you2 wrote:
Also which standard lens to most folks use on the sony? (sigma 50? zeiss zoom? sony macro 50 ?)
That is the main issue, at least for me, with the Sonys. There are now Zeiss primes shorter (wider) than 85mm (and no Zeiss macro). I really can't see why Sony would give us a Zeiss 50/1.4 (or 50/1.2) Planar? There is a rumoured Zeiss 24/1.4, but that rumour has been around forever and we've yet to see anything. Sony made have Zeiss lenses as an integral part of their system, but there are more Zeiss lenses available for both Nikon and Canon (and even Pentax). What is supposed to be a Sony advantage, is not been effectively exploited by Sony resulting in no advantage at all.
you2 wrote:
Has anyone compared the colours/rendering of the a850 to the a900. I know they are said to be identical but not sure if anyone has actually verified if this is the case. Still a bit concern about sony lens offering (and lack of announced roadmap) but to be honest the samples I see do look quite nice.
Also which standard lens to most folks use on the sony? (sigma 50? zeiss zoom? sony macro 50 ?)
I do think Sony should be more forthcoming concerning a lens roadmap. The lack of wide angle primes able to take advantage of the a900/a850 sensor is troublesome. There really exist no native, current production and readily available primes below 50mm that compare to the ZE and ZF Zeiss offerings. Come on, get it together Sony!
The first normal lens I used most often was the old Minolta 50mm 2.8 Macro. I found the Pentax Takumar Super Multi Coated 50 1.4 to be better and often use that. Recently, I picked up an old Maxxum kit at a yard sale for $10 that included the 50 1.7 and the Beercan. Quite the find. Turns out that this particular 50 performs very well. I do suspect a lot of sample variation with that lens because I originally owned a mint copy that was a dog. Have not tried the Sony/Minolta 50 1.4 but if I was in the market, I would get the Sigma today.
I own the ZA 24-70 and SMC Tak 50, but the Sony 50 1.4 is my most used lens. It's certainly a good performer, and here's a link to a test of multiple 50s on the A900:
There is also the Zeiss ZS option as well, since it looks like Sony is following Nikon's lead of wide angle zooms, although the 20mm 2.8 and 35 1.4 are underrated. The Minolta 35 f2 and 28 f2 are excellent, also.
All of this being said, I believe the OP already has his lenses taken care of.
p.s. Zeiss has never really been the Sony advantage, since the ZF range has been around a while. AUTOFOCUS Zeiss is the Sony advantage. If one doesn't need AF, then there are plenty of options from Hasselblad to Contax to ZS. I love using Hassie lenses on the A900.
buddyRoland wrote:
Of the two, D700 for the lens selection and it's an excellent, established camera.
It is though it would be inferior to other choices when used as a landscape camera due to the lack of resolution. His 5D would even out resolve the D700 so in that respect, he mine as well stay with what he has.
douglasf13 wrote:
p.s. Zeiss has never really been the Sony advantage, since the ZF range has been around a while. AUTOFOCUS Zeiss is the Sony advantage. If one doesn't need AF, then there are plenty of options from Hasselblad to Contax to ZS.
But it SHOULD be an advantage to the Sony system -- and adapted lenses, used inconveniently fully manually, limiting camera capabilities, etc, are not a serious option for most people. Sony has gone to the trouble and expense of locking Zeiss up in their relationship, and then fail to exploit it. The Sony system is attractive to serious photographer because of Zeiss' participation. But people aren't seeing that participation go beyond a mere few lenses, forcing people to use old Minolta re-treads (for the most part and outside of a couple unique offerings like the STF) -- you might claim they are excellent, but its all relative. They are certainly un-inspiring or un-exciting for most users compared having Zeiss lenses available. I'm sure the Minolta offerings are servicable, if you must. Canon and Nikon should be thanking Zeiss for the ZE and ZF fully functional lenses because they effectively eliminate the Zeiss advantage with Sony (due to Sony's failure to use Zeiss). To deny this is just an ineffective attempt to rationalize it away, and nothing more.
Sony needs to fill out its lens line with new, modern Zeiss lenses. They need the following:
Zeiss 100 Makro
Zeiss 50/1.4 or 50/1.2
Zeiss 35/1.4
Zeiss 25/1.4 (as rumoured)
Zeiss 21/2.8
Zeiss 15/2.8
If they fill out the line with these lenses (or even just some of them), they will get a lot more serious photographers switching over to Sony.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It is though it would be inferior to other choices when used as a landscape camera due to the lack of resolution. His 5D would even out resolve the D700 so in that respect, he mine as well stay with what he has.
Which is why I'm holding out for the 24mp sensor version of the D700. (D700x, D800 or D900 whatever you want to call it). Unless, of course, Sony gets it act together and gets some of these other Zeiss lenses into their system.
Lotusm50 wrote:
But it SHOULD be an advantage to the Sony system -- and adapted lenses, used inconveniently fully manually, limiting camera capabilities, etc, are not a serious option for most people. Sony has gone to the trouble and expense of locking Zeiss up in their relationship, and then fail to exploit it. The Sony system is attractive to serious photographer because of Zeiss' participation. But people aren't seeing that participation go beyond a mere few lenses, forcing people to use old Minolta re-treads (for the most part and outside of a couple unique offerings like the STF) -- you might claim they are excellent, but its all relative. They are certainly un-inspiring or un-exciting for most users compared having Zeiss lenses available. I'm sure the Minolta offerings are servicable, if you must. Canon and Nikon should be thanking Zeiss for the ZE and ZF fully functional lenses because they effectively eliminate the Zeiss advantage with Sony (due to Sony's failure to use Zeiss). To deny this is just an ineffective attempt to rationalize it away, and nothing more.
Sony needs to fill out its lens line with new, modern Zeiss lenses. They need the following:
Zeiss 100 Makro
Zeiss 50/1.4 or 50/1.2
Zeiss 35/1.4
Zeiss 25/1.4 (as rumoured)
Zeiss 21/2.8
Zeiss 15/2.8
If they fill out the line with these lenses (or even just some of them), they will get a lot more serious photographers switching over to Sony.
Completely agreed. I would add to that list a 200mm prime as well.
The situation is a bit frustrating at the moment. The available Zeiss lenses fill a huge range from 16 to 135mm but with only 4 lenses and many more primes are needed. We are not even sure if any Zeiss lenses are planned for the future. Like Tariq said, a lens roadmap is essential.
On the other hand, the lens development must be very slow, especially because Sony does not want to use any existing Zeiss designs and wants only new designs exclusively developed for Sony. Judging by the quality of the 4 available lenses, we should be very happy because Zeiss has outdone itself especially with the 2 primes. My guess that new Zeiss lenses will be released at a slow pace of 1 lens per year. It in noteworthy that the shortlived Contax N mount had no primes below 50mm, the WA range being covered by the 17-35 and 24-85. The 2 ZA zooms seem to be reincarnations, quite improved though, of the N zooms.
you2 wrote:
Also which standard lens to most folks use on the sony? (sigma 50? zeiss zoom? sony macro 50 ?)
The Sony 50 1.4 is a very capable lens, and very surprisingly, has a lot of the Zeiss look, namely high microcontrast and 3D. Sony could have added the T* coatings and labelled it a Zeiss Well, not quite but close
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Sony 50 1.4 is a very capable lens, and very surprisingly, has a lot of the Zeiss look, namely high microcontrast and 3D. Sony could have added the T* coatings and labelled it a Zeiss Well, not quite but close
Is it sharp by f2? I'm thinking of whether to get it or the Sigma for A900... the Sigma is more $ and heavier though.
I also have a hard time deciding whether I should splurge on the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 or get something cheaper in that range like a 28-135 + maybe a prime or 2.
Rob Chisholm wrote:
I've owned the 5d2 with L glass, the D700 with the nikon pro glass (14-24 wide, for example), and the now the Sony a850 with Zeiss glass...
The Sony is by far my favorite of the 3 for landscapes and fashion/portrait work as low ISO (<800). The files are just amazing. The skin tones are the nicest of the three cams, the colors are vibrant and post processing is a dream.
Just my 2cents. If I wanted high ISO or video, I would choose the 5D2.
My experience reflects this, I have tried just about everything... I can even add a 1ds3 to that list of "have hads", the a900 I now have is the best regarding IQ at low to normal ISOs (100-800). Above that, other cameras take the lead and the lead gets bigger with every ISO stop you go up... however, I dont care much for high ISO. If I did, I would be with a D3s or D700.
Posts about the 16-35 Zeiss vs the 14-24 Nikon are just about spot on. The 14-24 is an aberration, there is nothing like it. Ive used it on the 1ds3, D700, and 5Dmk2.... there is no competition in terms of sharpness and lens performance, certainly not at these FLs It is also a bowling ball.... that doesnt mount on the sony (not that I haven't looked everywhere on the web for the possibility). The 16-35 is perfect in the center, and fantastic stopped down into the corners, but it isnt "perfect" in the corners like the nikon. I have no idea what the corners look like wide open, I would scarcely take a 16mm shot at 2.8, and if I did, the corners wouldn't be of great importance.
The 24-70 and 135 1.8, I have yet to find any type of flaw or drawback on these lenses. They blow me away with every shot.
m_appeal wrote:
I also have a hard time deciding whether I should splurge on the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 or get something cheaper in that range like a 28-135 + maybe a prime or 2.
It is quite soft wide open, but sharpens a lot by f/2. From f/2.8 upwards it is simply stellar. I've read somewhere but can't remember where was it exactly that at f/5.6 this lens has the highest center sharpness of any 50mm of any brand.
As for the second point, I'm not really the right person to ask, since my answer is known in advance. It is a blasphemy to buy a cheaper lens, go for the Zeiss
The 24-70 is excellent and probably outperforms many primes. I have no hesitation to use it at any FL and always provides me with excellent sharp pictures. I usually switch to the Sony 50 1.4 when I need a light package, but the 24-70 is by far my most used lens.
m_appeal wrote:
Is it sharp by f2? I'm thinking of whether to get it or the Sigma for A900... the Sigma is more $ and heavier though.
I also have a hard time deciding whether I should splurge on the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 or get something cheaper in that range like a 28-135 + maybe a prime or 2.
Yeah, I think I will... I think I might just go ahead and splurge and get the Zeiss 24-70 and the Sigma 50 1.4 despite being totally broke (ok, I can't be broke if I'm buying Zeiss glass, but you know what I mean!). I've decided to pass on the Sigma 24-70 HSM, because I just don't trust the quality control with that lens, and close as a good copy *may* be to the Zeiss, it will still likely fall short in some aspects....
edwardkaraa wrote:
It is quite soft wide open, but sharpens a lot by f/2. From f/2.8 upwards it is simply stellar. I've read somewhere but can't remember where was it exactly that at f/5.6 this lens has the highest center sharpness of any 50mm of any brand.
Well, I plan on using the 50 at wider apertures quite a bit, so maybe I'd be better off getting the Sigma (although Sony might be sharper stepped down). I had problems with Sigma 50 1.4 focus being off when I tried it in other mounts... not sure that's an issue with Sony as much as it is with Canon / Nikon.
AFAIK, the Sigma is very good at close distances only and has a very erratic AF from 4-5 meters onwards.
At the risk of sounding like a Sony fanatic, you will be surprised how good the 50 is even wide open in low light situations where you would normally shoot this way. As I said above, it has more of the Zeiss look, which is completely different from the painterly rendering of the Sigma.
Lotusm50 wrote:
But it SHOULD be an advantage to the Sony system -- and adapted lenses, used inconveniently fully manually, limiting camera capabilities, etc, are not a serious option for most people. Sony has gone to the trouble and expense of locking Zeiss up in their relationship, and then fail to exploit it. The Sony system is attractive to serious photographer because of Zeiss' participation. But people aren't seeing that participation go beyond a mere few lenses, forcing people to use old Minolta re-treads (for the most part and outside of a couple unique offerings like the STF) -- you might claim they are excellent, but its all relative. They are certainly un-inspiring or un-exciting for most users compared having Zeiss lenses available. I'm sure the Minolta offerings are servicable, if you must. Canon and Nikon should be thanking Zeiss for the ZE and ZF fully functional lenses because they effectively eliminate the Zeiss advantage with Sony (due to Sony's failure to use Zeiss). To deny this is just an ineffective attempt to rationalize it away, and nothing more.
Sony needs to fill out its lens line with new, modern Zeiss lenses. They need the following:
Zeiss 100 Makro
Zeiss 50/1.4 or 50/1.2
Zeiss 35/1.4
Zeiss 25/1.4 (as rumoured)
Zeiss 21/2.8
Zeiss 15/2.8
If they fill out the line with these lenses (or even just some of them), they will get a lot more serious photographers switching over to Sony.
edwardkaraa wrote:
AFAIK, the Sigma is very good at close distances only.
I actually had problems with various distances with different copies with Canon/Nikon. It was just all over the map. But I don't see too many reports about problems with this lens in the Sony mount.
m_appeal wrote:
I actually had problems with various distances with different copies with Canon/Nikon. It was just all over the map. But I don't see too many reports about problems with this lens in the Sony mount.
There is a member on Getdpi forum who used it on an A900 for weddings and reported the same AF issues at anything but portrait distances from 1-3 meters. He posted some very nice photos though.
Well, not quite but close 