time I've gone there the 70-200mm becomes more essential to get closer to some waterfalls, cascades, and other landscape elements that can be challenging to get close to due to physical barriers.

Unfortunately, the Contax weighs even more than the 70-200f4! Close to 1kg from what I recall. Carrying them has always been an issue, however, I think my current setup can handle it.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18262863
It struck me as odd that you were using an 18mm and wishing you had a 100-300mm FOV. I guess I've never used my widest lens and made the leap to wishing I had a really long lens. But, please pardon my misunderstanding...I think I grasp and appreciate where you're coming from: you were seeing additional framing possibilities not possible with your current kit.. Absolutely, I totally agree that you really need it - just seems super-ideal for your local landscapes and I can't wait to see your work with it.

After doing a resolution comparison (Batis 85mm vs EF 70-200mm f/4L IS) last week I was somewhat inclined to sell one or the other as they seemed comparable. Batis is lighter/smaller/easier to use, 70-200mm much more flexible FOV range. Conflicted.

Ah sorry I should have explained, when I go hiking I try and keep overall weight to a minimum (camera and non camera kit) so I have only been taking one lens each time. Last time it was the B18 and I got one of the best days ive had in a long time weather wise and wished I had the tele. That made me realise two things, firstly I could do with a tele landscape zoom and secondly only carrying one prime is a bad idea (which is why I was also considering the 16-35 FE specifically for hiking). The weight of the 100-300 is one of the only negatives at the moment but I figured I can just shed some kg elsewhere in my kit. For non hiking landscape outings it will be fine as the weight wont matter

an early birthday for me..

so i think its official ,.. going full sony .. the remainder of my EF lenses(14m 2.8 , 50m 1.4 and 85 1.8) will go for sale.. only keeping the t4i and 10-18 efs and 55-250 efs lenses (wouldnt get that much for it anyway)

decided on these 2 additions (28 f2 and 55 f1.8) to start with . with my 16-35 i think im covering my most used focal lenths well enough and needed something faster than f4.. and i was missing bokeh and was tired of having to use adapter plus canon prime lens every time i wanted a soft background . i've read very good reviews about both , and both focal lenths will work for me on a7sii and on a6500.. hope there are no regrets