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!
Anyone using the Sony DSLR with Zeiss AF lenses?
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I've tried the 135/1.8 too, but only for a couple of hours, and like you, I was truly amazed. What I've seen from that lens later has mostly been very good, also when used with the cheapest bodies. But changing systems is expensive, not least with the prices of those Zeiss lenses and nothing on the second-hand market.
But if I started from scratch...
Oh, and btw., have a look at the new 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G. Big and heavy, but a really wonderful lens too.
There's a Dutch guy (I think), who has posted some lovely portraits taken in India with an A100 and the 135/1.8 on pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/image/78919639
But if I started from scratch...
Oh, and btw., have a look at the new 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G. Big and heavy, but a really wonderful lens too.
There's a Dutch guy (I think), who has posted some lovely portraits taken in India with an A100 and the 135/1.8 on pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/image/78919639
Last edited:
Terry
New member
I remembered this from the review at DPReview....even though it is a negative they were still favorable to the camera....
My primary gripes were around a couple of questionable decisions; firstly that RAW files already have noise reduction applied to them, this in effect means that the photographer can't treat RAW as the 'digital negative'. This subsequently removes the ability to successfully apply any third party noise reduction method (either now or in the future) or to make his or her own decisions about the balance between noise and NR. I understand that this is because a certain amount of noise reduction occurs very early in the image pipeline (at or around the sensor) but why that can't be simply disabled by choice is a curious to say the least.
My primary gripes were around a couple of questionable decisions; firstly that RAW files already have noise reduction applied to them, this in effect means that the photographer can't treat RAW as the 'digital negative'. This subsequently removes the ability to successfully apply any third party noise reduction method (either now or in the future) or to make his or her own decisions about the balance between noise and NR. I understand that this is because a certain amount of noise reduction occurs very early in the image pipeline (at or around the sensor) but why that can't be simply disabled by choice is a curious to say the least.