Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Camera: Canon, Nikon or Sony?  (Read 6328 times)
Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2009, 01:31:34 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a pity that Zeiss doesn't offer fixed wide and super wide Distagon lenses with the Sony attach. There is only the Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/16-35 ZA with a weight of 900g. I would like to use the manual focus Distagon lenses on the Alpha 850. Otherwise I have to wait for the upcoming Canon 5D MK3.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2009, 02:20:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What's wrong with the existing Canon 5DII ?!

Regarding lenses it's well possible that Sony comes with some more Zeiss lenses. The 16-35 ZA is said to be pretty good. I have an old Minolta 20/2.8 AF lens and it's pretty good if I stop down.

It is my understanding that some of the Zeiss lenses are star performers, but with manual focus lenses we would really need "live view". Using a lot of fixed focus lenses and switch all the time is a good recipe for dust and dirt on the sensor.
 

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: ThomasK
It's a pity that Zeiss doesn't offer fixed wide and super wide Distagon lenses with the Sony attach. There is only the Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/16-35 ZA with a weight of 900g. I would like to use the manual focus Distagon lenses on the Alpha 850. Otherwise I have to wait for the upcoming Canon 5D MK3.
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2009, 09:32:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThomasK
It's a pity that Zeiss doesn't offer fixed wide and super wide Distagon lenses with the Sony attach. There is only the Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/16-35 ZA with a weight of 900g. I would like to use the manual focus Distagon lenses on the Alpha 850. Otherwise I have to wait for the upcoming Canon 5D MK3.

A person in Europe, linked to the pre-release field testing of Sony lenses (also a top-notch photographer), indicated that there are around 8-10 Sony lenses on the way in 2010, including  Zeiss primes and also a 500mm f/4G SSM.  About the 500mm, his initial indication was that it would be an f/4.5 but he later confirmed that it would be an f/4.

PS:  In all of the prior Sony releases, he has been dead accurate with his predictions.  One of the possibilities for 2010, is a CZ 18mm.
Logged
jake21
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2009, 10:19:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Any idea if there would be a 35mm prime (f2 of 2.Cool ? Really wish sony would announce which lenses are going to be released so I could make some decisions on brand



Quote from: aaykay
A person in Europe, linked to the pre-release field testing of Sony lenses (also a top-notch photographer), indicated that there are around 8-10 Sony lenses on the way in 2010, including  Zeiss primes and also a 500mm f/4G SSM.  About the 500mm, his initial indication was that it would be an f/4.5 but he later confirmed that it would be an f/4.

PS:  In all of the prior Sony releases, he has been dead accurate with his predictions.  One of the possibilities for 2010, is a CZ 18mm.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2009, 03:06:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jake21
Any idea if there would be a 35mm prime (f2 of 2.Cool ? Really wish sony would announce which lenses are going to be released so I could make some decisions on brand

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?lg=e
Scroll down to the Minolta 35/1.4G and 35/2.0.  Again, same lens just not currently produced by Sony with their name on it.

35mm is a favorite of mine as well for photographing people and scenery.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=14
This has some images of it on an A900 - so it does quite well with the new cameras as you can see.  I like how it looks identical other than the aperture's changing the field of focus(though 1.4 is a bit soft, 2.0 is perfect).  

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=13
I especially like the white cat.  It's exactly the same breed and color as mine that recently passed away(wish I had a photo of her like that...) - obviously get the newer model, though, as it's better and has more features - but the optics are identical.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=70
Here's the 2.0 - IMO, I don't see a huge difference.  It's clean at 2.0 and appears to be essentially the 1.4 if you didn't have the last stop as an option.   For $300 or so, used, this is a steal.
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic11527.html - more images.  Again, the older lens here - same optics as the new.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=2
Here's another one I hope to own some day.  I never have used a 50mm - the aspect ratio just looks "off" to me.  I like 28, 35, and 85 a bit more as options.  Three extra compact prime lenses also hardly take up any space.(my fourth is a nice macro zoom lens for when I absolutely have to have that type of shot.
Logged
jake21
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2009, 09:14:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately the out of production 35f2 is very hard to find and usually very expensive due to demand.  If sony were to start production on it then it would be another story but I guess from your post the chances of a new 35f2 or 35f2.8 is zip. So basically it is the $1400 35f1.4 or zeiss 24-70. Obviously at that price point (and from tests) the zoom would be a no brainer; zept I rather have nice pocketable 35.
Quote from: Plekto
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?lg=e
Scroll down to the Minolta 35/1.4G and 35/2.0.  Again, same lens just not currently produced by Sony with their name on it.

35mm is a favorite of mine as well for photographing people and scenery.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=14
This has some images of it on an A900 - so it does quite well with the new cameras as you can see.  I like how it looks identical other than the aperture's changing the field of focus(though 1.4 is a bit soft, 2.0 is perfect).  

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=13
I especially like the white cat.  It's exactly the same breed and color as mine that recently passed away(wish I had a photo of her like that...) - obviously get the newer model, though, as it's better and has more features - but the optics are identical.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=70
Here's the 2.0 - IMO, I don't see a huge difference.  It's clean at 2.0 and appears to be essentially the 1.4 if you didn't have the last stop as an option.   For $300 or so, used, this is a steal.
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic11527.html - more images.  Again, the older lens here - same optics as the new.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=2
Here's another one I hope to own some day.  I never have used a 50mm - the aspect ratio just looks "off" to me.  I like 28, 35, and 85 a bit more as options.  Three extra compact prime lenses also hardly take up any space.(my fourth is a nice macro zoom lens for when I absolutely have to have that type of shot.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2010, 02:46:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, finding these used can be a bit of a pain at times.  The zeiss zoom, though, is a very good lens.   One just sold on Ebay for $1200 used, which while expensive, probably replaces three lenses right there - the 28, 35, and 50mm.  
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2010, 11:00:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The Konica-Minolta 28-75/2.8 is an economical alternative. It's really a Tamron lens, one of their better ones. Sony has released it again under the Sony name, with built AF motor (non SSM).

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Plekto
Yeah, finding these used can be a bit of a pain at times.  The zeiss zoom, though, is a very good lens.   One just sold on Ebay for $1200 used, which while expensive, probably replaces three lenses right there - the 28, 35, and 50mm.  
Logged

Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2010, 01:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I've played around with both and it's not even close to the Zeiss.

The problem is that like most zooms, the last stop is essentially there for looks.  4.0 is where it is somewhat sharp again, and if the goal is to be able to use the full range to replace primes, it's just not any better in real use than a typical budget zoom(ie - nice for a trip but not for real work)

The Zeiss, otoh, is a fantastic lens that is usable at 2.8 throughout its entire range, which almost makes it a replacement for a set of primes(all but the most picky wouldn't likely notice since most primes have to be used at 2.8 to get sharp again).
Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2010, 01:46:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Plekto
I've played around with both and it's not even close to the Zeiss.

The problem is that like most zooms, the last stop is essentially there for looks.  4.0 is where it is somewhat sharp again, and if the goal is to be able to use the full range to replace primes, it's just not any better in real use than a typical budget zoom(ie - nice for a trip but not for real work)

The Zeiss, otoh, is a fantastic lens that is usable at 2.8 throughout its entire range, which almost makes it a replacement for a set of primes(all but the most picky wouldn't likely notice since most primes have to be used at 2.8 to get sharp again).
While I suppose the Zeiss is much better, I'm quite surprised on the sharpness of my Tamron 28-75/2.8 at 2.8.  I do know there's a big sample variation.  I did compare to a sample of the KM 28-75 and that one was not sharp at all at f2.8.  
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2010, 03:33:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I have both.

My sample of the Konica-Minolta 28-75/2.8 clearly outperforms the 24-70/2.8 ZA when shooting test targets at close but I'm satisfied with the 24-70/2.8 under field conditions, essentially longer distance. I'm using the 24-70/2.8 ZA mostly, but it may have to do with placebo effect.

I made some comparison the first day the 24-70/2.8 ZA arrived

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/2470za_test1

http://www.pbase.com/ekr/km_28_75_test

Klick on "original" size to get full image.

The 24-70/2.8 is built like a tank (although having some play in the lens barrel) the Konica-Minolta is more like "adequate".

By the way, all my old test images are here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: Plekto
I've played around with both and it's not even close to the Zeiss.

The problem is that like most zooms, the last stop is essentially there for looks.  4.0 is where it is somewhat sharp again, and if the goal is to be able to use the full range to replace primes, it's just not any better in real use than a typical budget zoom(ie - nice for a trip but not for real work)

The Zeiss, otoh, is a fantastic lens that is usable at 2.8 throughout its entire range, which almost makes it a replacement for a set of primes(all but the most picky wouldn't likely notice since most primes have to be used at 2.8 to get sharp again).
« Last Edit: January 02, 2010, 03:49:48 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad