The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Which lens do you use with A850/900?

KETCH ROSSI

New member
After testing the 24-70 on the a900, for a Sony commercial, which din't take place any ways, I felt in love with the Sony IQ and ordered the a850, and I decided to get the 16-35, I do not like zooms, not very much, said that I really don't like when they extend as the 24-70 does, so I chosen the 16-35, and will never look back, as to my opinion is better then the 24-70 from 24 to 35, and I get the ultra wide 16 to 24 fro Landscape work.

The Sony/Zeiss 85 and 135 are a must for my work in portrait, but I did not have tested the 85 as of yet, while I'm definitely looking to get the 135!!

NOw that I got the a850,
 

douglasf13

New member
Congrats on the new system. FWIW, the 16-35 may be better than the 24-70 at 24mm (I'm not sure, Edward?) but I don't think that's the case at 35mm. 35mm on the 24-70 is about as good as it gets.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Thanks Douglas, I guess it could have been one of those cases of unit variation, were my 16-35 is extremely good, and the 24-70 was a no so good one.

One thing for sure I can't wait to get my hands on the 135.

Apart form lenses, I just simply am amazed to be able to shoot just over 6k Panoramic and Portrait with this camera, I no wil be hard to make people believe that I will have shot my entire gallery material on this system, once they will see the HUGE size prints.
 

Eoin

Member
Ketch, congrats on the new camera. Without a doubt the 16-35 & 135 are the best of the zoom / prime Zeiss offering. I also hate the extending front section of my 24-70 but I'll forgive it for the IQ in the range.

The 85 has taken a while to grow on me, again an extending front element makes it feel strange when focusing, but I've started to become partial to the look of the lens. But where space permits, the 135 is my absolute favorite piece of glass ever.

Enjoy!.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Thanks Eoin, this is what happens when you stop been so focused on one camera type, and explore all possibilities, and Sony sure delivers on IQ.

I think we are both on the same page here, and will most likely not purchase an 85 till I really see I couldn't do with out, for most of what I do, space is almost never an issue, so I believe that the 135 and 16-35 will give me just about all I need off the Sony FF, as I also have the RED cameras, and soon Epic and a Scarlet with a full set of Cine Primes ranging form 18mm to 300, while till then the Sony will serve me very well, and very happy with the very large prints size.
 
FYI, those interested in WA primes may be interested to know that San Jose Camera has NIB Minolta 20 2.8 and 24 2.8 lenses on the shelf. IIRC the 20s are labeled ~$530 but they are willing to consider "any reasonable offer" according to the salesman.
 
D

danmartin

Guest
Hi,
The carl zeiss 24-70 f2.8 G is a great lens that I use quite often, same sharpness as its big brother.Battery life is very good, I never counted the shots on 1 battery, but I never have to recharge during a day of taking a lot of images (several hundreds).Other lenses I use:minolta 16mm f2.8 (yes you get the full wide angle on the A900),minolta 50mm f1.7, minolta 100mm macro f2.8 minolta 50mm f2.8 RS macro, minolta 300mm f2.8 HS G, minolta 400mm f4.5 G, minolta 85mm f1.4. All of these have great performance on the A900.
 
T

Tony Beach

Guest
I own the CZ 24-70/2.8, and I can only say right now that I'm very disappointed in my copy wider than 30mm, and discouraged after the lens has now spent the entire month of January in Laredo and they seem to think it's "fine." I'm so frustrated today that I may be selling my Sony gear next month and going back to Nikon.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
I agree that the CZ24-70 is useless (because of vignetting) below 30mm but from there until 60 it is one great lens.

I have just obtained a very clean copy of the Minolta 24-105 F3.5/4.5 which doesn't vignette, it is feather light to carry around and cost me silly money.

I shall take it whenever I travel to sunnier (usually hotter!) climes when the slower speed won't matter to me, but the weight of the 24-70 does!

I agree that the CZ135 and 16-35 are absolutely dream lenses. The 16-35 being my all time favourite.
 
T

Tony Beach

Guest
I agree that the CZ24-70 is useless (because of vignetting) below 30mm but from there until 60 it is one great lens.
Vignetting is not my problem with the CZ 24-70, and vignetting can usually be mitigated by stopping down. My problem is that my copy doesn't resolve the corners at all at any aperture or any focus distance.
 
T

Theresa

Guest
I agree that the CZ24-70 is useless (because of vignetting) below 30mm but from there until 60 it is one great lens.
I have not found the 1.5 stop vignetting of the 24-70 at wide settings to impact its use at all. I have yet needed to correct for it but if I were it would be easy to do with any imaging program, even PaintShop Photo Pro or LightRoom. I have seen many lenses reviewed with far more vignetting be rated highly. I really find this lens to be all I need for 99% of my photography.
 

lovep

New member
24-70 CZ
135 CZ

These are my only two Sony lens that I use on the A900. I really don't have any need for much else. I shoot beauty/fashion work primarily. The 135 is my go to lens, and the 24-70 grabs everything else.

I toy with the purchase of the 70-200 G, but I just can't rationalize ~$2K for a lens that will be used ~5-10% of the time (i.e. when I need more/less reach than the 135).

I also looked at the 100 macro. That is still a possibility...not sure though. The 135 focuses extremely close for my beauty/makeup work.
 
T

Theresa

Guest
I am finding that I REALLY want the 135mm f/1.8, mostly because there are no 135mm f/2.8 primes for the Sony other than it and the STF and I want at least an f/2.8, autofocus, and good build quality. Minolta autofocus 135s are practically impossible to find, a major lack as far as I'm concerned along with the lack of a 200mm. A large zoom like the 70-200G or Tamron equivalent just seem too long to use as a walk about. The second lens I got when I got my Canon (FT?) at 15y.o. was a 135 f/2.8. It seems like a versatile lens to me and I don't know why there isn't a variety of them with the Alpa mount. I probably will still use my 24-70 90% of the time so I am having trouble justifying the price.
 
A

arnoldarever

Guest
Since I have a great passion and liking for photography hence suggesting you the best lens suited with A 850/900 would be a G type or screen with a really good resolution fulfilling your purpose of capturing portraits and landscapes.
 
T

tigertimb

Guest
I am finding that I REALLY want the 135mm f/1.8, mostly because there are no 135mm f/2.8 primes for the Sony other than it and the STF and I want at least an f/2.8, autofocus, and good build quality. Minolta autofocus 135s are practically impossible to find, a major lack as far as I'm concerned along with the lack of a 200mm. A large zoom like the 70-200G or Tamron equivalent just seem too long to use as a walk about. The second lens I got when I got my Canon (FT?) at 15y.o. was a 135 f/2.8. It seems like a versatile lens to me and I don't know why there isn't a variety of them with the Alpa mount. I probably will still use my 24-70 90% of the time so I am having trouble justifying the price.
Probably not immensely helpful if you can't find one, but the old minolta 135mm 2.8 is a little gem; small, metal, built in extensible hood and produces lovely portraits as well as being a reasonable action lens too. Well worth keeping an eye out in case any do become available and the 100mm f2 is another great alternative, although maybe even rarer to find :(

Both are small enough that you can slip one one in your camera bag and you'll hardly notice them alongside the 24-70!

Tim :)
 

philip_pj

New member
If Theresa revisits this thread, consider a used Minolta 200 f2.8 APO. I use one (sometimes with the matching 1.4TC) for distant shots of buddhist monasteries across high Himalayan valleys, a pretty exacting task. I am fully satisfied with the resolution and can adjust for the soft, Leica-like, Minolta look in post - I am a Zeiss guy...too bad the dills at Sony did not permit a Sony mount for the ZE/ZF/ZK/ZS series - talk about taking aim at both feet with a shotgun!

Other lenses I use, if anyone is interested, are the workhorse 35-70mm f3.4 Contax zoom, my wunderlens...and a Distagon 28mm f2.8 (tremendous centre res and graceful corners), Sonnar 100mm f3.5 (very high res everywhere). Soon to be joined by another fine Distagon, the 21mm f2.8 - all on Leitax mounts. Then, to the relief of my wallet, I can stop buying. So Sony missed out with me, but their sensor and electronics are a gem for my work.

My stuff is almost all slow tripod use, so light slow lenses are fine, provided the 3D look and appropriate resolution, contrast and colour rendition are there. Nothing matches Zeiss for the colour/contrast blend, IMO, together with graceful focus fade rather than Leica uber-bokeh.

I saw a good thread recently where Ed was saying he found the ZS lenses to have more preferable colour and contrast, and speculated that Sony had a hand in the formulation of the ZA series to make them more resemble the Minolta/Sony lenses...
 

roweraay

New member
.... and speculated that Sony had a hand in the formulation of the ZA series to make them more resemble the Minolta/Sony lenses...
I agree with the "speculation" part. Going by the timelines on when the ZA series lenses (specifically the 85ZA and the 135ZA) got revealed (early 2006), versus when Sony started working with Konica-Minolta (mid-to-late 2005), there is no way in hell that these are brand-new designs made to "resemble Minolta/Sony lenses".

The timelines are the clearest indicator that these can only be pre-existing Zeiss Auto-focus designs (never deployed in any mount) that were then adapted with the necessary changes for compatibility with A-mount.

I have 4 Sony/Zeiss lenses (85, 135, 24-70 and 16-35) along with several premier Sony/KM lenses (including their "G" lenses) and the Zeiss lenses have a signature look that is totally different from the rest of the Sony lenses - excellent micro-contrast, razor sharpness and superb color fidelity comes to mind for the ZA lenses. Every single one of these ZA lenses also have a unique Zeiss Serial# on them, that is different from the unique Sony Serial# that is also present in each and every one of them.

The manual focus Zeiss lenses built by Cosina on the other hand, may very well be using glass from a catalog (probably Hoya ?) that is different from the glass from the Schott catalog that the Sony/Zeiss lenses use. And thus might have a different look, for all we know. I am speculating here. :)
 
Top