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!

Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

fotografz

Well-known member
Sorry Dave, I tough you didn't, that is an Italian reading here :D

I will definitely consider a Fisheye, but only if I can't find a fit to my needs in either a Prime, or zoom for it, I really like to stay with original Alpha mount lenses and avoid any kind of adapters, asI visited Marc's link and even so I love Leica glass, I just don't like fittings and any type of adapters, they never really work out for me, one way or an other.
It's not an adapter. They change the R mount to an Alpha mount with the Sony CPU chip so it meters and enables SSS stabilization.

Nothing in the Sony line-up is going to equal the latest Leica R 19/2.8 for the IQ requirement you outlined in your initial post.

If it's Sony or nothing, then I'd say go for the 16-35.

If your luck is anything like mine, the minute you do go for the 16-35, Sony will announce the legendary Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon is now available in AF ZA mount ...:ROTFL: (I wish.)

-Marc
 

Terry

New member
Thanks Marc,

I was considering either the 16-35 or the 24-70 but there are very few reviews out there and they don't convince me, the 16-35 is considered too harsh on a the a900 for heavy vignetting on the 16 as well as CA, and the 14-70 which I would like, is reported to have very bad bokeh at the 70mm.

Will look up the Leica leica lens option.
Interesting on what you've read about vignetting on the 16-35 I hadn't heard that and at times I was wishing I bought it over the 24-70 (plus Sigma 12-24 combo). I've actually had vignetting issues with the 24-70. Even with the thinnest of filters (and the Sony polarizer and ND are uber thin) and the issue extends far enough into the zoom range to be annoying.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Thanks a the again guys for the inputs.

*Dave, in the WZ range I really don't need the AF but other confirmations are surely nice to have.

Eoin, Dave S.& Teb,

that is what I have read in more then one review of the 16-35, and the reason that I didn't consider the 24-70 is because is getting too close to my Portrait sweet spot (85mm) and at the focal I will go definitely with Prime.

Now however I'm very pleased to hear that your personal experiences have been positive and this takes me to look much closer at the 16-35, of which I much also prefer the design, especially the IF, I just can't stand to have my lens change Physical length as dramatically, I bearably can accept the Physical external movement on the 85mm.

*Marc, then I totally miss understood their work and will definitely more carefully look in to the 19mm conversion.

I agree with you that a CZ in alpha mount would be stellar.
 
Personally I would recommend something about 20 mm. I have a Leica 15 that I am selling because I find that I don't see well with it. I'm not sure why, but think that it may be a result of shooting crop cameras for too long. Oddly, 17 mm was never wide enough on film.

Here are a few shots with the Leica 15. See if you like that angle or not.









[Edit: While I have no personal experience with the 16-35, there seems to be enough sample variation to make me stay away, though I do like the flexibility of the zoom.]
 
Last edited:

KETCH ROSSI

New member
I have no problem with the angle on the 15, (nice shots btw) as I have used the Arri/Zeiss 8R widest rectilinear lens in cinematic use, incredible POV, so if I didn't find a rectilinear lens that I was happy with in the WA I will not hesitate to go with a Fisheye, and the Super Elmar 15 is a great lens.
 
and the Super Elmar 15 is a great lens.
It is, but it is also a lot of money for me to have tied up in that focal length. Which is why it is for sale. Like I said, if you are only going to have one great wide angle lens, I would go closer to 20 mm, maybe even 24.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
That is in fact why I was considering the Sony 20mm, problem is I have not found good reviews on the lens, and since I use the WA here and then, I also don't think would be wise for me to put too much money on this particular Focal, while I have no problem going with the CZ 84 and 135 for Portrait.

Also the Leica 19mm that Marc. suggested goes for over 4k. SO if I don't find a Prime in the 20mm range to satisfy my need, then I'll go with the CZ 16-35.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Thanks Douglas, I did had visited that thread few days back, some great shots there.

Since I will be very likely doing some High end commercial HD Motion work for Sony Electronics, I think I need to keep all the gear Sony, Carl Zeiss for Sony been the most I can branch out.

The Minolta lenses definitely seem to produce great images.

My final decision on which lenses to carry, considering the very limited bag space, as I'll be carrying the Cinema gear with it, will be probably be the camera with grip and two lenses.

So after doing some researching, (some more :)) I think that my traveling kit will be: 16-35 & 85 or 24-70 and 135, this are the two options left considering I'll need some extra space for additional Flashes, likely two or three of them for HSS shooting.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
He he, good to know Douglas.

Edit: In this case if I do find the Sony 20mm to be as good or better then the CZ 16-35 @ 20mm I might just get the 20mm with the 85 and 135 CZ lenses to make the kit, as this lens is so small will easily allow me to have three lenses instead of only the two, One zoom plus one Prime, in this case been three Primes, but one very small one :D
 
Last edited:

douglasf13

New member
Yeah, many of the Sony lenses (16, 20, 24, 35, 50, 70-200, 300, etc) are simply rebadged Minolta lenses. There may be some slight coating differences or additions of ADI, but they are more or less the same.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Thanks MG appreciate the links, it seems here that the 16-35 performs better then the 24-70, especially considering that @70 is my bread and butter or very close to it 85 actually, so its no good that this lens doesn't perform well at the long end.

If I was to go with what I have so far i'll be inclined to go with the 16-35 vs. the 24-70, as again the long end of this lens is not as good as I need it to be, unless other users have proof otherwise.
 

douglasf13

New member
I wouldn't worry too much about the corners of the 24-70 at 70 for portraits, because they'll be out of focus anyways. Here is a quote comparing the two lenses from our own Edward Karaa on another forum:

"...as they are 2 different lenses designed for different purposes. Now in the overlapping range, 24-35mm, it is as follows:

24mm: 16-35 better at 2.8, 24-70 better at 4, then they tend to become equal with the 16-35 lagging a bit in the extreme corners. The advantage goes to the 16-35 though with lower distortion, CA, and vignetting.

28-35mm: The 24-70 is simply outstanding here and is better than the 16-35 from 2.8 to 8 where they become quite similar. The performance of the 24-70 at 35mm is probably better than any prime in this range I have ever used.
"
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
That kind of statement is surely positive towrds the 24-70, but my concern of the 24-70 was not as much the vignetting, which in fact I some time and very often actually will add in post to bring the viewr's attention to the center of the image, and when not wanted vignetting is one of those things not too difficult to remove in post.

My main concern with the 24-70 are, first of all the IQ, as I understand it is not as good @ 70, and especially in the Bokeh were it shows some issues, second is off course the concern of the lens extending, but in truth the second is a small concern that I'm sure it will go away as soon as I try one.

I hate to return Items, so I like to gather as much info as possible before buying, then off course if the lens is defective then is an other story all together.

I thank you again for your inputs Douglas.
 

douglasf13

New member
I hear you. I wasn't talking about vignetting in the corners, but, rather sharpness, which isn't necessary in portraits. As far as overall IQ and the "look" of the images from the 24-70, I doubt you'll find a better zoom in this regard. I pair mine with the ZA 85, and that is a nice combo.
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
This picture below shows what I'm talking about Douglas, for me the 70mm is the most important focal on the 24-70, as if I go with it, I will not get the 85, but only go with the 24-70 and 135.

It shows heavy outlining on the Bokeh, which as you know is also the most important thing in Portrait photography, right after the IQ of the focused area :)

Pic below comes from a review on PhotoZone found here: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=1
 
Last edited:

douglasf13

New member
That isn't uncommon for a zoom in this range. Regardless, bokeh is very subjective and Zeiss is known for harder transitions, which may help along "3d-ness."

see here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966/1&year=2008#5907398

In practice, I've only noticed bad bokeh once with the 24-70, and that was at 70mm, and there was a ton of light streaming through trees in the background that rendered some discs. Granted, the client didn't care one bit :)
 

KETCH ROSSI

New member
Agree with you Douglas, and in to be honest I think the only way for me to truly appreciate the lens Bokeh and size when extended, as well as vignetting, and IQ, is to just get the lens and give it a good run for the money.

Thanks again for the link
 
Top