Sony A7x lounge

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17689748
Got off work, needed to destress-

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/x6Ey​Vi Portrait of a Nectar Lover by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Great shot.

What lens was this shot with? And how close to the bird were you really?

jonathon bought my FD135 (both 2.8 and 2), he has a lot of my past FD lenses, but I may ask for it back

it was a pain shooting it low light due to the focal length and needing good shutter speeds, but on the A7ii or A7rii, I imagine, I'de fall in love all over again. I traded it for the zeiss 100, and not sure if that was the right move since I miss the lens

Me and FD go way back dean

Good visual review of the a7Rii

http://marcweisberg.co​m …-review-of-the-sony-a7rii

Some beautiful landscape shots with the Sony 90 macro in his review. So sharp!

Charlie wrote in post #17690050
according to this list:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/13796​24

50L is a go
70-300L is questionable.

not having an A7rii is causing accelerated balding and restless nights on my part. It really sucks waiting for it.

At least this week, I may have some toys to play with, have the minolta beercan and will get to play with the 70-200F4 G lens soon.

may also reacquire the FD135 (or borrow for a really long time from my lensrental buddy)

Its not really killing me at the moment because ive shot a lot with my A7R and A7S (stills and even a videoclip) and am more happy than i was with my 6D.

Thanks for the link! All i would want is to have usable AF with the 70-300L and 50L and id be set. But i still make great images with my Canons with MF so it is just about convinience

Puckman wrote in post #17690090
I'm interested in what you think of the 70-200F4 compared to the Canon equiv.

Don't mean to intrude on a question not asked of me, but I've been around the block on this one. This year I tried out the Sony FE 70-200mm twice and liked it. First time I returned it just because I decided I wasn't quite ready to commit to the lens just yet. Second time because I finally came to the decision to keep a split Canon/Sony kit and prefer for all my lenses to be usable on both systems.

Now I have in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. From a product design standpoint (the aesthetics of the lens design) the Canon is a turd. And I don't love the sound of the IS either (Sony is quieter). But, optically - the optical performance of the lens - I am elated with it. If the Sony had been this good I would not have been able to let it go.

So, to me the Sony 70-200mm is very good, very adequate. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS is superb. In other words, both are deserving Photozone's "Highly Recommended" rating, but the Canon version really sings for me.

since I dont have the 70-200F4 IS, I will test the sony 70-200G compared to the sony 70-400G and canon 70-200mk2 (should be at least as sharp as the F4 IS)

Charlie wrote in post #17690161
and canon 70-200mk2 (should be at least as sharp as the F4 IS)

f/2.8L II is supposed to be just a touch sharper (though very similar) than f/4L IS...so that should be a reasonably accurate test.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17690160
Don't mean to intrude on a question not asked of me, but I've been around the block on this one. This year I tried out the Sony FE 70-200mm twice and liked it. First time I returned it just because I decided I wasn't quite ready to commit to the lens just yet. Second time because I finally came to the decision to keep a split Canon/Sony kit and prefer for all my lenses to be usable on both systems.

Now I have in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. From a product design standpoint (the aesthetics of the lens design) the Canon is a turd. And I don't love the sound of the IS either (Sony is quieter). But, optically - the optical performance of the lens - I am elated with it. If the Sony had been this good I would not have been able to let it go.

So, to me the Sony 70-200mm is very good, very adequate. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS is superb. In other words, both are deserving Photozone's "Highly Recommended" rating, but the Canon version really sings for me.

I actually keep hoping you'll chime in because I'm in roughly the same boat you were in last month and prior....Deciding on my kit going forward between all-Canon, all-Sony or both (body wise). And if so, with what combination of lenses (all native, some native, some Canon, etc).

I have owned the EF 70-200/4 IS for the past 2 years and I have to agree that it is a visual turd (and that IS sound!) but that it is a fantastic performer in all other aspects. It is optically phenomenal. It is my go-to portrait lens. I does great with landscapes too. the AF is fast and accurate and the contrast and rendering are fantastic. That is one of the reasons I am loathe to go all-native, all-Sony (similar exact line of thinking applies to my EF 16-35/4). I'm still, at the end of the day, bound to those excellent Canon lenses.
Which makes it very hard to justify going with an all-Sony body lineup (basically if I'm shelling out $3500 on a body, I'm only gonna own one, as opposed to the 2 $1500 bodies I own now, 6D and A7II).
Which means if I go with the Sony A7RII, it has to perform amazingly well with Canon lenses (AF included), otherwise, there really is no point.
But then, every time I tell myself I'd be happy with the 5DS (based on the above logic), I end up thinking of all my FD and CV lenses and how I'd have to give them up and buy EF equivalents (EF 35/1.4II, EF 24L, EF 135L, just for starters)...at ten times the cost (for comparison: the 3 lenses just listed retail at a combined $4000 or more, whereas I've paid $less than $500 for the FD equivalents).
So I end up holding on to my dual system for now (at the expense of having lower resolution with the 6D and A7II)...

David Arbogast wrote in post #17690160
Don't mean to intrude on a question not asked of me, but I've been around the block on this one. This year I tried out the Sony FE 70-200mm twice and liked it. First time I returned it just because I decided I wasn't quite ready to commit to the lens just yet. Second time because I finally came to the decision to keep a split Canon/Sony kit and prefer for all my lenses to be usable on both systems.

Now I have in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. From a product design standpoint (the aesthetics of the lens design) the Canon is a turd. And I don't love the sound of the IS either (Sony is quieter). But, optically - the optical performance of the lens - I am elated with it. If the Sony had been this good I would not have been able to let it go.

So, to me the Sony 70-200mm is very good, very adequate. The Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS is superb. In other words, both are deserving Photozone's "Highly Recommended" rating, but the Canon version really sings for me.

GRRRRRRRR dont make me think more than 30 times about my decision to sell the F4IS and get the Sony...... What it boils down to is what I carry when I hike. I want the 90 macro and Wide angle lenses to be on the A7r2 and the long lens on the A6000 I would love that set up...... If i didnt have the A6000 I would probably keep the F4IS

A7RII & FE 28. The distortion of this lens doesn't actually bother me and I dont find it too severe. The lens is very sharp and produces a nice bokeh if the focus distance is short. It doesnt have the same ability to blur out a distracting background like a longer lens obviously but its a great bang for the buck lens

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/x7oG​YZ

Puckman wrote in post #17690178
I actually keep hoping you'll chime in because I'm in roughly the same boat you were in last month and prior....Deciding on my kit going forward between all-Canon, all-Sony or both (body wise). And if so, with what combination of lenses (all native, some native, some Canon, etc).

I have owned the EF 70-200/4 IS for the past 2 years and I have to agree that it is a visual turd (and that IS sound!) but that it is a fantastic performer in all other aspects. It is optically phenomenal. It is my go-to portrait lens. I does great with landscapes too. the AF is fast and accurate and the contrast and rendering are fantastic. That is one of the reasons I am loathe to go all-native, all-Sony (similar exact line of thinking applies to my EF 16-35/4). I'm still, at the end of the day, bound to those excellent Canon lenses.
Which makes it very hard to justify going with an all-Sony body lineup (basically if I'm shelling out $3500 on a body, I'm only gonna own one, as opposed to the 2 $1500 bodies I own now, 6D and A7II).
Which means if I go with the Sony A7RII, it has to perform amazingly well with Canon lenses (AF included), otherwise, there really is no point.
But then, every time I tell myself I'd be happy with the 5DS (based on the above logic), I end up thinking of all my FD and CV lenses and how I'd have to give them up and buy EF equivalents (EF 35/1.4II, EF 24L, EF 135L, just for starters)...at ten times the cost (for comparison: the 3 lenses just listed retail at a combined $4000 or more, whereas I've paid $less than $500 for the FD equivalents).
So I end up holding on to my dual system for now (at the expense of having lower resolution with the 6D and A7II)...

I have the 70-200 f2.8II, which I've adapted to my a7rII. AF is pretty good when adapted to the a7rII, but not as good as it is on a native Canon body, or the a7rII with a native lens. Single shot AF is for the most part is very fast and accurate. The big downside is that the lens will struggle to focus when starting from an extremely de-focused point, so it occasionally becomes necessary to pre-focus the lens. Not a big deal if you're used to MF, as all it takes is a quick turn of the focus ring in the right direction to help AF get the initial focus. If you're taking multiple shots within a certain focal range, AF is fast and accurate.

Once you understand this nuance, and work occasional need to pre-focus into your work-flow, the lens becomes perfectly useable on the a7rII. I haven't really had a chance to put the 70-200 through its paces on the a7rII, but I did shoot with the 27-40 f2.8 pretty heavily at my kids' birthday party this weekend. This lens doesn't have the same need to pre-focus, but it kept up just fine and captured the photos I needed. The only reason I reverted back to my FE 35 1.4, is because continuous eye-focus is the perfect AF mode for event-style shooting.

Focus is very fast and accurate when using the Canon 24-105 on my A7rII.

eriet30 wrote in post #17690191
GRRRRRRRR dont make me think more than 30 times about my decision to sell the F4IS and get the Sony...... What it boils down to is what I carry when I hike. I want the 90 macro and Wide angle lenses to be on the A7r2 and the long lens on the A6000 I would love that set up...... If i didnt have the A6000 I would probably keep the F4IS

Ha! Like I said, I was well-pleased with the Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS and if I had decided to go all-in with the FE system, I would be very happy and content with it. Yes, I love the Canon model - its rendering pleases me more, BUT, I got impressive results from the Sony...nothing wrong here:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rn4p​85

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s2xG​Fy

the FE70-200 F4 is really sharp.

vinmunoz wrote in post #17690260
the FE70-200 F4 is really sharp.

I've been eyeing it up more and more... not sure if I'd rather have it or an LA-EA4 and some other 70-200mm though.