Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Which WA for Alpha 850

  1. #1
    memories
    Guest

    Which WA for Alpha 850

    Hi

    I have currently the following lenses for my Sony 850:

    28-75/2.8 Tamron
    35/2.0 Zeiss ZS (with M42 Adapter)
    50/1.4 Zeiss ZS (with M42 Adapter)
    85/2.8 Sony


    I am currently reshifting my lens park to more high quality lenses. I am now looking for a very good WA. Either Zoom or FL. Focal lenght of 20mm should be covered

    There is the Minolta 20/2.8 and the Minolta 20/2.8 RC (what is the difference?) and the Sony 20/2.8, which seems to be identical with the RC.

    In the Zoom range I read a lot of the ZA 16-35/2.8 but almost nothing about a Sigma 12-24. Tokina 12-24 seems not to exist for Sony mount.

    What would you recommend, so that I do not have the desire to upgrade later again? I want to have the best image quality availble.

    Thanks in advance

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Quote Originally Posted by memories View Post
    In the Zoom range I read a lot of the ZA 16-35/2.8
    This lens kicks @$$. Pull the trigger and don't think 2x....
    SONY A900
    Always outnumbered, never outgunned.
    My Site|Facebook Fanpage|

  3. #3
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Agreed with the above post. The 16-35 is excellent as far as zooms are concerned. As for primes, I would recommend the 24/2. The AOV is very close to to the 20. Otherwise the Sony 20/2.8 is excellent, even if it doesn't have the high micro contrast and the pop of the Zeiss. I'm very happy with both but the ZA sees the most use.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    I was also a big fan of the 16-35.

  5. #5
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    The Sigma 12-24 is fun, but nowhere close to the 16-35 IQ wise. It needs to be stopped down a lot before being acceptable, but the extra 4 mm shorter gives you a lot of creative possibilities that you don't get at 16 mm.

    The Minolta 20/2.8, 20/2.8 RS and Sony 20/2.8 are all identical glass, only mechanical build are different. Quality is excellent and it's still a lot smaller than a zoom. If you want something really small the old 24/2.8 is very good as well.

    If the $$'s of the 16-35 deter you look at the older Minolta 17-35's. The D is very cheap and a lot of bang for the buck. The G is somewhat better and somewhat more expensive.

  6. #6
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie Utah View Post
    This lens kicks @$$. Pull the trigger and don't think 2x....
    +1 for the 16-35

  7. #7
    memories
    Guest

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Hi

    thanks for the fast replies.

    Is the ZA 16-35/2.8 @ 20mm as sharp (also in the corners), contrasty etc. as the Sony 20/2.8?

    Is the ZA 24/2.8 as good as the Zeiss ZS 25/2.8 and/or the ZA 16-35/2.8 @ 24mm?

    Any rumours about a new Zeiss FL for Sony with around 20mm over the next 12 months?

  8. #8
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Quote Originally Posted by memories View Post
    Hi

    thanks for the fast replies.

    Is the ZA 16-35/2.8 @ 20mm as sharp (also in the corners), contrasty etc. as the Sony 20/2.8?

    Is the ZA 24/2.8 as good as the Zeiss ZS 25/2.8 and/or the ZA 16-35/2.8 @ 24mm?

    Any rumours about a new Zeiss FL for Sony with around 20mm over the next 12 months?
    Since I have owned all of the above, here's my humble opinion:

    The 20/2.8 is sharper in the corners but not in the center. It lacks the contrast and 3D of the zoom. I think the ca and vignetting are better controlled with the prime.

    The ZA 24/2 is better than the ZS everywhere but in the extreme corners. The zoom at 24 probably comes in second place in center performance and in third place in corner performance. But it's a zoom so this performance is already excellent.

    There are no rumours about any ZA in the 20mm FL.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  9. #9
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  10. #10
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Definitely the ZA16-35. Images made with the A900 just sing with this lens.
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  11. #11
    memories
    Guest

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Thanks again for the replies. Especially the links to the comparison shots are great.

    Tough decision. Normally, I would prefer 20mm in focal lenght. Looking at the comparison, I should decide then for the Sony or Minolta 20/2.8

    If I could live with "only" 24mm, the decision should be then the ZA 24/2.8.

    On top of this, the lenses are very different in size, weight, minimum focus distance and price

    Sony 20mm: 185g, 53 x 78mm, Filtersize 72mm, minimum distance 243mm, 599 USD
    Zeiss ZA 24mm: 555g, 76 x 78mm, Filtersize 72mm, minimum distance 192mm, 1.250 USD
    Zeiss ZS 25mm: 480g, 64 x 89mm, Filtersize 58mm, minimum distance 170mm , 950 USD
    Zeiss 16-35: 860g, 83 x 114mm, Filtersize 77mm, minimum distance 304mm, 1.900 USD

    Very difficult...

    Looking at the 2 Minolta/Sony 20/2.8 versions: Is it sure that there are no difference between the 3, which influences the image quality? It is hard to believe that a Minolta 20/2.8 from 1986 is still as good as the Sony 20/2.8 form 200x...

  12. #12
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Even though you will find many differing opinions, I am pretty sure that Sony version is a notch above, or even more. Not only the 20, but also my 35G and 50 seem to perform better than the online samples from older Minolta glass.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  13. #13
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Apparently, there has only really been one subtle redesign of the older 20mm Minolta (resulting in the newer RS designation), so it may not be much of a surprise that the older lens competes favorably with the new lens. The current Sony 20mm is identical to the Minolta RS version.

    I understand that the aperture was redeveloped to make it more 'round' at larger apertures, which may result in smoother highlights and OOF areas. I haven't seen the older one so I can't comment. Otherwise, it is supposedly the same, other than cosmetic changes to the barrel, and the rubber focus ring, which does make MF easier.

    I have a Sony 20mm version that am selling. It looks near mint, and has only seen a little use. I am asking $400; PM me if interested. I recently purchased a Leica 19mm, making the 20mm redundant, hence the need to sell.

    I'm not a fan of the Zeiss way of rendering, there is an increased apparent sharpness, but at the expense of OOF transitions and OOF areas, which I think look a bit 'nervous'. I like the way the Minolta/Sony lenses render, and the Leica lenses I use work very well, too. Ultimately, that's the reason I moved to the Leica glass.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  14. #14
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Michael, I do understand that many people do not like the Zeiss rendering for exactly the same reasons that you mentioned. However it is interesting to note that, while the ZA zooms seem to carry the same expected Zeiss look, probably because they are both based on older Contax N designs, the ZA primes on the other hand, have been designed following a different philosophy. In fact, many people find the rendering to be more Leica than Zeiss. I have read a lot of criticism of the ZA primes for lacking in Zeissness. And actually, I do find their OOF transitions and bokeh to be really smooth
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  15. #15
    memories
    Guest

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Hi mjm6,

    I just sent you a PM. I do think it makes sense to try it first with the Sony 20mm second hand. If I do not like it on my A850, I do not loose too much money. I then have to save for the ZA 24/2.0 - or for an R19?

    Have not thought about a Leica alternative yet

    You guys are making me hungry....this is not good...

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    I have the impression that you're looking for a prime rather than a zoom, so although the Zeiss 16-35 is superb I'd suggest the Minolta/Sony 20/2.8 or the Zeiss 24/2. I have a Minolta 20/2.8 (original version) and think it's a fabulous lens but wonder if you will prefer the Zeiss 24/2 as it will more closely match the other Zeiss glass you have.

    I'm a primaholic so I have both the Zeiss 24 and the Minolta 20, which one I'd go for if I had to choose, I don't know. Buying primes is a slippery road ...

  17. #17
    memories
    Guest

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    Hi

    thank you all for your input. That helped a lot. Yes, I am a FFL fan too. I am too curious about the angle of view with 20mm on fullframe at a weight of less than 300g

    So I will try first the Sony 20/2.8 FFL and compare the images with my ZS 35 & 50.

    @Edward

    Did you experience the image quality difference between the ZS 25 and ZA24 only when really look for it (i.e. pixelpeeping) or also when looking "the normal way" on to the images?

    I hoped that the ZS25 would be very similar in quality to the ZA24. That would have saved me a lot of money, since I do not need AF

  18. #18
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    The ZS 25 is a stellar lens without any doubt. The ZA 24 may be higher resolving in the center but the ZS has the high micro contrast that makes the photos pop at normal viewing sizes. It also has perfect corners at infinity while the ZA corners are a bit weak.

    I decided to keep the ZA because it has AF, one extra stop, and has a very flat field at close distances, while the ZS has a strong field curvature that could be used artistically mind you.

    It wasn't an easy decision because I really liked both, but could afford to keep only one.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  19. #19
    memories
    Guest

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    mmhh. I answered here something one day ago but it first has to be approved?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    297
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which WA for Alpha 850

    I use a Leitax converted Leica Elmarit 19/2.8 version 2 on my A900. Of course it is used in stop-down and manual focus mode. Focusing is not an issue at this FL. I don't have any of the other lenses so I can't compare but the lens has a tellar reputation. Very low distortion, but soft in the extreme corners.

    Alan

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
  •