Fun Pictures with Sony . . . .

[jonoslack]

Eoin
Thank you - I was aware that a price rise was likely, but to be honest I'm not sure if I got in in time or not. One of the real challenges of our new office, is that it's 15 minutes drive from Warehousexpress!!! VERY dangerous.

Edward - thank you - I don't think I'll regret it either. What terrifies me is the lure of your 16-35 . . . I thought you weren't that keen at first?

David - resistance is useless (at least, mine was, all that happened is that I've wasted 6 months opportunity of shooting with this lovely lens

Arne - after a lovely week spent in Finland last summer, you never know!

Bob - thank you - I can see more indiscretions on the horizon

David - those buds are lovely - what are they? I still think the 100 macro does a decent job with a good bokeh thrown in.

Not much time to shoot today, but here are a couple from this evening.

f3.2

f1.8

f5

 

[edwardkaraa]

Very nice, David! I like the composition, colors, and use of DOF.

A900 Minolta 100mm Macro

 

[edwardkaraa]

Edward - thank you - I don't think I'll regret it either. What terrifies me is the lure of your 16-35 . . . I thought you weren't that keen at first?

Let's say that I've had some teething problems with the 16-35. It took me some time to get used to, but now I actually like it. I still believe that in absolute sharpness, the 24-70 is better from 24 to 35mm. (But the 24-70 sharpness drops at 50 and 70mm). Both lenses are significantly better at the wider end and not as good at the longer end. But the 16-35 performs much better in the CA department and both produce equally pleasing colors and contrast. So now I'm very happy with it.

 

[jonoslack]

Let's say that I've had some teething problems with the 16-35. It took me some time to get used to, but now I actually like it. I still believe that in absolute sharpness, the 24-70 is better from 24 to 35mm. (But the 24-70 sharpness drops at 50 and 70mm). Both lenses are significantly better at the wider end and not as good at the longer end. But the 16-35 performs much better in the CA department and both produce equally pleasing colors and contrast. So now I'm very happy with it.

Variation is obviously an issue, as far as I'm aware, my 24-70 really doesn't have any CA to mention the 135 does (although it isn't distressing).

Glad you're enjoying it . . . . for the time being I'll stick to my lightweight 12-24 (not perfect, but quite useable).

 

[Braeside]

Jono and Edward, thanks for the comments on the macro shot. The red "buds" are actually the tiny parts of some Christmas Potpourri that was lying in a dish by the window.

Jono: Regarding the 135, I am hesitant because I do not do portrait photography generally and looking through my photo library I see 135mm is not a length that my zooms get used at very often. I walked around yesterday with the Minolta 80-200mm set to 135mm to see what I could do with it:

 

[jonoslack]

Jono: Regarding the 135, I am hesitant because I do not do portrait photography generally and looking through my photo library I see 135mm is not a length that my zooms get used at very often. I walked around yesterday with the Minolta 80-200mm set to 135mm to see what I could do with it:

Hi David
Lovely photo.
Well, this is exactly why I don't have the 85 f1.4, and why I waited so long to get the 135.
Still, the fact that one's zoom doesn't end up there very often doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't! I think that with the 70-300 I tend to use the longer end to get the soft depth of field - rather than because it's necessary.

One of the nice things about the 135 is that it does focus down to a couple of feet - so you can do the sort of shots you've been showing very easily.

I was also a bit worried about the screwdriver focusing (the 100 macro really can be a pain hunting around). It's pretty good though, and fairly quiet too. I have a pretty steady hand, but my problem is a tendency to sway, which, at f1.8 can be catastrophic - yesterday I tried using continuous focus and it worked really well, the lens made small corrections quickly without hunting.

You really can take pictures in low light too!

So, I think you'll agree, resistance is futile (and the price may go up soon!). Warehouseexpress in Norwich had one left the other day

 

[edwardkaraa]

Nice job again, David!

Honestly the 135 FL was not one of my favourites neither. I had the Contax 135 but almost always found myself using the 85 and 180. However, knowing the qualities of the ZA, I find myself reaching for it more often. I think it is a matter of knowing our lenses well, and using them accordingly. I agree with Jono that one tends to use the 2 extremes of a zoom rather than intermediate settings. I'm sure if you had a 35-135, you would find more photos at the 135 setting than now.

 

[Braeside]

Jono: The close focus aspect does attract me to the 135. This Minolta white 80-200 HS G has a terrible MFD of about 1.8m and it frequently causes me problems as a result.

We have a cruise to Jordan, Egypt and Libya coming up soon, but I have to be careful not to take take too many lenses as I don't want to be worrying about having to swop them all the time. At present I plan to take the CZ24-70, 75-300G and the Tamron 17-35 for WA and possibly the Minolta 28-105 for lightness as a general walkaround zoom.

I may stick the 100 macro in the bag as well, because there is always something to shoot at that scale.

Just ordered the Zeiss CPOL filter, as my other CPOL is vignetting on the 24-70.

BTW I found my 80-200 HS G zoom was much better with the UV filter removed, despite being multicoated it added a lot of flare even with the lenshood.

Edward: You are right, we do use the extremes of our zooms all the time, I am trying to force myself to use the other ranges. Life was much simpler with fixed lenses and simple cameras.

 

[Goldencode]

You guys are killing me with lens lust for the CZ 135 !!!
Not sure that I need it b/c I have the Minolta 200G which by far is my favorite lens...but it's sure fun to think about the CZ135.
I think it would make a beautiful equine lens..see, I just justified it !!

Here's some with a700+Minolta 200G

Sleek Summer Coat

Braids

 

[jonoslack]

You guys are killing me with lens lust for the CZ 135 !!!
Not sure that I need it b/c I have the Minolta 200G which by far is my favorite lens...but it's sure fun to think about the CZ135.
I think it would make a beautiful equine lens..see, I just justified it !!

HI Tom
Love that first shot
HELP!
Now I WANT one of these lenses too.
Where can I find one?

 

[edwardkaraa]

HI Tom
Love that first shot
HELP!
Now I WANT one of these lenses too.
Where can I find one?

Rumour is that Sony will release this lens in a Zeiss version sometime in the near future.

 

[Goldencode]

Hi Jomo,

Here's a few more with my 200G...this lens sure does have a strong loyalty :thumbup:
I got my 200G off eB*y from the Matsuiyastore in Japan, they were great to deal with. Price keeps going up,,I see them now for approx $1200 USD now.

Killer Dreads !

!

 

[douglasf13]

Here are a couple from the A900+ZA 85mm:

 

[jonoslack]

Tom
I love the second and last shots. I still want that lens, but I wish it wasn't white!

Douglas - those are both fabulous . . . the lens and camera were only a minor partner!

 

[jonoslack]

On the way home from work tonight. The light was soft and misty and very pretty.

24-70 Zeiss (A900)

With the 135 Zeiss 1.8

 

[douglasf13]

Cool. That B&W home is creepy!

 

[dhsimmonds]

I enjoyed a few hours at our local Arbotetum (Hilliers) and here are a few shots taken with the 100/2.8 macro. It is certainly a clunky old lens and I wanted to get to know it a bit better! It is one of those lenses that grow on you with use. It does hunt a bit at macro distances but I only needed to use MF for one shot. All hand held using the A900's abilities to the full!

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Still without Photoshop but anyway, straight from SilkyPix here is one shot taken with the 135 STF today of a Leucojum

Owing to the way the STF operates, this is a shot at F2.8 so far as aperture is concerned, but F4.5 so far as exposure is concerned due to the reduction of light transmitted.

As expected, bokeh is I think exceptional. Specular highlights from water behind are completely circular.

Cant wait to do a few portraits with it.

And one more

Quentin

 

[Braeside]

Quentin: Wow! - that lens is lovely.

Jono: Some fascinating stuff on your way home, especially like the monochromes.

Dave: 100/2.8 doing very nicely, great detail and contrast.

Douglas: I am envious of your portrait skills - something I lack completely.

Hope I haven't missed anyone...

 

[douglasf13]

Quentin: Wow! - that lens is lovely.

Jono: Some fascinating stuff on your way home, especially like the monochromes.

Dave: 100/2.8 doing very nicely, great detail and contrast.

Douglas: I am envious of your portrait skills - something I lack completely.

Hope I haven't missed anyone...

You're WAY too kind, but thank you very much.