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!
Wow! That's all great info! Thanks Marc.Yeah, I think you are going to like it. I can't wait to use it for something "real".
This is an important lens for my wedding work. I get crammed into small dressing rooms and bathrooms where the bride is getting ready, and I sometimes need a field of view greater than the 24-70 provides. Plus I use a wide zoom for over-all shots of the church and reception where detail is very important.
I think the build quality of these lenses is remarkable ... especially these days. I personally find them even better than the Leica R lenses like the 28-90 I recently owned, and that's saying something. Quite thoughtful design, and a delight in hand. It's been awhile since I could say that.
Now all we need is a new formula Zeiss AF 35/1.4 ASPH and we'll be all set. Well, a Zeiss APO macro would hurt either . Eventually, Sony may have to offer a T/S solution to be taken seriously as a Pro system. But that is of no matter to me as I don't use a 35mm DSLR for that type work.
Better not Guy :ROTFL:No go back to your hole and when spring comes we will call you. There are no shadows yet
Seriously though in a couple weeks i will get a chance to hold this system in my hands and i really need to do that
IMO, this is a must have lens even before the 16-35/2.8 ... IF you already have the 24-70/2.8 (24 is pretty wide on a FF camera), it's breathtaking.Thanks for your ideas. No reason to postpone getting the 135 then I guess
Cheers, Bob.
PS There actually was a rumor about this in a french magazine quite some time ago, hence my question.
24/1.4 would be really nice, but a 35/1.4 would be better. 200 makro would be stellar .... as I'm sure the price tag will be also. It better be APO because I won't put up with CA for that kind of work. If it's in the same league as the Zeiss/Contax 120 macro, it'll destroy every other macro out there.Wow! That's all great info! Thanks Marc.
If we believe the rumours, we should expect a Zeiss 24mm f/1.4 and a 200mm makro. They will be both on my to buy list
Yes, that's what I figured too, and in any case the 16-35 is still on pre-order over here. So next week I'll go get my CZ 135/1.8 :thumbup:IMO, this is a must have lens even before the 16-35/2.8 ... IF you already have the 24-70/2.8 (24 is pretty wide on a FF camera), it's breathtaking.
Yea i know. I am a gear slut and fully admit it. Bringing custom made ski mask to VegasBetter not Guy :ROTFL:
Tell the wifey that it's all part of the stimulus package and President Obama will give us a medal for Conspicuous Consumption ... er ... I mean Bravery.Yea i know. I am a gear slut and fully admit it. Bringing custom made ski mask to Vegas
Did somebody say something about a lens?
You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).No go back to your hole and when spring comes we will call you. There are no shadows yet
As Marc says - don't touch those Zeiss lenses . . . the camera feels a little fat and lightweight, it's charms are an acquired taste. The lenses are irresistable.Seriously though in a couple weeks i will get a chance to hold this system in my hands and i really need to do that
You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: See now you came out to play that means you have to buy one now. I was trying to save you from this fruitless attempt to hide from the 16-24 zoom. I will only think about it after you have given it a full run. :thumbs:
Well, it's all down to Peter (innerimager) or somebody else buying my 35 'cron . Current plan is 'no new money', which means I have to sell something first.You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: See now you came out to play that means you have to buy one now. I was trying to save you from this fruitless attempt to hide from the 16-24 zoom. I will only think about it after you have given it a full run. :thumbs:
16-35 is a nice range (nicer than Nikon's 14-24 perhaps).
I think you're going to have to jump first Guy
Enjoy your trip to PMA and your new lens!Hopefully I will get to play with it next week at PMA. I should NOT be going to this show. I need major size handcuffs on my wallet i can feel it already. I am such a slutty gear head
Hi NautilusSony did a step back compared to KonicaMinolta with another piece of technique. The 7D's colors were better than all of Sony's later A mount cameras because they used better color filters for the bayer pattern color filtering.
Therefore, if I don't need very high resolution or autofocus I still prefer using the 7D. Sony should improve their cameras in respect of color filtering.
Jono,Hi Nautilus
Colour is what affects me most. I haven't used the previous Sony CCD based cameras, but the real joy of the A900 (not just for me, but for others too) is the wonderfully subtle colour transitions, especially near to the brightest part of the image. It catches early morning and late evening light for landscapes especially well (much better than anything I've used, with the possible exception of the Olympus E1).
These things are very subjective, I've certainly seen no tests which give you a satisfactory feeling for it.
So, I wonder if you've spent a great deal of time with A900 images?