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!

Moving to Sony from EOS, 2 questions

H

hardloaf

Guest
Douglas,
Andrey, do the new WB coefficients improve the noise handling of the camera at all? Is it a good trade off in your opinion? Thanks.
Can't really say without having actual side-to-side shots from A850 and A900.

All I can see is that there is a difference :)
 
V

vahonen

Guest
Answering to myself after finding one of old Edward's post
edwardkaraa said:
The ZS line has a very annoying focusing ring that turns the wrong way too ;)
So does this mean Sony Alpha lenses are focused to same direction as Nikon? Or are M42 lenses focusing to same direction as Nikon? For me it's very important that all lenses focus to same direction, otherwise it's impossible to learn manual focus fast and/or to moving subjects.
 

picman

Member
Personally I don't particularly like Distagon 2.8/25 (field curvature makes other usage than f/8-11 landscapes difficult - lens would be enough sharp at f/5.6 but field curvature would make corners unsharp - as a landscape lens perfectly OK and gives very crisp and 3D-like images) or Planar 1.4/50 (very hazy wide open and pretty bad focus shift, but good lens from f/2.2 if focused properly = focus shift taken into account). Therefore some I might even consider Vario-Sonnar 2.8/16-35, Distagon 2/35, Planar 1.4/85, Sonnar 1.8/135, but there is big gap between 35 and 85:
Well you've just proved you need all 4 ZA FF lenses :D :ROTFL:
 
V

vahonen

Guest
Well you've just proved you need all 4 ZA FF lenses :D :ROTFL:
Hmm, when knowing 24-70 is not good at wide apertures between 50-70mm I don't think it would bring help to fill-in the hole between 35 and 85...
 

Braeside

New member
Looking from the rear of the Sony - infinity is when the focus ring is turned fully anti-clockwise. Same as Leica.

I do have one lens - a Tamron 17-35 that uses the opposite focus direction though.
 
V

vyanush

Guest
From what I know they are essential the same with the the minor difference of showing 98% area of the final picture compared to 100%.
This is sqrt(2%)=1,414% horizontal and vertical difference.
WRONG! it's actually less than 1.1% loss
:)
 
S

Specularist

Guest
Hello again, vahonen. Everyone has their own opinions about what are important features in a lens. However, there can be no doubt that a properly used A850 or A900 will mercilessly expose optical weaknesses.

I am not knowledgeable about Sony's current lens range or Minolta's older lenses, but based on nothing more than Photodo's old MTF charts, I think the Sony 50 mm f/2.8 macro is worth consideration as a general-purpose normal lens. It's very cheap and therefore probably mechanically poor, but it's supposedly the same optical design as the Minolta equivalent.

This lens has very impressive MTF curves at f/8, as measured by Photodo with the Minolta version. Even the very corners are sharp, and the 40 lp/mm values average about 70% across the majority of the frame. The tangential values also respond very well to stopping down, which suggests excellent control of lateral chromatic aberration. Of course you would need to research flare performance, bokeh, and other characteristics that are relevant to you.

Minolta also made a 50 mm f/3.5 macro: a five-element design from 1995. I suppose they didn't sell very many, but given its relatively recent design and unambitious nature, it's possible that this lens is a real stunner. But I don't know, of course.

Regarding the viewfinder coverage, the 98% almost certainly refers to horizontal and vertical coverage, rather than area. So if the figures can be trusted, the A850 has about 96% coverage by area, compared to the A900's 100%.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hmm, when knowing 24-70 is not good at wide apertures between 50-70mm I don't think it would bring help to fill-in the hole between 35 and 85...
Not so sure about that. If you read the MTF, then yes, the borders and corners resolution is not so great at f/2.8, but there is a great improvement at f/4. The center is superb since wide open, and the corners become excellent at f/8.

However, this is probably true only for infinity landscapes shots where you have to stop down to f/8 anyway. I don't know many people who shoot landscapes wide open ;)

In my own experience, the close range performance at 1-3 meters is another story altogether. I have used this lens wide open quite a lot especially at the longer end for portraits and reportage, and have always found the lens to be outstanding both in the center AND corners.
 
V

vahonen

Guest
Not so sure about that. If you read the MTF, then yes, the borders and corners resolution is not so great at f/2.8, but there is a great improvement at f/4. The center is superb since wide open, and the corners become excellent at f/8.

However, this is probably true only for infinity landscapes shots where you have to stop down to f/8 anyway. I don't know many people who shoot landscapes wide open ;)
I have seen many samples of landcapes shoot at f/8 and they look fantastic, so that side is OK, and yes I'm not planning to shoot landscapes at f/2.8...

In my own experience, the close range performance at 1-3 meters is another story altogether. I have used this lens wide open quite a lot especially at the longer end for portraits and reportage, and have always found the lens to be outstanding both in the center AND corners.
I have not managed to find ANY good samples of this lens on long end showing the Zeiss 3D on medium range (3-8m / 9-24feet) that really did work for me. On 1m the DOF is very shallow and slow f/2.8 lens can (even stopped down to f/4-f/5.6) can give the effect what I'm after, but on larger distances f/2-f/2.8 is needed, like in my examples in first post all shot at f/2. Could you please share few photos with Zeiss 3D on 50-70mm and slightly longer focusing distance showing Zeiss 3D?

If 24-70 is good enough for what I'm looking for it would be perfect since then I would only need 3 lenses. Of course later when there are ZA macro, ZA wide prime and ZA normal prime they need to be added. Like you moving to Sony is partially due to wanting to get rid off the adapted lenses and have native Zeiss lenses.

So sad that the ZS lenses focus to different direction than the Sony lenses, ZS 2/35 would have been so nice option until there are more ZA-lenses available.

I have found some wide and normal angle samples, what I did like, still searching some with more wider apertures but these do proof that the look is there what I'm looking for: 28mm @ f/5 and 40mm @ f/10. And same guy using 60mm and no 3D at all, background separation OK but no 3D: 60mm @ f/5.
 
Last edited:

edwardkaraa

New member
I have not managed to find ANY good samples of this lens on long end showing the Zeiss 3D on medium range (3-8m / 9-24feet) that really did work for me. On 1m the DOF is very shallow and slow f/2.8 lens can (even stopped down to f/4-f/5.6) can give the effect what I'm after, but on larger distances f/2-f/2.8 is needed, like in my examples in first post all shot at f/2. Could you please share few photos with Zeiss 3D on 50-70mm and slightly longer focusing distance showing Zeiss 3D?
All these were taken with the 24-70 at 1/30s f/2.8 iso 1600 with the small F20 flash:

View attachment 21499

View attachment 21503

View attachment 21504

View attachment 21505

View attachment 21506

Hope you will find this useful to help you in your decision.
 
V

vahonen

Guest
Hello! I was lucky (and criminals stupid) and I got back most of my equipment. After a long and thorough consideration and testing (in store, just few minutes) I decided to keep the Canon 5DmkII. Both of the Zeiss ZA zoom lenses were enormous and really heavy, after Contax C/Y lenses even Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses seem heavy...

I sold (few last items still under progress) all stuff I have used for sports photography and weddings, since I really don't have time neither interest for those anymore. So after selling 8 L-series lenses and few other Canon lenses I ended up having very simple lens setup: Zeiss ZE 2.8/21, 2/35(have now ZF but will change to ZE when available), 2/100(have now ZF but will change to ZE when available), Contax S-Planar 2.8/60(maybe change this to ZE 2/50 when available) and Leica 80-200/4 (+ some C/Y lenses and Leica primes but those 5 lenses will get 99% of pictures taken). No deep ties to Canon, just Zeiss lens compatibility & Zeiss prime availability and live view, I don't think Canon itself has anything to offer for me.

If and when Sony has..
1) Wide & Normal(=50mm) & makro Zeiss primes
2) Live view in fullframe camera
3) Still has better CLA than Canon
...I'll consider the switch again.

Thanks for the forum for all the information!

Best Regards, Samuli
 

wayne_s

New member
Douglas,


Can't really say without having actual side-to-side shots from A850 and A900.

All I can see is that there is a difference :)
From DXO color response charts for A900 vs. A850 that the A850's blue channel blue response is not as good as A900. This jives with popular photography's testing which claims the A850 had noticeably better high iso performance. But DXO high iso testing results are the same for both cameras.

I see that RPP supports the new 7D, so I was wondering how it's color response compared to 1ds3,5d2, and A900?
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
I see that RPP supports the new 7D, so I was wondering how it's color response compared to 1ds3,5d2, and A900?
7D is no better than 5D2, i.e. deeply disappointing to my taste.
A900 is still unsurpassed in color quality.
 
Top