Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 65

Thread: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

  1. #1
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Hi guys,

    I'm getting the Sony a900, I know I'll be purchasing the Sony/CZ 85 and 135 mainly for Portrait, but I also need a Wide lens for the occasional Landscape (Panorama) and Architecture Photography.

    Was considering the Sony/CZ 16-35, but I usually stay away from Zooms, and work with Primes same as I do in my Cinematography work, as I find the IQ of the Primes always superior.

    I'm looking for the personal experience advise in which Wide Angle Lens to consider for the a900, main consideration here is obviously not the speed of the lens but the absolute best IQ.

    (BTW) If the IQ of the 16mm FE is great I have no problem in De-fishing the images.

    Thanks in advance for your participation.
    Last edited by KETCH ROSSI; 18th November 2009 at 10:58.

  2. #2
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Regardless of whether it's a zoom, the 16-35 is probably the best wide angle performance for Sony (Nikon's best wide is also a zoom.) If you must go with a prime, I like my 20 2.8, and the corners are sharp when stopped down.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Agree, the 20 2.8 is a fine lens. Here is a pic I took recently in one of our datacenters With the Minolta 20 2.8:



    This one is with the Minolta 16mm 2.8:

    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  4. #4
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    It is not that I MUST not use Zoom, especially if it is as good as you say Douglas, but we all know that especially for Landscape and Architecture Photography, the wide angle lens must have exceptional Sharpness in order to bring out every detail corner to corner.

    Nice shots Dave, definitely those two look like they have a great deal of sharpness in their resolving power, even so I never look at a web compressed posted image to make any conclusions, but the above shots look nice.

    Will look them up.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    My copy of the ZA 16-35 is excellent.

    For the best possible go here:

    http://www.leitax.com/Leica-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html

    Contact them to see if a R 19/2.8 latest version can be used. They say it can on their web site, but I'd double check.

    My Leica dealer Sam at the Classic Connection is getting these done for his Leica clients. Phone: 1 (888) LEICASAM ... tell him Marc Williams sent you.

    I'm going to be getting a Leica R 100/2.8 Macro converted for my A900.

    -Marc

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Oh, and note the Carl Zeiss 35/2.8 PC lens converted for use on a Sony camera

  7. #7
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Understood... Try these; they are the originals uploaded to SmugMug.:

    20 2.8, 1/13-f8-ISO320

    16 2.8, 1/10-f8-ISO320

    At full res you can see the CA in the 16. OTOH, the image from the 20 is pretty sharp IMHO. Still, as you say, they are only JPEGs.
    Last edited by Dave_Anderson; 18th November 2009 at 16:57.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  9. #9
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Thanks Dave, to what I can see the 16 has produced a sharper image, and more detailed then the 20.

    Were this shots both with a tripod? Same settings?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Almost the same settings. I tried to edit both previous posts with details, but could only edit the most recent for some reason.

    Both shots taken with my old battleship Leitz Tiltall tripod.

    Another point of potential interest, when I was between the racks using the 20 there was quite a bit of airflow buffeting things around. I don't see any direct evidence of that -- just FYI.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  11. #11
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_Anderson View Post
    Almost the same settings. I tried to edit both previous posts with details, but could only edit the most recent for some reason.

    Both shots taken with my old battleship Leitz Tiltall tripod.
    Cool thanks Dave, then the 16 seems sharper to me.

    The Edit option goes away after one hour from your original post, I have been thru the same thing

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    I've tested my 17-35mm 2.8-4 and it performed better (at least in the center, and on APS-C) than the 24mm prime, both wide open. And the 24 usually gets better marks than the 20mm. Most reviews say both need to be shot at f/8.

    Not sure why this lens doesn't get good marks. It kept me from buying those two primes. I'm sure that edge sharpness or distortion on FF may be lacking, but it's price performance is excellent.

  13. #13
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Thanks for the input Greg, using the FF a900 all lenses will be put to the test not only by the Resolve power of the 24.6MP sensor but cause of the size, and some lenses bearably cover the Image Circle, and therefor Vignette quite a bit as reported on the 16-35 at 16 WO.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    FWIW, this is the only example I have of the 16 on the a900 that is even marginally useful for evaluating vignetting, only in the lower right corner.

    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  15. #15
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.
    Fisheye lenses always in my experience have abetter way of handling vignetting do to their extreme wide angle of view up to 180 Degree, and image circle covered.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by KETCH ROSSI View Post
    NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.
    Yes, I understood that, and seeing the remarks I realized that my previous shot taken with the 16 won't tell you anything useful about vignetting... since you seem to be considering that lens I thought I'd toss out a shot where you could look at that.

    I know what the lens is capable of and don't feel any great need to defend it... my Preciousssss....

    If you go with this lens on the a900 the main issues you may encounter are the lack of filter options(though three are built-in) and more than anything you may struggle to keep your feet and/or tripod out of the frame.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  17. #17
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Sorry Dave, I tough you didn't, that is an Italian reading here

    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.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Boulder Creek, Ca.
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Yes, the a900 tends to be a bit unhappy with adapters. You end up in manual mode. Sometimes it can't be helped, like with bellows. At least the metering and focus confirm works with a chipped adapter, the AEL exposure bars really help in some situations.
    α900+VG|F20|2xF58|16-35,24-70,135Z|STF|70-400G|50,85 1.4|16,20,28,100M,80-200APO f/2.8|28-135|500f/8|1x-3xMacro|2xMFC-1000|Tiltall+RRS, Bellows, etc.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by KETCH ROSSI View Post
    NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.
    It would be my experience that the 24-70 suffers from medium vignetting not the 16-35. I see no apparent vignetting with the 16-35, excellent lens imo.
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  20. #20
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    I agree, the 16- 35 in my experience does not vignette but the 24-70 is renowned for it.
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by KETCH ROSSI View Post
    Sorry Dave, I tough you didn't, that is an Italian reading here

    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 ... (I wish.)

    -Marc

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by KETCH ROSSI View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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 by Bill_Green; 19th November 2009 at 08:00.

  25. #25
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by KETCH ROSSI View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  28. #28
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Here are some examples of the 20mm from another thread:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...882#post154882

  29. #29
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  30. #30
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    The Minolta 20mm 2.8 RS and Sony 20mm 2.8 are identical lenses.

  31. #31
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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
    Last edited by KETCH ROSSI; 19th November 2009 at 11:31.

  32. #32
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  33. #33
    Member gilgameshist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Uruk
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)


  34. #34
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  35. #35
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.
    "

  36. #36
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  37. #37
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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.

  38. #38
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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-a...470_28?start=1
    Last edited by KETCH ROSSI; 3rd November 2010 at 05:58.

  39. #39
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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/top...r=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

  40. #40
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    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

  41. #41
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    No problem. There are a couple of good online Alpha lens rental places in the US that you may wanna consider in order to get a feel for some of the more expensive lenses.

  42. #42
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Well since I have a friend at Sony, I will call upon him to get me the kit, after all I might be Producing/Directing their high end Commercials for the Sony Style,
    so that should count for something :-)

  43. #43
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    It's a difficult choice to pick your first 2 lenses from the 4 Zeiss offerings. I couldn't do it so I bought all 4. Truth be told and for what I like to shoot the 24-70 and the 85 are my most used lenses. I prefer the 85 for portraits over the 24-70 but much prefer the 135 for portraits in general. However space constraints usually dictate the 85 is chosen over the 135 but given space the 135 is my goto lens. It's one beautiful optic that even the 85 has a hard time competing with IMO.

    With regard to the 16-35 and 24-70, I see no obvious vignetting in the 16-35. Again choosing between the 2 given the overlap in focal length I really only use the 16-35 for ultra wide shots. I find it excellent at all FL but suffers a bit with distortion at the wide end.

    Without knowing what and how you shoot, it's hard to recommend which path to take. I could get by with the 24-70 & 135 as a 2 lens setup, but I wouldn't give up my 16-35 or 85 now.
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  44. #44
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Thanks Eoin, very well put toughs.

    I shoot mainly Portrait, with predominantly Beauty Shots, full body shots, have about 20%, of my work were, mid body shots have about 30% and 50% is done as Beauty shots, face only with at times a bit of shoulder showing, this is in regards to portrait work, which in turn it takes about 70% of all my work, leaving 20% to Landscape and 10% to Architecture.

    So as you can see Portrait has the absolute priority, and since I don't do weddings and such, but concentrate most of my work in High end commercial work, both in Studio and on field, I say my strongest focal have always been the 85 & 135, also the 135 been my most used, even so the 85 1.2 II from Canon had seen more use then any other 85 used in the years past.

    The wide angle is really a need for those occasions when a landscape or architecture shots comes along, but the again I never really do Super Wide as I always need to avoid Distortion, but now days that too is easy to eliminate in post.

    Because this will be a set up carried along with my Cinema gear I only have very limited space, but I absolutely want to fit in a full size camera body and Lenses, just no many.

    If the Sony 20mm was better or at list as good as the 16-35 or 24-70 at their 20mm Focal, my choices would be as fallows.

    A) *Sony 20 - CZ 85 - CZ 135

    B) *CZ 16-35 - CZ 85

    C) *CZ 24-70 - CZ 135

    Again absolute the highest IQ and sharpness of the lens is a must and a priority here, I would put the 35 in the mix as well but I do need to have at list a wide range near the 20mm.

  45. #45
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Well Ketch, if you have the space required for full body shots with a 135mm, then this is absolutely the lens to have. In a straight shootout between a 135 & 85 the 135 is so much better in every respect, almost in a class of it's own.

    My favorite lens of all time was my EF 85 L when I shot Canon. I still admire and can pick the images I've shot with this lens. I never found a lens which gratified my soul to the same extent until I found the ZA 135 f:/1.8. Serious hunk of glass with extreme image quality the 85L never had, yet has the painterly smooth bokeh of the 85L.

    You owe it to yourself to purchase this lens first, providing you can use it or the 24-70 for full body shots.
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  46. #46
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    No one's mentioned it, but Kurt Munger did a quick comparison between the Sony 16-35mm vs the Minolta 20mm here ( you have to scroll down):

    http://kurtmunger.com/lenscomparisonpageid113.html

    Hope it helps.

    eric

  47. #47
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin View Post
    Well Ketch, if you have the space required for full body shots with a 135mm, then this is absolutely the lens to have. In a straight shootout between a 135 & 85 the 135 is so much better in every respect, almost in a class of it's own.

    My favorite lens of all time was my EF 85 L when I shot Canon. I still admire and can pick the images I've shot with this lens. I never found a lens which gratified my soul to the same extent until I found the ZA 135 f:/1.8. Serious hunk of glass with extreme image quality the 85L never had, yet has the painterly smooth bokeh of the 85L.

    You owe it to yourself to purchase this lens first, providing you can use it or the 24-70 for full body shots.
    Thanks again Eoin, the 135 will be definitely in my Bag!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebus View Post
    No one's mentioned it, but Kurt Munger did a quick comparison between the Sony 16-35mm vs the Minolta 20mm here ( you have to scroll down):

    http://kurtmunger.com/lenscomparisonpageid113.html

    Hope it helps.

    eric
    Thanks Eric, great Link and comparison there.

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Eoin,
    Do you think the 135 is sharper than the 85?
    How does the za 85 compare to the 85Lmk2,especially wide open?

    Ketch,
    Since portrait and fashion shooting is large percentage of your work, I would think that the 135, 85, and a fast 50'ish prime would be a good choice.If MF is ok with you, then a nice Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 with its world class bokeh would be sweet.Just another alternative which would be smaller than the zooms.

  49. #49
    Senior Member KETCH ROSSI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    Eoin,
    Do you think the 135 is sharper than the 85?
    How does the za 85 compare to the 85Lmk2,especially wide open?
    This I can answer for you, as every one has told me the same, and also coming from personal experience in every format ever used in the past twenty years I have always found the 135's always sharper then the 85's, especially so with the remarkable 135L against even the newer 85L II which I had, so I assume that is just the same on the Sony Zeiss, and every one confirmed so, even in this thread if you read all posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    Ketch,
    Since portrait and fashion shooting is large percentage of your work, I would think that the 135, 85, and a fast 50'ish prime would be a good choice.If MF is ok with you, then a nice Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 with its world class bokeh would be sweet.Just another alternative which would be smaller than the zooms
    I have considered such lens and now that you also recommend it I will definitely give it a shot, will be testing and shooting it as well as the Sony 50 1.4 as every also seem to think is great lens, but I imagine not as good as the Gold series such as the 35, but will be testing it against the 24-70 at 50.

  50. #50
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

    As far as I know the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 has the old manual focus Minolta MC mount, not the Minolta A mount (now Sony Alpha mount).
    So I think you would need to have the lens mount converted.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •