Sean Mills wrote:
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.
The drawback with the 24-70 is the added bulk and weight which necessitates adding the vertical grip to the a900/850 if one wishes to use that combo for any length of time without breaking their wrist. Doing so gets rid of one of the a900/a850 main advantages when compared to the bulky/heavy D3x and 1DsIII. Faster and smaller primes would avoid that. This is the main thing that has kept me from buying the ZA zooms. Some also don't care for the bokeh of the ZA 24-70.
The 28-135 is a beast! The copy I tried did not live up to the hype. It is also a fairly slow lens. Simply not worth dealing with the added weight and compromises in my opinion. Buy the ZA 24-70 plus the ZA 135 prime if cost is no object.
m_appeal wrote:
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.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The drawback with the 24-70 is the added bulk and weight which necessitates adding the vertical grip to the a900/850 if one wishes to use that combo for any length of time without breaking their wrist. Doing so gets rid of one of the a900/a850 main advantages when compared to the bulky/heavy D3x and 1DsIII. Faster and smaller primes would avoid that. This is the main thing that has kept me from buying the ZA zooms. Some also don't care for the bokeh of the ZA 24-70.
I really like the vertical grip, even with the small 50
Both the Sigma and the Sony are good, competitive lenses. From around f1.7 to f4, the Sony is sharper in the center of the frame compared to the Sigma, but the Sigma has more consistent sharpness across the frame. Both are great stopped down past that. Wide open, I've heard conflicting reports as to which is sharper in the center, although I know the Sigma is sharper across the frame. I went for the Sony because it seemed to have a bit more pop, and is much smaller, but I'm sure most would prefer the Sigma's performance. During the day, I usually stop the Sony down a smidge to f1.7 or f2, and that does well....although it still can't compete with my ZA 85 wide open. I have no problem using the Sony 50 wide open in lowlight.
p.s. hilariously, for a while, I thought the Sony 50 was soft....but AF fine tune did the trick.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The 28-135 is a beast! The copy I tried did not live up to the hype. It is also a fairly slow lens. Simply not worth dealing with the added weight and compromises in my opinion. Buy the ZA 24-70 plus the ZA 135 prime if cost is no object.
Yes, I already bought the 135 1.8... Yeah, I know not everyone who has the 28-135 is satisfied, so it must be there are few good samples. I will end up buying the ZA 24-70... I'm just trying to talk myself out of it, because while I *can* buy it I' really shouldn't be spending so much $ right now.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The drawback with the 24-70 is the added bulk and weight which necessitates adding the vertical grip to the a900/850 if one wishes to use that combo for any length of time without breaking their wrist. Doing so gets rid of one of the a900/a850 main advantages when compared to the bulky/heavy D3x and 1DsIII. Faster and smaller primes would avoid that. This is the main thing that has kept me from buying the ZA zooms. Some also don't care for the bokeh of the ZA 24-70.
I dont use the 24-70 much for shallow DOF shots, but my icon was taken like that 2.8 on the 24-70, i think the bokeh is fine for a 2.8 zoom, it will never be a fast prime, or tele zoom in that regard.
I disagree that the 24-70 necessitates a grip, but it's all about personal comfort and feel.
I was quite used to the nikon and canon equivalents, so it's really quite comparable to a 5D2 plus 24-70, or the nikon 24-70 (i think D700 is a bit lighter, so I cant compare the combo, the lenses however really arent substantially different in weight or bulk).
Though, maybe i will run out and buy a grip for my 900 this week and see if I dont sing a different tune about the balance....
Well I'm less ambitious; I would be happy with the
25f2.8
35f2
50f1.4
and (icing on the cake) 35-70f4
--
Zeiss has designs for the first 3 (not sure if auto focus would change the optical design)
Not sure if zeiss has the design for the 35-70 or if that is owned by contax.
--
I'm actually not that excited by 25f1.4 and 35f1.4 because they are large and expensive lenses; but I understand that most people on this forum would welcome them.
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.
you2 wrote:
Well I'm less ambitious; I would be happy with the
25f2.8
35f2
50f1.4
and (icing on the cake) 35-70f4
--
Zeiss has designs for the first 3 (not sure if auto focus would change the optical design)
Not sure if zeiss has the design for the 35-70 or if that is owned by contax.
--
I'm actually not that excited by 25f1.4 and 35f1.4 because they are large and expensive lenses; but I understand that most people on this forum would welcome them.
I'm afraid that is not going to happen, unless Zeiss re-designs the optical part. Sony will only take exclusive designs as mentioned earlier.
m-appeal, I own the 24-70, but I also leave it home a lot due to the weight. Honestly, I often just bring along my Sony 20mm, 50mm, and sometimes the ZA 85. Or, frankly, I'll just bring the 50.
As far as the 24-70 bokeh is concerned, it can be bad, but it depends on the conditions, and it can also be very pleasing. The main times that mine has turned out bad is if I'm at around 70mm 2.8, and I'm shooting into backlit trees. The 28-135's biggest drawback is the CA/purple fringing.
you2 wrote:
Zeiss has designs for the first 3 (not sure if auto focus would change the optical design)
Not sure if zeiss has the design for the 35-70 or if that is owned by contax.
Contax doesn't "own" anything. It's just a brand name, itself being owned by Zeiss. I suspect Zeiss owns the design, but it is unlikely they would resurrect such an old design. They would almost certainly expand the range and update the glass types used, and make other improvements as well.
In many cases (but not all) AF does require a change in optical design, usually they have to move to an internal focus design.
douglasf13 wrote:
m-appeal, I own the 24-70, but I also leave it home a lot due to the weight. Honestly, I often just bring along my Sony 20mm, 50mm, and sometimes the ZA 85. Or, frankly, I'll just bring the 50.
I was thinking about buying some primes to have something lighter... but I'm just not crazy about carrying & swapping them. OTOH, there doesn't seem to be a better lighter zoom alternative to Zeiss 24-70 *than* primes (even something slower), so I guess if I want lighter and good quality, I would have to deal with swapping or live with the weight.
m_appeal wrote:
So what do you use on the A900 instead of the 24-70? The weight/size is one thing that I'm not crazy about
All primes.
Don't laugh at the first one. It's a surprisingly good performer and can be had for very little $$$ at the moment. The color and contrast produced by this lens are phenomenal in fact. The build quality is all metal as well. It can suffer from chromatic aberrations.
24mm 2.8 Multi Coated Quantarry AF made by Sigma!
35mm 2.5 Zeiss Flektogon
50mm 1.4 Super Multi Coated Takumar
50mm 1.7 Minolta AF, used to use the 50 2.8 Macro which is also a fine lens.
85mm 1.4 Rokinon, used to use the Minolta 100mm F2 and miss it dearly as it is one amazing lens.
Lenses I intend to buy at some point:
Zeiss Contax 21mm 2.8
Zeiss ZS 35mm F2
Nice shot Edward with my favorite ZA 135 lens.
Looks like this was shot up in Ayutthaya at one of the temples I visited?
Or am I wrong?
Already missing Thailand, Cambodia and Lao. Need to get back there again soon!
Thanks again for everything and I really enjoyed getting to meet you and your lovely girlfriend.
Did you buy an A850 to go with your A900?
