A900 shooters having fun while D3x users are not

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

TEBnewyork,

You seem to misunderstand...being happy with your current gear is irrelevant.

More, much more, new gear is all that matters. You also have an obligation to spend in these difficult economic times.

But good luck resisting temptation anyway. Personally, I find it easier just to yield.

Bill

 

[edwardkaraa]

Some questions for the users. How much do you use the preview function (where it takes the shot and you can adjust your settings and see the impact). Seemed very cool and pretty useful.

Never. It is very useful if you shoot jpg though.

Can the 135 be used with a teleconverter? Anyone tried it? Does the image quality suffer a lot.

It can't be used with teleconverters, not the ones from Sony for sure.

Anyone shoot in the APS-c size with a full frame lens? Any metering reason to ever do this? What does shooting in the 6mp mode do?

I tried it a few times just for fun. You only get 11mp. The only reason I could think of is to get more reach with a tele, but if you have enough memory, you could crop later.
I know most people are using the 70-300. Anyone tried the 70-400?

Kit suggestions....let's start with an Iceland kit where I need wide and long and midrange is not so important.

For wide the 16-35 is an excellent lens. On the long side you have the choice between the 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 70-300 and 70-400. I understand that the 70-400 offers a marginally better performance over the 70-300.

 

[Terry]

Bill,
I haven't yielded yet but it is getting closer. I brought a CF card to B&H today. Their lighting is pretty hideous but the camera

a)nailed the WB in very mixed light on AWB
b)allowed me to handhold with decent (definitely not perfect but better than expected) success at stupid slow speeds
c)I really liked the colors
d)the second time around the 135 is still to die for.....

Edward,
Thanks for your answers. The 70-300 felt pretty good for me to hold nicely. B&H did not have a 70-400 on display, will have to look for one to try. At least I know the 70-300 will work. Thinking about the Sigma wide instead of the 16-35. Helps keep the change of system cost at a not too horrific level and I don't really feel like I need the speed at that focal length.

I sent Guy a bunch of images maybe he will comment on what he saw.....

 

[edwardkaraa]

Edward,
Thanks for your answers.

My Pleasure

The 70-300 felt pretty good for me to hold nicely. B&H did not have a 70-400 on display, will have to look for one to try. At least I know the 70-300 will work.

I had the chance to try both at SonyStyle, and the 70-400 is double the weight and size and more than double the price (in Thailand it's almost like 3X). I don't think the price is justified unless you really need that extra 100mm length.

Thinking about the Sigma wide instead of the 16-35. Helps keep the change of system cost at a not too horrific level and I don't really feel like I need the speed at that focal length.

Believe me once you buy into the system, sooner or later, you will feel the itch to get the entire Zeiss line up. It's just a matter of when. So save your money and get the 16-35 directly

 

[dhsimmonds]

TEB

I absolutely agree with Edward. If you can stretch the budget to get the 16-35, Zeiss then you really must.

I always worry about the plastic gears on the Sigma lens.

Also optically, the Zeiss is just a dream to use. I also use the 70-300 and it is a very nice lens producing clean and sharp images with excellent colour but not quite in the Zeiss class in build quality or producing that "Zeiss" glow in the images!

Both of these lenses would give you a useful travel set with the A900. I add the 24-70 Zeiss for my own travel bag but it is often not used much....but the 16-35 is!!:thumbs:

 

[jonoslack]

TEB

I absolutely agree with Edward. If you can stretch the budget to get the 16-35, Zeiss then you really must.

I always worry about the plastic gears on the Sigma lens.

Also optically, the Zeiss is just a dream to use. I also use the 70-300 and it is a very nice lens producing clean and sharp images with excellent colour but not quite in the Zeiss class in build quality or producing that "Zeiss" glow in the images!

Both of these lenses would give you a useful travel set with the A900. I add the 24-70 Zeiss for my own travel bag but it is often not used much....but the 16-35 is!!:thumbs:

Damn you David!

Well, first of all, the Sigma 12-24 is a good lens - well tested over the last 3 or 4 years, and if you get a decent one it's reliable and sharp, so it's certainly a viable option if you aren't shooting a great deal of wide angle.
I found that my Nikon 14-24 didn't get used a great deal, which was why I hadn't dropped for the 16-35.

BUT - I'd never thought of using the 16-35 + the 70-300 as a 'twin lens kit'. Of course, it makes absolute sense, whereas the 12-24 and 70-300 leaves much too big a gap, hence the expletive, you've got me reconsidering my decision not to get the 16-35

 

[dhsimmonds]

Damn you David!

It wouldn't be for the first time Jono!! I reckon my next trip will be with just those two lenses though!

 

[Terry]

Oiy-
On Saturday I was set that it would be 16-35, 70-300, 135 and perhaps the 50 macro

But then I kept thinking I would be mad if I didn't get the 24-70 while it was $300 off bundled as a kit. So in that case I would get sigma 12-24, 24-70, 70-300, 135

Hmmmmm......

 

[jonoslack]

It wouldn't be for the first time Jono!! I reckon my next trip will be with just those two lenses though!

Ouch, Ouch . .. and then one could bung in the nasty little 50 f1.4 for those dingy moments.

It really does make sense - aided by the fact that all the lenses focus so deliciously close.

Damn indeed!

 

[picman]

Believe me once you buy into the system, sooner or later, you will feel the itch to get the entire Zeiss line up. It's just a matter of when. So save your money and get the 16-35 directly

Well, yes, I have the 16-35, 24-70 and 135 but for the 85 I am going to try and show unusual strength of character:ROTFL:

Actually, I'm hoping that an SSM and IF version may come out

The 135 doesn't have SSM but at least it does have IF.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Well, yes, I have the 16-35, 24-70 and 135 but for the 85 I am going to try and show unusual strength of character:ROTFL:

Actually, I'm hoping that an SSM and IF version may come out

The 135 doesn't have SSM but at least it does have IF.

Cheers, Bob.

Well, Bob, I'm sure there will be eventually an 85mm Planar with IF and SSM, but not before 3-4 years time because Sony has to fill the gaps in its line up before upgrading existing lenses. In the meanwhile you will be missing a lot from this wonderful lens. I will use/enjoy mine for several years until it gets upgraded

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Oiy-
On Saturday I was set that it would be 16-35, 70-300, 135 and perhaps the 50 macro

But then I kept thinking I would be mad if I didn't get the 24-70 while it was $300 off bundled as a kit. So in that case I would get sigma 12-24, 24-70, 70-300, 135

Hmmmmm......

I like this setup myself and actually suggested it since you may not use the extreme wide angle as much as a 24-70 which I know myself I would get in a heart beat for event work and the 135mm right on the top on my buy list. I'm showing very good restraint here . I would like this system but now is not the time for me until business comes back stronger

 

[douglasf13]

Call me crazy, but I rather like the exclusion of SSM in the primes. It makes them seem a bit more timeless, in that lens motor repair won't be an issue in the future, and, as the body motors improve, so does the AF in these lenses. The jump from the A100 to the A700 was a massive improvement in screw drive speed. For me, SSM in zooms, and screw drive in primes is ideal, since I trade zooms in more frequently, and keep primes forever, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I'm with you Douglas. I really like the long focus throw and the rigid infinity stop of screw driven lenses, which both make manual focusing a pleasure. I'm sure SSM has advantages but I still prefer the pure mechanical action of the screw drive. But hey, only 4 months ago, I was still focusing and stopping down my lenses manually, so what do I know?

Call me crazy, but I rather like the exclusion of SSM in the primes. It makes them seem a bit more timeless, in that lens motor repair won't be an issue in the future, and, as the body motors improve, so does the AF in these lenses. The jump from the A100 to the A700 was a massive improvement in screw drive speed. For me, SSM in zooms, and screw drive in primes is ideal, since I trade zooms in more frequently, and keep primes forever, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

[douglasf13]

Yeah, no kidding. I'm still doing some stop down stuff, too. FWIW, I do wish there wasn't that bit of play in the Zeiss prime's focus rings.

 

[jonoslack]

Gordon Bennett - what a couple of old dogs you are . . stopping down indeed :ROTFL:

Mind you, what kept me from getting the 135 for some time was the mechanical focus, but it seems to be no problem at all. On the other hand, on the 100 macro it's horrid, so I guess it does depend on the lens as well as the principle.

 

[hardloaf]

Yeah, no kidding. I'm still doing some stop down stuff, too. FWIW, I do wish there wasn't that bit of play in the Zeiss prime's focus rings.

My 135/1.8 also has this play - I'd say about 1mm. Very annoying. However my friend also has this lens and says that his sample doesn't have any. Go figure.

 

[hardloaf]

Gordon Bennett - what a couple of old dogs you are . . stopping down indeed :ROTFL:

Mind you, what kept me from getting the 135 for some time was the mechanical focus, but it seems to be no problem at all. On the other hand, on the 100 macro it's horrid, so I guess it does depend on the lens as well as the principle.

I'm considering that Sony 100mm and looks like grinding focusing ring is a typical feature of this lens, but I wonder if you tried it when camera is set to MF-mode. As far as I understand A900 has some kind of clutch inside and physically disconnects motor from the screwdriver if set to MF.

 

[jonoslack]

I'm considering that Sony 100mm and looks like grinding focusing ring is a typical feature of this lens, but I wonder if you tried it when camera is set to MF-mode. As far as I understand A900 has some kind of clutch inside and physically disconnects motor from the screwdriver if set to MF.

Hi There
it's okay on manual focus - I wasn't complaining about turning the focus ring on auto-focus, just that the auto focus seemed kindof tired when compared to the 135, which really is pretty good.

 

[hardloaf]

Hi There
it's okay on manual focus - I wasn't complaining about turning the focus ring on auto-focus, just that the auto focus seemed kindof tired when compared to the 135, which really is pretty good.

Good to know. Thanks!