Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

itsallart wrote in post #18870881
Amazon has the same price without the date limit.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'm not really in the market for a new camera anyway at this point.

Charlie wrote in post #18871055
Being a G lens, I expect it to be 1500 or less. 5.6 to 6.3 is slowww

Looks to be internal zooming which is interesting.

Yes, the 6.3 is a definite drawback.

Bill in Texas wrote in post #18871103
Yes, the 6.3 is a definite drawback.

Looks to be similar to a lens that Sigma makes for Canon/Nikon. So while slow, it’s about usual for the semi-affordable supertele zoom category.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_600mm_f_5_6_3_​dg_os.html

There’s a non-sport version for around $1000 and the sport for $1800. Since it’s a G lens and not a GM, maybe it’ll be priced in the middle.

My Sony FE 90 G macro lens is one of my favorite lenses and is ultra-sharp. It is a bit slower focusing but I don't know it that is typical of macro lenses or in G series lenses or just this lens. The AF seems to be plenty fast for portrait work to me.

navydoc wrote in post #18870878
This looks like a pretty good deal at B&H to me. Better hurry though...

Hosted photo: posted by navydoc in
./showthread.php?p=188​70878&i=i153355616
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

$400 cheaper than I bought mine for

Bill in Texas wrote in post #18870982
This was first due to expire on May 4 but was extended. It pushed me over the edge to buy one.

Glad you did I bet.

Bill in Texas wrote in post #18871103
Yes, the 6.3 is a definite drawback.

I've shot a lot of 2.0TC + 100-400GM and that's what F11?
I think I'll make do with 6.3.
Heck, truth is when I look at my wildlife images (bierds mostly I know my best shots
are with good to great light. Imagine that ha! So again 6.3 will be fine.

What I need to go with it though is the a7/a9 style cropper.

So my dream is the Sony president parades out on the stage with the 200-600 attached to
the a7000.

Over the years I've had many (is 3 many?) 150-600 lenses where either 600mm was not truly
600mm and/or it was not sharp at 600...know what I mean?

So there is some hope going on here.

There is yet another possibility in my life.
IF IF IF Sony could produce a 500/4 weighing no more than a scant above 5 pounds I'd go for it.
That's 2 pounds off the Canon ISii I sold after getting to the point where I couldn't enjoy wielding it.
2 pounds is a lot. Chances slim.

Lyndön wrote in post #18871179
Looks to be similar to a lens that Sigma makes for Canon/Nikon. So while slow, it’s about usual for the semi-affordable supertele zoom category.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_600mm_f_5_6_3_​dg_os.html

There’s a non-sport version for around $1000 and the sport for $1800. Since it’s a G lens and not a GM, maybe it’ll be priced in the middle.

6.3 pounds....interesting pound per F stop...hmmmm.
6.3 pounds is not in the cards for me anymore.
I carried the 120-300mm/2.8 7.3 pounds for a couple of years and it just about broke me.

As much as I'd like the 200-600mm, if it is significantly above 5 pounds then I won't use it.

I struggled lugging around my Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Lens when I had it. It weighed 5.62 lbs.

My Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5–5.6 GM OSS at 3.08 lbs is much easier on me.

I’m glad I am not into telephotos, seems like an expensive rabbit hole! My current dilemma is on the other end. I was hiking yesterday for 8 hours and switching between my cv15 and lox21. Whilst I love the size of those lenses, the sharpness and the sun stars I couldn’t help but think I would be better off with a 16-35 of some sort to save the lens changing. I can’t decide between the GM, the f/4 or waiting to see how the tamron performs. I’m also not sure I can bring myself to sell the 15 and 21

First time with A9 had issues with black lines in the photos (2nd photo bottom of photo). Will go more in depth later

Tammy at 75mm F2.8 Natural light.

First sooc with little sharpening. Auto white balance. no color correction. Lightroom only.

2nd was color graded.

looks like a keeper

LED's ??
silent shutter??

vinmunoz wrote in post #18871316
Tammy at 75mm F2.8 Natural light.

First sooc with little sharpening. Auto white balance. no color correction. Lightroom only.

2nd was color graded.

looks like a keeper

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=188​71316&i=i63190524
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=188​71316&i=i169798524
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Vinz, to me and on my screen the first looks natural. The second does not.
AND, that man has my beard.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18871325
Vinz, to me and on my screen the first looks natural. The second does not.
AND, that man has my beard.

yah i went overboard on the color grading on the second one. I like the sooc color coming out of this lens and AWB. it looks natural.

yah he has beard although i don't know if his is a result of depression. he's been like that since his house was burnt down to ashes from the Camp Fire in Paradise, Ca