Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Same happens to me with flickr ,

It was the first thing I did.

In good light the lens is fine just not as fast as the Sigma. In low light the sigma wins still. EYE AF is pretty sick though!

David83 wrote in post #18388755
It was the first thing I did.

In good light the lens is fine just not as fast as the Sigma. In low light the sigma wins still. EYE AF is pretty sick though!

AF motor in the 50 1.8 is not the best

practice compositing. The model was shot by the A9. It's a goodbye to A9 today and guess what, I don't have a GAS with it.

Just requested a 100 stf from Sony Pro services. Ive been getting booked to do a lot of portfolio headshots (those cosplay folks I shoot are mostly actors and models) so I'm wondering how well the 100 stf will work here. For critical headshots there's trade-off between the OOF rendering and how much of your subjects face is in focus. Having only the eyes in focus doesn't cut it here, but you don't want distracting backgrounds either. I'm interested in seeing how well the stf mitigates that.

i didn't get one because it was not available so I asked for the 70-200 instead. I hope it's available now. Excited to hear your thoughts about it.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18388798
i didn't get one because it was not available so I asked for the 70-200 instead. I hope it's available now. Excited to hear your thoughts about it.

Ah I hope it's available. Headshot shoot is this wknd!

I've been on the fence about this lens. When I do shoot at 135 it's very often stopped down because f2 does not have enough dof....I use 135 for tightly framed shots and 85 for half body shots. Of course the trade-off when stopping down is the bokeh.

If the stf were a 135 I probably would have gotten it already.

the stf is too specialized, I'de just take the 70-200 @ 200.

You'll get that blur, especially for a headshot or head and shoulders.

Secondly, the perspective control, you can shoot the 70-200 at varying distances.

mystik610 wrote in post #18388756
AF motor in the 50 1.8 is not the best

the 50 does hunt in low light, like 1/60 1.8 ISO 16,000 (yes correct zero placement), however it's more of a pulse to get focus rather than hunt.

the closest behavior for the 50 is the 85 gm, but other than that, it works wonderful for video and stills.

I am antsy...waiting on the FE50....it is out for delivery...I intentionally did NOT bring the camera to work...I know what would have happened...

Charlie wrote in post #18388806
the stf is too specialized, I'de just take the 70-200 @ 200.

You'll get that blur, especially for a headshot or head and shoulders.

Secondly, the perspective control, you can shoot the 70-200 at varying distances.

Yes that's my thought as well. It's also the reason I think I'm ok without a 135.

My understanding with the stf is that you can still get pleasing bokeh while keeping your entire subject in focus. There's value to that if it really pans out, since the one eye in focus look isn't always ideal.

The thing I dislike about 200mm is the working distance....it's hard to give direction when you're standing too far away.

TRhoads wrote in post #18388811
I am antsy...waiting on the FE50....it is out for delivery...I intentionally did NOT bring the camera to work...I know what would have happened...

lol, did you get it via GT? I have the sigma 135 coming in for evaluation today and probably for the next year. After that, it's gotta be the soul searching with the 12-24 and 16-35. Why do I have to choose? Why cant I own both

mystik610 wrote in post #18388812
Yes that's my thought as well. It's also the reason I think I'm ok without a 135.

My understanding with the stf is that you can still get pleasing bokeh while keeping your entire subject in focus. There's value to that if it really pans out, since the one eye in focus look isn't always ideal.

The thing I dislike about 200mm is the working distance....it's hard to give direction when you're standing too far away.

one of the benefits of a longer lens like the 200 is that you generally can get the "telephoto pop" and have the entire subject in focus, rather than a melting effect like the 85 1.4 really close.

when 200 working distance is an issue, then you have the 85 to fall back on

yes, working distance of the 200 can be a total pain, same with the 135, not that friendly either. Sometimes I like overhead portraits, 135 and 200 NOT going to work

Charlie wrote in post #18388813
lol, did you get it via GT? I have the sigma 135 coming in for evaluation today and probably for the next year. After that, it's gotta be the soul searching with the 12-24 and 16-35. Why do I have to choose? Why cant I own both

I didn't...I am too ADD and instant gratification...

Taking a chance with my fe 16-35 on ebay .. new account so not allowed to have anything more than 500..lol yikes !!

Id be a bit annoyed if it really sold for 500 , i doubt it , but im prepared to accept that

No luck here or on fm.. so hopefully ebay does the trick