Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

people complain one of the cons of going sony is that lenses are too expensive, and yes I agree a lot of sony's older lenses aren't that impressive (Considering the cost vs. the competions) , .. but it seems like everything they are putting out within the past year or 2 is topping the competition..

vinmunoz wrote in post #18413668
who don't need this lens?

the FE100-400 is sharper the Canon 12k lens 200-400
http://briansmith.com …-12000-canon-200-400mm-l/

Yeah I definitely want that Sony lens. Looks great! So does the 12-24.

If they brought out nothing but cheap but technically inferior gear people would complain too.

100-400 is not for me but it's good to know that Sony's products are competitive across the board!

vinmunoz wrote in post #18413668
who don't need this lens?

the FE100-400 is sharper the Canon 12k lens 200-400
http://briansmith.com …-12000-canon-200-400mm-l/

I borrowed a EF 200-400 through CPS once - it is a heavy beast. It's a good thing my 2017 photography GAS budget is blown, otherwise I'd have to get the FE 100-400. Sometimes its good to be broke.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18413674
Mind is blown by what Sony is producing in these GM lenses.

It is most impressive what they have accomplished in such a relatively short time. I hope the A7RIII is just as impressive.

Looking forward to the FE 16-35 GM. If it also turns out to be amazing, I will consider selling the Batis 18 and 25 for it.

Still some interest in the 12-24mm of course, but 16-35mm would be more useful to me overall (especially since I already have a nice 12mm lens).

xpfloyd wrote in post #18413214
I had the 23/1.4 on the xt1 and it was my fav fuji lens but now that the f/2 is available I would probably go that route myself due to smaller size

Just got the 50 f/2 today, it was an easy decision. I had the 56 before yet rarely used it. The 50 is fast, small, and doesn't take up much space at all. With th 23/35 I'm torn. One minute I want to get the 1.4 versions for th extra speed and bokeh. The next I want to get the f/2's for th smaller size, WR, and faster AF. The next I want to get the 23 1.4 since I like the 35 equivalent and want the extra speed and want the 35 f2 for the smaller size, faster af, and the WR. Then the next I want the 23 f2 and the 35 1.4, lol. Maybe the answer is to just get all 4 lenses.

Did you find the 1.4 slow to focus at all? Some reports I see that the f2 is fast and the 1.4 is a dog to AF. Others report that that f2 is just slightly faster than the 1.4. I'm concerned about the 23 f2 due to the supposed softness wide open at minimum focus distance like the X100 series and having the same f stop as the X100 instead of faster 1.4 makes me hesitate.

TRhoads wrote in post #18413248
After returning the FE 50...I am back into the mindset of selling off the canon gear to move toward acquiring an a9...probably going to start photographing it all this weekend in preparation to list it all.

Funny how this weekend is that decisive for both of us. I'm actually going to shoot this weekend to see if the X-T2 will get a spot in my bag or whether to keep the a9. If I decide on the X-T2, the a9 is going!

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18413558
Yes sir. 1DXii instantly became a dinosaur the day the a9 landed. No
regrets selling mine and now I've shot with the FE100-400 no regrets
selling the EOS 100-400ii. My head just swims knowing Sony already has
the a9's replacement on the board and imagining what it will bring to the table.

Let's just hope it doesn't keep increasing in cost.

Well I guess I missed out on first run. B&H didnt move my order from processing.

This always puts me in a frustrating position because I dont want to get a return shipped out so I may just have to wait for the big gun.

Poop EDIT: Yep went to backorderd..... Bah could have switched to Adorama I am so dumb

David Arbogast wrote in post #18413692
Looking forward to the FE 16-35 GM. If it also turns out to be amazing, I will consider selling the Batis 18 and 25 for it.

Still some interest in the 12-24mm of course, but 16-35mm would be more useful to me overall (especially since I already have a nice 12mm lens).

I am worried about the light Stars on the 16-35.... I have a loaner of the 12-24 I am testing and I hate the stars.... muddy and busy. I think the 1635 has like 11 blades

I've been ordering from adorama lately ,, they've been super quick with shiping .. often the next day...granted I live in ny and I believ they ship out of NJ.. but still..

also Band H has been accused , many times of discrimination against certain races and .. lately union busting ..
and as a Union worker for many years do my bestest to not cross a picket line

eriet30 wrote in post #18413790
I am worried about the light Stars on the 16-35.... I have a loaner of the 12-24 I am testing and I hate the stars.... muddy and busy. I think the 1635 has like 11 blades

I'm not worried about the 16-35 stars in the least. They'll be pretty much the same as the FE 24-70 GM. The 24-70 GM stars look to me to be similar in look to the Batis lenses: somewhat soft and not crisp laser-beams like the Loxia. They're nice though imo.

Just shows what Canon could have given all along---and chose not to.

Gordon Lang posted a sample of the 16-35 GM @ f/22 sunstar on Flickr. No doubt the 11 blades will give the star a lot busier look, but it still looks clean and pretty crisp. It ain't no Loxia for sure.

https://flic.kr/p/UQoY​8u

David Arbogast wrote in post #18413811
Gordon Lang posted a sample of the 16-35 GM @ f/22 sunstar on Flickr. No doubt the 11 blades will give the star a lot busier look, but it still looks clean and pretty crisp. It ain't no Loxia for sure.

https://flic.kr/p/UQoY​8u

Better than the 12-24..... it actually intrigues me thanks


EDIT: hmmm no still worried that is at F22 there is also a 12-24 shot in there at F22 I need crisp stars at F8-11