I actually didnt like the 90 mac and picked up a Tamron 70-180 but am missing the macro. In the canon days I loved my 100L.
Thinking the 65 is just better for my kit world. I have CV10, Lox 21, Tam 17-28 and CV40 ...... then Tam 70-180 and 200-600.
Any thoughts on why I would take the 110 over the 65 or am I in the right place with adding the 65
Thanks
1:1 macro capability over 1:2 and focal length. If you're looking for true macro, the 110 would likely fit the bill better and give you more options with the longer focal length.
That said, I love my 65 and use it for landscapes and macros when out hiking. I also have the Lox 21, CV 40, and the CV 65 is next in line.
Finally, I do have the Sony 90mm for when I want a better macro experience and more focal length.
I actually didnt like the 90 mac and picked up a Tamron 70-180 but am missing the macro. In the canon days I loved my 100L.
Thinking the 65 is just better for my kit world. I have CV10, Lox 21, Tam 17-28 and CV40 ...... then Tam 70-180 and 200-600.
Any thoughts on why I would take the 110 over the 65 or am I in the right place with adding the 65
Thanks
It's just a question if you "see" the world well in 65 mm (for me, I often do). There is no question about the lens itself - in my view it is basically perfect. Portland Japanese garden with an a7iii, handheld. So much detail is retained, that in the jpeg compression to make the image suitable for loading here I had to use a lower quality jpeg to keep it below 2 Mb.
photonoclast wrote:
It's just a question if you "see" the world well in 65 mm (for me, I often do). There is no question about the lens itself - in my view it is basically perfect. Portland Japanese garden with an a7iii, handheld. So much detail is retained, that in the jpeg compression to make the image suitable for loading here I had to use a lower quality jpeg to keep it below 2 Mb.
Thank you all..... I am from Beaverton so this pic happens to hit a soft spot for me from growing up there ..... left in 1985
I fear that if I get the 65 the 40 will be abandoned and if I get the 110 the Tamron 70-180 will be abandoned but maybe that is a good thing.
^^^ You won't abandon the 40 for the 65. Too different. Sometimes my complete kit for a day has been the Rx1rii (35mm) and the CV65 on the A. Covers an immense amount, and never have to change lenses (nice and compact since the Rx1rii isn't much bigger than the lens itself). If I want to add any more capability, I add the tiny CV 21/3.5 at essentially no extra cost in weight/space.
eriet30 wrote:
Thank you all..... I am from Beaverton so this pic happens to hit a soft spot for me from growing up there ..... left in 1985
I fear that if I get the 65 the 40 will be abandoned and if I get the 110 the Tamron 70-180 will be abandoned but maybe that is a good thing.
Comments are helping me think thanks again
I
Coming from somebody who has the 110mm this is my own perspective but 65mm is kind of an odd focal length. However if you are a prolific/experienced macro user, 65mm is a very useful length for product photography. If you want to return to macro photography, I would suggest starting with a longer focal length (90mm-110mm) then you can decide if you need to go longer(150mm-180mm) or shorter (65mm-70mm).
That said, the 65mm obviously has an amazing reputation as a high-resolving and well-corrected APO lens. For me, it's too expensive to justify just having it, and if I did do the occasional short macro shot, I'd probably get the Sigma 70mm or a legacy lens that's considerably cheaper and still wonderful. My 110mm is enough for what I do is a "buy it once" lens - killer lens that should still be wonderful once they get to 100mp or if adapted to other platforms.
I actually didnt like the 90 mac and picked up a Tamron 70-180 but am missing the macro. In the canon days I loved my 100L.
I don't own either lens (yet) but both appear to be world-class APOs. As for FL, only you can decide for yourself. For macro I have 55mm 1:2, 60 1:1, 70mm 1:1, 100 1:1, 135 1:2 and find 100mm to offer the best balance of working distance, lens weight and compression. The C/V 110 is my personal pick and I'll acquire it one day.
I bought the 65mm as my first sony lens. It can be a bit of an odd focal length but I don't think I could ever get rid of mine. I also find the 65mm works well for single row panos (ie camera oriented vertically). The detail with the 65 f2 and A7RIV is phenomenal.
I'd like the 110mm as well, but do enjoy AF for some things in that range, and it's hard to fault the 135 GM!
eriet30 wrote:
Thank you all..... I am from Beaverton so this pic happens to hit a soft spot for me from growing up there ..... left in 1985
I fear that if I get the 65 the 40 will be abandoned and if I get the 110 the Tamron 70-180 will be abandoned but maybe that is a good thing.
Comments are helping me think thanks again
I
As @photonoclast mentions, the 65 and 40 are completely different. Not only do the focal lengths differ enough that there is a place for both, but the rendering of both is completely different. Near clinical for the 65 with much more character for the 40.
eriet30 wrote:
Since you enjoyed a view of the Portland Japanese garden, I will post another from that day with the 65: the classic view of the bridge.
Thank you all..... I am from Beaverton so this pic happens to hit a soft spot for me from growing up there ..... left in 1985
I fear that if I get the 65 the 40 will be abandoned and if I get the 110 the Tamron 70-180 will be abandoned but maybe that is a good thing.
