Not the right thread for this but on your 50-150 does the iris lock just lock into or out of A for you, or can you lock it into f2.0 for example? I swear I had it locked and it stayed locked on a specific aperture setting (f2.0 in my case), but today the ring was rotating freely even with iris lock on. The manual says it should lock.
On mine, if I turn the lock on while in "A", I can't get out of "A". If I turn the lock on while I'm not in "A", I can change to any aperture.....but I can't change it to "A". So no, mine won't lock a specific aperture. Just keeps you from accidentally getting out of "A"...or accidentally getting into "A".
"To lock the aperture ring at “A” on the aperture scale or limit the turning of the aperture ring within the range from f/2 to f/22 on the aperture scale, slide the IRIS LOCK switch toward the mark."
As written it's saying that the lock will limit you to the f/2 to f/22 range....not a specific aperture within that range.
It was soupy with humidity in central Pennsylvania yesterday morning. Went out to compare the 50-150 to some of my primes. Was a little harder to match shots than I expected and the light kept changing as the mostly cloudy skies would give way to some sun at times. Here are some wide open shots from the 50-150 FWIW.
tsdevine wrote:
It was soupy with humidity in central Pennsylvania yesterday morning. Went out to compare the 50-150 to some of my primes. Was a little harder to match shots than I expected and the light kept changing as the mostly cloudy skies would give way to some sun at times. Here are some wide open shots from the 50-150 FWIW.
mudlake wrote:
Tim - you are getting some great shots with this lens! Did you end up buying it? The last I remember you had rented it for a while. Very nice.
Yeah....I bought the copy I rented from Lensrentals....couldn't bear putting it back in the box to ship back. It seemed to be well centered at every FL, which is like hitting a lottery for me with zooms. (Unfortunately I didn't hit the lottery to pay for it.)
mudlake wrote:
Tim - you are getting some great shots with this lens! Did you end up buying it? The last I remember you had rented it for a while. Very nice.
And thank you about the shots. It is a really fun lens to shoot, as it just delivers at any f-stop and focal length. And in the shooting I did yesterday, it really did hold up against my primes (CV 50/2 AL, Loxia 85, Sigma 105 macro, Batis 135).
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah....I bought the copy I rented from Lensrentals....couldn't bear putting it back in the box to ship back. It seemed to be well centered at every FL, which is like hitting a lottery for me with zooms. (Unfortunately I didn't hit the lottery to pay for it.)
Excellent! I'm glad you got it and are happy you hit the lottery. 🙂Well, one lottery. 😂
Peire wrote:
After testing the GM 50-150/2 yesterday I realized it is not for me.While very well built and having very good/excellent optics it is too (front)heavy,too bulky and has too small RR at each focal lenght for my needs.Fast,small primes/zooms will serve me better.
What f/2 or brighter AF prime has a better rr than the 0.2x on the 50-150GM, in the 50-150mm range? Only the 135GM maybe?
50GM is 0.18x
85GM is 0.12x
135GM is 0.25x
Sigma 50/2 is .14x
Sigma 65/2 is .15x
Sigma 50/1.2 is .16
Sigma 50/1.4 is .14
Sigma 85/1.4 is .12
tsdevine wrote:
It was soupy with humidity in central Pennsylvania yesterday morning. Went out to compare the 50-150 to some of my primes. Was a little harder to match shots than I expected and the light kept changing as the mostly cloudy skies would give way to some sun at times. Here are some wide open shots from the 50-150 FWIW.
Visualizing you going thru the process of changing to different prime lenses to try and get comparable test shots reminded me of why I wanted this lens in the first place. The 50-150 handles like my 70-200 GM II: size/weight non issue, IQ is equal if not a tad better. Like the 300 f2.8 GM it makes you want to look for ways to use it.
rd4tile wrote:
Visualizing you going thru the process of changing to different prime lenses to try and get comparable test shots reminded me of why I wanted this lens in the first place. The 50-150 handles like my 70-200 GM II: size/weight non issue, IQ is equal if not a tad better. Like the 300 f2.8 GM it makes you want to look for ways to use it.
Yeah, this was more for my own understanding, which I already had some opinions formed. I've learned though that if you were to show those comparisons here, you will often get picked apart if they are not near perfect. But for my own purposes, good enough, was good enough. I wasn't going to get hung up on absolute perfect tests.
Net net was my CV 50/2 APO was my only prime that arguably was noticeably better than the 50-150. For some of my primes it was close, in other cases the 50-150 was arguably better. But the CV 50 pretty much kills on consistent across the frame sharpness.
And the flexibility of the 50-150 is definitely freeing, no doubt.
I just shot my first event ending up with about 2k pics. I assumed that I would appreciate the framing 50mm would allow, and I ended up shooting about 41% of the shots at 50mm. About 17% of the shots were at 150. So my assumption before purchasing that I would benefit more from the wider angle vs. loss at the long end vs. the 70-200 seems to have held.
For reference the same event last year, only 23% of the shots were at the widest end of 70mm and 12% at 200mm. Looking back at the pics, I was too close to compose shots of clusters of people without cutting parts off awkwardly, so I chose to compose tighter, getting 2 people in a trio instead of all 3, for example. At some point I might consider shooting 2 bodies with a 24mm or so attached (but, I am not a pro by any means, and really, am I going to be that guy), but for now, if nothing else, the 50mm and the extra stop (kept my ISO lower/shutter speed higher than before) feel worth it (also, much sharper pixel peeping than my original GM).
I don't know about you all, but I like looking back over data to see how the tools get leveraged.
isyoox703 wrote:
So my assumption before purchasing that I would benefit more from the wider angle vs. loss at the long end vs. the 70-200 seems to have held.
I think 70-200mm lenses have serious competition from this 50-150mm f/2.0 and a Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8.
For primes it could be different. This Sony can probably replace the 135mm (although there's f/1.4 available thanks to Sigma). The Tamron probably replaces a 35mm. But at 50 and 85mm having f/1.4 or even f/1.2 matters. And while this Sony zoom is good, I like even the f/2.0 stopped down bokeh from my 50mm f/1.2 GM and Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art better. I know these lenses are worthless if you need to zoom, but I still can't get myself buying an expensive and heavy f/2.0 zoom knowing it will lead to using my better primes less.
At the same time: 50-150mm is an enjoyable range. Owning this lens would make it very hard to decide what to put in the bag.
aCuria wrote:
Hopefully we get something similar for E mount.
It's as big as an f/1.4 lens, it weights just around 130g less, and the AF is so so.
If you're with kids in an arboretum it's great, as long as the kinds don't move to fast, and it's not a windy day causing too much motion for capturing flowers.
It's great for full body portraits at 135-150mm, and a full replacement of a 135mm f/1.8, while it also gives you the flexibility to do 100mm 85mm and 50mm from the waist up portraits, however, for full body portraits at those shorter focal lengths you'll still need f/1.4 or f/1.2 primes if you want a perfect smooth background, and that's probably not just a matter of aperture numbers only, as I expect some of these primes to still give a smoother back ground at f/2.0. When opening up that aperture of f/1.4 and f/1.2 completely 50mm and 85mm (105mm) primes give you the flexibility of a smooth back ground at their respective focal lengths for full body portraits, while with this zoom you would still need to back up, use 135 or 150mm to get the smoothness in that background you're looking for. You could probably call that "set the aperture by your feet". It's not a zoom that does allow for less walking than an 85mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 prime when it comes to full body portraits. The difference: With this zoom you'll have to back up when the subject should be smaller in the frame and yet you want a smooth background, and with an 85mm you should come closer when the subject should be larger in the frame, while your background is smooth enough anyway.
All in all, If from the waist up or tighter shots are the main goal, I would go with this zoom. If more environmental or full body shots are the main goal, an 85mm prime might be more flexible.
