rob_ww wrote:
Do you think the 40G is a better lens than the 50G full stop? I have not seen anyone say that outright, although it has perhaps been implied a couple of times.
Agree about the Q3 but that's not in the game here anyway.
Bastian writes about this in his review:
"There are some minor differences compared to the Sony FE 40mm 2.5 G: this 50mm lens does a bit better when it comes to purple fringing and flare resistance, but it also doesn’t have that outstanding resolution and contrast from f/2.5 – still enough for any application I could think of though."
Dang. I looked into that and i do prefer aperture rings, specifically because i didn't realize the a7cr doesn't have enough dials for all 3 exposure settings without extra button presses.
The A7Cr has 4 dials - front, back, top and back vertical.
As for lenses, the 28 f2 and 55 f1.8 Zeiss were my starting set and I happily go back to them when I want the most compact setup. If I was only allowed one lens (perish the thought!), it would be the Zeiss 55mm.
Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 50mm f/2 Aspherical Lens for Sony E
Anyone have experience with the bokeh of that? And now i just need a wide version.:-) perhaps the Voigtlander APO-LANTHAR 50mm f/2 Aspherical?
The leica would pay for the a7cr and both of those...
UPDATE: dang i knew that was too goo to be true. They're manual focus... Well poo.
I just got a Viltrox 50mm f2 which is autofocus. It's much, much better than the Sony 50mm f1.8 that I tried out years ago. I'm still getting the hang of it, but so far I'm a fan. Plus the $200 price tag is easy to swallow.
I also had the 55mm f1.8 a long time ago, but the ridiculous CA wide open was not easy to fix in post. The 50mm Viltrox is pretty good on the CA front so far.
I'd post a pic of the A7CII with a Sigma 24 f/2 if I had buy sell on... I put it side by side with a A6500 with a Zeiss 24mm 1.8 (basically APS-C that should be similar to a Fuji). They are roughly the same size but the full frame combo is a tad heavier for sure.
Coming from Fujis, if you like aperture rings, the Sigma Contemporary I's are very nice build quality though a tad heavier.
kenthomson wrote:
The A7Cr has 4 dials - front, back, top and back vertical.
As for lenses, the 28 f2 and 55 f1.8 Zeiss were my starting set and I happily go back to them when I want the most compact setup. If I was only allowed one lens (perish the thought!), it would be the Zeiss 55mm.
From my research it is not possible to have ss, aperture, and iso all accessible on one control each without first having to press a button to switch one to iso. Is that not true? Can a lens with no aperture ring be used and you still be able to touch one control for each adjustment. In other words, I don't want to press a button and THEN rotate an iso dial. I want to simply rotate whichever setting dial i want for instant adjustment.
So many responses... To give a bit more insight regarding my desired lenses.. and these will all be referred to with apsc equivalency.
The reason i use the fuji 18 and 33 are a few.
First, the optical quality. I don't care that some people think sharpness is overrated. I know you can make photos without it. But i want it. With two sharp lenses and a high resolution sensor cropping allows a lot of range of possibilities. I find the new 1.4 lenses are excellent all around sharpness. I'm happy with the old 1.4 lenses as well, but they suffer from noticeably less sharpness wide open and more CA. Otherwise, the 35 1.4 has been my overall favorite lens ever for fuji even with those flaws. I got the 33 more recently as it fixed those flaws.
The reason for those two FL is simply through years of shooting and observation. I have had the 18 f2 before and have the 16 2.8 and 18-55 and 16-55. In all my shooting i found i shot almost exclusively at the widest and most tele FL. The only reason I rarely shoot in the middle is that the apertures are not fast enough. I would generally shoot wide open for people and subjects and while not always necessary i often want background separation. So the 16-18 range is what i would use for landscape, architecture, etc. together, those two ends of the zooms worked well. I prefer 18 over 16 ever so slightly due to less distorted perspective. And after using the primes a lot i prefer 35 over 55 because it allows more context and good working distance while stil giving excellent separation with a 1.4 aperture. And i feel the perspective and compression are my favorite.
If i want more reach 55 is good and then i get into tele zoom range. My dream lens would be a 16-55 1.4. ha. The size of a pancake lens!
Anyhow, i shoot other FL but they account for less than 10% of all my shots so 2 lenses would cover 90%. I could vary a bit in FL but I've found that using the x100 I don't like 23mm. It's never wide enough or tele enough. Just odd in the middle. And I love 55 but when using 2 lenses that leaves a pretty big gap between them.hence the 18 and 33. So that general range and pairing is my goal.
If i didn't love portraits i could probably live with just the 18 for most of my shots as a one lens solution. But even the q3, while very respectable, keeps me wanting when it comes to portraits.
I'm not personally enamored with the 2.0 50 Viltrox Air, but it does seem like a good choice for you. The image quality easily allows for cropping.
I don't understand why the discussion about whether you can directly adjust the ISO is now taking place in connection with the aperture ring and the number of dials. If that's not possible, then it wouldn't be possible even with 10 dials, and the aperture ring has no effect on it anyway.
In other words, this whole thing has nothing to do with finding the right lens, but rather with whether you even want a Sony camera. This question should be answered before discussing the appropriate lens. IMO.
From my research it is not possible to have ss, aperture, and iso all accessible on one control each without first having to press a button to switch one to iso. Is that not true? Can a lens with no aperture ring be used and you still be able to touch one control for each adjustment. In other words, I don't want to press a button and THEN rotate an iso dial. I want to simply rotate whichever setting dial i want for instant adjustment.
Out of the box and in manual exposure mode, front dial controls aperture, rear dial controls shutter speed. Top dial is exposure compensation, but can easily be changed to ISO. That still leaves the rear vertical dial free, can’t recall what the default is. All of these dials can be customised to your preference, so aperture and shutter dial could be swapped, for example.
Aperture ring on a lens overrides the front dial, or just turn it to “A” to put control back on the front dial, no button pressing or menu diving required.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I'm not personally enamored with the 2.0 50 Viltrox Air, but it does seem like a good choice for you. The image quality easily allows for cropping.
I don't understand why the discussion about whether you can directly adjust the ISO is now taking place in connection with the aperture ring and the number of dials. If that's not possible, then it wouldn't be possible even with 10 dials, and the aperture ring has no effect on it anyway.
In other words, this whole thing has nothing to do with finding the right lens, but rather with whether you even want a Sony camera. This question should be answered before discussing the appropriate lens. IMO....Show more →
Because, if a lens is proposed without an aperture ring that's fine as long as i can control all the settings directly. If i can't i would want a lens with an aperture ring or perhaps not the a7cr. But it seems like it might be possible. I've seen varying reports of this.
kenthomson wrote:
Out of the box and in manual exposure mode, front dial controls aperture, rear dial controls shutter speed. Top dial is exposure compensation, but can easily be changed to ISO. That still leaves the rear vertical dial free, can’t recall what the default is. All of these dials can be customised to your preference, so aperture and shutter dial could be swapped, for example.
Aperture ring on a lens overrides the front dial, or just turn it to “A” to put control back on the front dial, no button pressing or menu diving required.
So if the exposure compensation dial is set to iso you simply rotate it and it instantly changes iso? Is it a free spinning wheel?
luisdent wrote:
So if the exposure compensation dial is set to iso you simply rotate it and it instantly changes iso? Is it a free spinning wheel?
@kenthomson is right. I just tried it. The answer is therefore 2x YES.
luisdent wrote:
I'm considering trying sony coming from fuji x system. I want so badly to keep things as close the the xt5 size with 18 1.4 and 33 1.4 as a baseline for quality.
I can't seem to find similar lenses (28/50) with decent apertures (say 1.8 minimum) that come close to the fuji in size. Can anyone recommend any that i might be missing? Or is it a pipe dream to get close to the same size? I know it's "possible" because i currently have a leica q3 and it is small and full frane with a killer lens. But it's all one unit and not cheap. (And i may not keep it as it would fund the sony)
I like the a7cr as well, i assume that's the smallest full frame sony? ...Show more →
If you want to take a shot on FF that looks identical to your 33/1.4 on apsc you need to shoot at 50mm f/2
Likewise if you take a FF 50/2 and use a speed booster to convert it to APSC’s image circle you will get a 33/1.4
What full frame gets you is about 50% more real resolution, and access to faster lenses for even shallower DOF. f/1.4 on FF is a stop shallower than the f/1.4 you are used to.
What you probably want are the f/1.8 - f/2 primes. Sigma has quite a number of f/2 primes in 20, 24, 35, 50, and 65mm.
Sony’s 20/1.8 is also very good.
Sony’s 35/1.8 and 55/1.8 are decent, not quite GM level but should comfortably outresolve your apsc lenses.
So if the exposure compensation dial is set to iso you simply rotate it and it instantly changes iso? Is it a free spinning wheel?
There is no exposure dial as such, but a free spinning dial that can be assigned to exposure compensation or ISO or many other things. As there are 4 dials available, you can have ISO on one dial _and_ exposure compensation on another. The Sony cameras are extremely customisable.
aCuria wrote:
If you want to take a shot on FF that looks identical to your 33/1.4 on apsc you need to shoot at 50mm f/2
Likewise if you take a FF 50/2 and use a speed booster to convert it to APSC’s image circle you will get a 33/1.4
What full frame gets you is about 50% more real resolution, and access to faster lenses for even shallower DOF. f/1.4 on FF is a stop shallower than the f/1.4 you are used to.
What you probably want are the f/1.8 - f/2 primes. Sigma has quite a number of f/2 primes in 20, 24, 35, 50, and 65mm.
Sony’s 20/1.8 is also very good.
Sony’s 35/1.8 and 55/1.8 are decent, not quite GM level but should comfortably outresolve your apsc lenses.
Definitely. I'm very familiar with equivalent focal lengths and aperture. The only area equivalency doesn't really matter is the aperture for low light purposes. A 1.4 lens is a 1.4 lens and will let in more light on any system. However this is somewhat made up for by the fact that full frame has better ISO performance. So I think I could be okay with an f2 lens. I'm not happy with an f2 lens on Fuji though, as it requires more ISO which results in worse looking noise patterns.
So the wider the better, but f2 is probably a good upper limit.
luisdent wrote:
To my eye aaa is smoothest, bbb is most blur and ccc is least blur and more rough texture in blur...
Agree
The smoothest blur is the Viltrox Air
The most blur is the Sony 50mm f1.8. (and it looks like it's a tighter focal length, all were shot on a tripod at the same distance).
The rough texture on is my least favorite the Sony 50 f2.4G
fotografur wrote:
Agree
The smoothest blur is the Viltrox Air
The most blur is the Sony 50mm f1.8. (and it looks like it's a tighter focal length, all were shot on a tripod at the same distance).
The rough texture on is my least favorite the Sony 50 f2.4G
$200? Holy crap. That's insane performance for the price. So what's the equivalent 26/28mm? Haha
