Sony A7x lounge

Charlie wrote in post #17608370
thanks, I do plan to print one, but want to do it when I have multiple prints.

indeed, 2.8 zooms will likely be huge, so it might be more prudent to stick with canon stuff, which is high quality and proven.

quite a bold move by sony, making PDAF good with everything, including canon EF stuff. Sony's counter is to make better lenses than canon, and that is their goal.

Yeah. Sony has proven themselves to be a competent lens maker too. The FE primes are fantastic...better than Canons offerings

Karate Kid:

SAL 135 f1.8:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v1FC​aS

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/v4Aj​Sn

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uLy7​ac

I'm debating on lens options for a purchase coming up soon. I will be getting a little bit over $1k for a work bonus and figured I would get myself something, but I am torn between quality vs. quantity.

quantity:
Samyang 14mm
Canon FD 35mm f/2
Sigma 105mm Macro

quality:
FE 16-35, FE 50 f/1.8 or Loxia 35mm.

I'm also toying with the idea of the T/S 24mm...


I currently have 24mm, 50mm, 105mm and a 70-400mm zoom. I've never had a Macro and would like to play around with that. I've also never had an ultra wide so that is definitely tempting. I don't really need the 50mm focal length, but the FE is excellent.

What would you guys recommend?

Dusted the A7R, which has been somewhat dormant, and took it out West:
I admit I was lazy -- all taken with my ultimate travel lens, the FE24-240

Great shot and great seeing Kasha-Katuwe.....been a few (3) years since I was there. That's a nice hike to get to that spot.
I didn't really appreciate the 24-240 until I put it on the A6000.......def. a primo travel lens; but like the 70-200G f4 I made the same mistake. I put an el cheapo UV on the front of each....forgot just how cheap...and puzzled over the IQ until I removed the filter--then suddenly, nicety.

KayakPhotos wrote in post #17608546
I'm debating on lens options for a purchase coming up soon. I will be getting a little bit over $1k for a work bonus and figured I would get myself something, but I am torn between quality vs. quantity.

quantity:
Samyang 14mm
Canon FD 35mm f/2
Sigma 105mm Macro

quality:
FE 16-35, FE 50 f/1.8 or Loxia 35mm.

I'm also toying with the idea of the T/S 24mm...


I currently have 24mm, 50mm, 105mm and a 70-400mm zoom. I've never had a Macro and would like to play around with that. I've also never had an ultra wide so that is definitely tempting. I don't really need the 50mm focal length, but the FE is excellent.

What would you guys recommend?

Saw your Flickr page. Given what I've seen and your interest in macro, may I suggest the 90mm Macro 2.8G to be added to the mix in the quality camp? It'll also make a great portrait lens, based on my experience with the Canon 100mm L Macro.

Has anyone seen this??

http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …-11-macro-lens-15mm-f4-0/

Im intrigued! Not that 1:1 macro in a 15mm lens wouldnt be enough special, but also isnt that slow (f/4) and it has a shift mechanism allowing shifts of up to +6mm and -6mm! What a nice feature
Ohh and almost forgot, yes, it does come in FE mount and no, it costs less than 500 bucks

Good suggestion. I may have to explore that lens further

KayakPhotos wrote in post #17608546
I'm debating on lens options for a purchase coming up soon. I will be getting a little bit over $1k for a work bonus and figured I would get myself something, but I am torn between quality vs. quantity.

quantity:
Samyang 14mm
Canon FD 35mm f/2
Sigma 105mm Macro

quality:
FE 16-35, FE 50 f/1.8 or Loxia 35mm.

I'm also toying with the idea of the T/S 24mm...


I currently have 24mm, 50mm, 105mm and a 70-400mm zoom. I've never had a Macro and would like to play around with that. I've also never had an ultra wide so that is definitely tempting. I don't really need the 50mm focal length, but the FE is excellent.

What would you guys recommend?

Assuming you are thinking of the FE 16-35 for landscapes have you considered the Canon EF 16-35 IS? Obviously you lose quick AF (Unless the A7rii is what its reported to be and you plan on buying one) but IQ wise they are very similar. The benefit of the canon is that its a lot cheaper. You can get a cheap adaptor (Viltrox II / Commlite etc) and save yourself a bit of cash that you could put to other lenses. Just a thought.

Also would be worth considering the FE 28/2 or FE 35/2.8 as both are small, cheap, light and sharp.

Post above: I used the 16-35 f4 L IS Canon in Spain last year with the a7R and a7S, also a Sigma 12-24 in Canon mount. Both gave excellent results.

But another issue: I have seen some articles on the a7 II IBIS' interaction with Canon lenses through the Megabones adapter. Since I now have the a7 II I did find it confusing. Apparently if image stabilization is active on the lens, the IBIS is off. If IS is turned off, the IBIS is on. If what I'm seeing is the way it was intended to work, then it means we Canon lens users will never have a full im age shake control--only two ways in the lens or 3 ways from the camera.

I have not read through the back pages here yet. Has this issue been addressed?

Hi guys,

Sorry to confuse you earlier! I can focus peak like how Puckman and BrandonSi mentioned but what I was looking for was this (go 0:37 into the video) and I meant those lines. https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=BZFtPKgBM0U I tried to focus peak and my photos are still..a little OOF even using MF zoom assist. It's a bit frustrating because I'm basically blind but I heavily rely on AF. After hearing bout focus peaking, I was confident I could continue using my Canon lenses on the Sony body. Here I'm using the Sigma ART and A7s with a Commlite adapter for the first time and didn't nail focus well. I'm sure it's me and not the camera. Would those highlighted lines help me at all or should I just give up? I really liked this little A7s it doesn't hurt my wrists after a 12 hr+ event! Thanks again for the help; I haven't used my A7s much since I got it; too frustrated to carry on. <<

Here is a photo of my cousin, his eyes aren't in focus; they were soft when I PP'ed this but I kept the photo cause I thought it was cute:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uowv​ws

probably best to turn it off in lens, then use and control only IBIS, makes life a lot easier.

xpfloyd wrote in post #17608801
Assuming you are thinking of the FE 16-35 for landscapes have you considered the Canon EF 16-35 IS? Obviously you lose quick AF (Unless the A7rii is what its reported to be and you plan on buying one) but IQ wise they are very similar. The benefit of the canon is that its a lot cheaper. You can get a cheap adaptor (Viltrox II / Commlite etc) and save yourself a bit of cash that you could put to other lenses. Just a thought.

Also would be worth considering the FE 28/2 or FE 35/2.8 as both are small, cheap, light and sharp.

I'll have to look into the canon 16-35. I was thinking it was similar cost to the Sony.

Charlie wrote in post #17608968
probably best to turn it off in lens, then use and control only IBIS, makes life a lot easier.

This is what I intend to do, just use IBIS and forget about the IS.

KayakPhotos wrote in post #17608974
I'll have to look into the canon 16-35. I was thinking it was similar cost to the Sony.

Now that I have re-checked the prices they are actually closer than I had in my head. Not sure about in the states but in the UK you can get a new FE 16-35 for £750 on ebay and you can get the canon version new on ebay for £600 (shop prices are much higher, for example Wex are charging £944 for the FE 16-35. Wex are also the UK pre order company for the A7RII which is giving me hope I will be able to pick it up cheaper elsewhere once its out). If the 16-35 is going to be your only canon lens you would have to factor in the price of the adaptor also (Viltrox is £65).

From all I have seen both 16-35mm lenses are very good. The Sony FE 16-35mm is very strong from 16-28mm, but fades a bit more (compared to the Canon model) from 28-35mm. Overall I regard the Canon model as better (but not leaps and bounds better) and if sharpness throughout the zoom range was a primary concern I would go with it over the Sony FE 16-35mm. On the other hand, the FE 16-35mm is lighter/smaller (due to not needing the adapter!) and has good AF with all a7* models and probably still better AF even on the a7R II.

If you're mostly interested in using a 16-35mm more on the wider end (which is true for me), then both are excellent choices and maybe the "less-fuss/no-adapter" nod goes to the Sony.