Very kind of you to do so Rick! Thank you. They do look pretty consistent, although th exposures are all different... Still, nothing really noticeable. Shame, that ZA set is now sold... I think I'll still have to get it one day though... Maybe next year after we see what sony do in the way of future ff cameras. Thanks everyone for their help
@mirkoc: The 35/2 can be found for around 250-450 GBP here in the UK depending upon condition, version. The 35/2 and 100/2 are a good pair, render similarly, and perform very well on the a900. I use 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 as I need that extra speed, but they do weigh a fair bit more, so not all great - they render slightly differently to the 35/2 and 100/2 (although the difference in minimal). If you have quite a casual style then two lenses like that can go really well together, and you'll likely find you need nothing else
I wouldn't mind new 24/2 or 85/2.8 either. Not to mention 135/1.8! But these two, 35 and 100, have instantly caught my attention. I haven't seen many pics, even haven't looked for so far, but the rendering is beautiful. It reminds of my favorite 50mm lens - Yashica ML 50/2. It could be that F2 lenses have something magical in them if all ingredients work out.
By the way, ricardovaste, I am interested what a 'casual style' is?
Lol, that is me being lazy with my wording . By which I mean you're not a long lens hunter with sports or wildlife, you're not a macro shooter, you're not a dedicated landscape shooter, you're not an every lens at every focal length take the kitchen sink with me just incase shooter... You enjoy a couple of simple, more traditional focal lengths, for recording the day to day, often people, environments etc.
Be objective about what you might want/need to start with. A 135/1.8 & 24/2 will render very differently to 35/2 & 100/2. Try keeping it Minolta, the 24/2.8 is still a good performer on the a900, maybe even the 20/2.8 instead. Or all zeiss, 24/2, 135/1.8 (or 85/1.4) , then add 50/1.2 when it appears. There is no talk of 35 zeiss yet, which is the only really obvious omission in the "normal" range after the 50 comes out.. If 35 is your favourite fl perhaps keep it Minolta.
ricardovaste wrote:
Lol, that is me being lazy with my wording . By which I mean you're not a long lens hunter with sports or wildlife, you're not a macro shooter, you're not a dedicated landscape shooter, you're not an every lens at every focal length take the kitchen sink with me just incase shooter... You enjoy a couple of simple, more traditional focal lengths, for recording the day to day, often people, environments etc.
Be objective about what you might want/need to start with. A 135/1.8 & 24/2 will render very differently to 35/2 & 100/2. Try keeping it Minolta, the 24/2.8 is still a good performer on the a900, maybe even the 20/2.8 instead. Or all zeiss, 24/2, 135/1.8 (or 85/1.4) , then add 50/1.2 when it appears. There is no talk of 35 zeiss yet, which is the only really obvious omission in the "normal" range after the 50 comes out.. If 35 is your favourite fl perhaps keep it Minolta....Show more →
I see. Thanks for the lens recommendation. I'll keep that in mind if I decide to switch system. Let's wait for the next FF SLR.
Nice atlantel, I like how those blues lead you through the warmth.
Mirkoc, I missed one at 725gbp on dyxum last week, a friend offered me one a month ago at 700gbp. So im willing to pay in the 700-750 GBP area. Lower than eBay of course, but I was looking for a user to user trade, ie no eBay/PayPal fees.
