Fred Miranda wrote:
A while back I sold you a perfect 50/1.4 ZA and you didn't keep it!!!
Sounds like an endless loop :P
Fred Miranda wrote:
Currently I have great copies of the 50/1.4 ZA and 55/1.8 ZA. I've learned the 55/1.8 works great on the A6500 together with Sony's 24/1.8. (35/85 equiv. tiny lenses on a small body)
Yes, the 24/55 combo is the way to go for the A6500. I've used it for four months and it is very practical with fast AF, reasonable size and decent optical qualities.
I've missed the 24 on my A7ii so much that I just got a 2.8/35 ZA as replacement. Not the same macro feature but even smaller and otherwise quite comparable.
Fred Miranda wrote:
A while back I sold you a perfect 50/1.4 ZA and you didn't keep it!!!
Currently I have great copies of the 50/1.4 ZA and 55/1.8 ZA. I've learned the 55/1.8 works great on the A6500 together with Sony's 24/1.8. (35/85 equiv. tiny lenses on a small body)
Fred don't forget about the 35mm f/2.8 ZA on the A6500 it also makes a great 50ish lens to go along with the 24mm and 55mm so you have a nice 3 lens kit of 35/50/85.
Chuck
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Fred don't forget about the 35mm f/2.8 ZA on the A6500 it also makes a great 50ish lens to go along with the 24mm and 55mm so you have a nice 3 lens kit of 35/50/85.
Chuck
I really like the size of A6500 + 35/2.8 ZA but don't find rendering that nice. It's more like a 50/4 with harsh rendering at mid-distances.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Sounds like an endless loop :P
I've missed the 24 on my A7ii so much that I just got a 2.8/35 ZA as replacement. Not the same macro feature but even smaller and otherwise quite comparable.
I compared the 24/1.8 ZA (A6500) vs 35/2.8 ZA (A7RII) side by side, wide-open at many different distances. They are pretty much equivalent as far as FL and blur.
It's shocking how similar the OOF rendering is, sometimes it was not easy to tell them apart. Of course the 24/1.8 focuses much closer but at similar distances they are pretty much equal in 'look'. There are many reports saying the 24/1.8 has smooth rendering, but like the 35/2.8ZA, it's only at close distance.
The 35/2.8 ZA is better corrected for aberration though, especially LoCA and it's noticeably sharper wide open.
I'm not sure which is smaller to carry...A6500 + 24/1.8 or A7RII + 35/2.8.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I compared the 24/1.8 ZA (A6500) vs 35/2.8 ZA (A7RII) side by side, wide-open for both lenses. They are pretty much equivalent as far as FL and blur.
It's shocking how similar the OOF rendering is, sometimes it was not easy to tell them apart. Of course the 24/1.8 focuses much closer but at similar distances they are pretty much equal in 'look'. There are many reports saying the 24/1.8 has smooth rendering, but like the 35/2.8ZA, it's only at close distance.
The 35/2.8 ZA is better corrected for aberration though, especially LoCA and it's noticeably sharper wide open.
I'm not sure which is smaller to carry...A6500 + 24/1.8 or A7RII + 35/2.8. ...Show more →
The "pentaprism" bump on the A7xy series make up for most of the difference between them and the A6x00 series. That's why a couple of small lenses like the 28/2, 35/2.8 ended my need for a crop camera. Now, if someone would make an AF 85/2.8 FE, like there was the Sony A-mount 85/2.8 clasical five element Sonnar type.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I compared the 24/1.8 ZA (A6500) vs 35/2.8 ZA (A7RII) side by side, wide-open at many different distances. They are pretty much equivalent as far as FL and blur.
It's shocking how similar the OOF rendering is, sometimes it was not easy to tell them apart. Of course the 24/1.8 focuses much closer but at similar distances they are pretty much equal in 'look'. There are many reports saying the 24/1.8 has smooth rendering, but like the 35/2.8ZA, it's only at close distance.
The 35/2.8 ZA is better corrected for aberration though, especially LoCA and it's noticeably sharper wide open.
I'm not sure which is smaller to carry...A6500 + 24/1.8 or A7RII + 35/2.8. ...Show more →
This comparison is very interesting to me. Apart from the OOF similarities, did you find the rendering in general to be very similar? Would you be likely to keep both set-ups for any reason? Or do they overlap so much that there is little point? Of course, the larger aperture on the 24 is nice.
chiron wrote:
This comparison is very interesting to me. Apart from the OOF similarities, did you find the rendering in general to be very similar? Would you be likely to keep both set-ups for any reason? Or do they overlap so much that there is little point? Of course, the larger aperture on the 24 is nice.
The rendering is very similar. Colors, contrast and OOF harshness when shooting a mid and long distances.
It's hard to tell them apart, except that I find the 35/2.8 ZA sharper wide open throughout the entire field. It's also better corrected for LoCA despite of its smaller size.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The rendering is very similar. Colors, contrast and OOF harshness when shooting a mid and long distances.
It's hard to tell them apart, except that I find the 35/2.8 ZA sharper wide open throughout the entire field. It's also better corrected for LoCA despite of its smaller size.
That really is a very interesting comparison. I feel like there is a lot that could be learned from it--two very different rigs with similar image qualities. And I guess the difference in sensor size cancels the difference in max aperture, at least to some extent.
chiron wrote:
That really is a very interesting comparison. I feel like there is a lot that could be learned from it--two very different rigs with similar image qualities. And I guess the difference in sensor size cancels the difference in max aperture, at least to some extent.
Yes, basically you get similar blur:
24mm x 1.5 = 36mm
f/1.8 x 1.5 = f/2.7
So... 35/2.8 equiv.
You get to shoot at lower ISOs on the A6500 (with the f/1.8 lens) but once you downsize the 42MP to 24MP, noise levels also pretty much equalize.
I'm new to the forum but have been reading through a lot of the Sony threads for the past few weeks. I really admire and appreciate how Fred tends to remain very objective regarding lens performance - letting his excellent testing examples speak for themselves. Really a great resource here and one that does away with alot of the subjective bickering that tends to overrun sites like dpr.
So earlier in this thread Jochenb was claiming that the 35 ZA has strange dof behavior - when stopping down dof only increases in the foreground but not behind the subject. Did you have a chance to test this out Fred? It doesn't seem like there's any way that this is correct so I'm really curious.
twomblywhite wrote:
So earlier in this thread Jochenb was claiming that the 35 ZA has strange dof behavior - when stopping down dof only increases in the foreground but not behind the subject. Did you have a chance to test this out Fred? It doesn't seem like there's any way that this is correct so I'm really curious.
My copy really did this. I tested it numerous times. When I replaced it with the FE 35/1.4 I never noticed such things.
I only tried one, but at Diglloyd (paid section) the same weird behavior was later also mentioned.
It can still be sample variation ofcourse.
twomblywhite wrote:
I'm new to the forum but have been reading through a lot of the Sony threads for the past few weeks. I really admire and appreciate how Fred tends to remain very objective regarding lens performance - letting his excellent testing examples speak for themselves. Really a great resource here and one that does away with alot of the subjective bickering that tends to overrun sites like dpr.
So earlier in this thread Jochenb was claiming that the 35 ZA has strange dof behavior - when stopping down dof only increases in the foreground but not behind the subject. Did you have a chance to test this out Fred? It doesn't seem like there's any way that this is correct so I'm really curious....Show more →
Thanks and welcome to FM!
I confess I was curious about this but forgot to give it a try.
My lens is also within the affected serial numbers. I read on dpreview that you should shine a light through the rear elements and check for dust particles.
And when shining a light through the rear elements I can see really small particles on the 2n or third glass element. I checked other lenses (2470gm, 70200gm, 85gm) and they do not have these small particles.
On the other hand, I am super happy with my 50 1.4 and it didnt affect IQ as far as I can see. Is this issue something that gets worse over time?
"To address this issue, subject to the terms and conditions in the Limited Warranty that accompanied the Affected Models, we will repair your Affected Model, free of charge, until October 31, 2019."
DTFagus wrote:
My lens is also within the affected serial numbers. I read on dpreview that you should shine a light through the rear elements and check for dust particles.
And when shining a light through the rear elements I can see really small particles on the 2n or third glass element. I checked other lenses (2470gm, 70200gm, 85gm) and they do not have these small particles.
On the other hand, I am super happy with my 50 1.4 and it didnt affect IQ as far as I can see. Is this issue something that gets worse over time?
i'd give it a day or two before calling Sony USA - just wasted an hour educating the person (not her fault, she just had no idea there was an issue/recall on this lens)
hopefully 'word' gets to the call center in a week or two so they can be more helpful......
i tried getting the 'chat' guy to send me a photo of what an affected lens would look like - but he wasn't aware of the problem either.
i have a s/n in the range but can't tell what i'm supposed to be looking for - but i'm going to have them deal with it b/c it's my favorite lens (and the only one i'm keeping, having sold my a7r2 and all other lenses, again).
