Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[Hockeyman]

lol.... I do tons of research in anything I'm interested in. The reason I'm on this board is because of the ton of research I did before our first Disney vacation.
So now my wife is like, "you're still reading about cameras??? How much more can there be to know?"

But I need to stop posting analysis and get back to posting pictures..... I just am not a big winter shooter.

Its also fun talking photography and gear with others when you aren't out snapping gpictures

 

[havoc315]

I wanted something f/1.4 for shooting on dark rides really lol. My lens selection really revolves around my theme park visits When I go to the parks now 80 percent of the time I have my Tamron 17-50 on. The rest to the time is a lot of fisheye but and sort of getting burnt out on the lens so would love something wide not a fisheye. The 35mm I break out really only on dark rides or walking around HHN. My Tamron 70-300 only comes out in a blue moon.

I wouldn't mind getting a 28-75 zoom over the 50 macro and use as my walk around/fireworks/landscape lens.

Fractal is right, you sure know your stuff

What do you think of that Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens? I see the 50 is coming out soon also and wonder how much that one will run.

Reading great things about all the Sigma ART lenses. I'm looking at the Sony 28-75 myself... but considering waiting and saving up for the Sigma 24-105 for Sony.

Ok.. dark rides.... You still have the APS-C mentality, where 50 is too long for dark rides. But on full-frame, 50 is quite nice for dark rides. Remember, 35 on APS-C is 53 on fullframe. 50mm is typically considered a "normal field of veiw."
Minolta 50/1.7 is a very usable lens. Not great.. Many Minolta/Sony fanboys over-rate the lens. It's soft in the corners, needs to be stopped down. But you can get it for about $60... and very useful on dark rides.

If you are ok spending more for slightly faster, the Minolta 50/1.4 goes for about $200-$250.. it is a much sharper lens, and slightly faster.

You shoot dark rides far more often than me. But for my limited ultra-low-light usage, I just stick to my Minolta 50/1.7.

 

[havoc315]

Minolta 50/1.7.. Sony A99... ISO 10,000 (basically taken in extreme dark)


untitled-5.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

Reading great things about all the Sigma ART lenses. I'm looking at the Sony 28-75 myself... but considering waiting and saving up for the Sigma 24-105 for Sony.

Ok.. dark rides.... You still have the APS-C mentality, where 50 is too long for dark rides. But on full-frame, 50 is quite nice for dark rides. Remember, 35 on APS-C is 53 on fullframe. 50mm is typically considered a "normal field of veiw."
Minolta 50/1.7 is a very usable lens. Not great.. Many Minolta/Sony fanboys over-rate the lens. It's soft in the corners, needs to be stopped down. But you can get it for about $60... and very useful on dark rides.

If you are ok spending more for slightly faster, the Minolta 50/1.4 goes for about $200-$250.. it is a much sharper lens, and slightly faster.

You shoot dark rides far more often than me. But for my limited ultra-low-light usage, I just stick to my Minolta 50/1.7.

I was think of using the Sigma as my dark ride lens but for that price it would turn into a walk around lens also, lol. But is 35 to wide for dark rides. The price is pretty up there so would have to justify the big difference between the Minolta f/1.4 you mentioned and the Sigma.

 

[havoc315]

I was think of using the Sigma as my dark ride lens but for that price it would turn into a walk around lens also, lol. But is 35 to wide for dark rides. The price is pretty up there so would have to justify the big difference between the Minolta f/1.4 you mentioned and the Sigma.

Personally, I feel that 35 is too wide for walk-around on full frame. But you like wider than me, so you might not agree.

Take your current Tamron lens... Set it to 23mm and walk around with it. I just took the liberty of browsing your flickr.. most of your non-wide shots are 50mm.. which is the equivalent of 75 mm.
You have a lovely picture of your wife kicking up her foot in the pool -- That's 35mm..... But 35 on the APS-C is the equivalent of 52mm on full frame.

Take away the 1.5 crop factor of APS-C and everything looks so much wider. I've been using my Minolta 50 macro for landscapes. Never would do that on APS-C of course...

Probably already posted this, but this was 50mm macro:

untitled-13.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And this is mostly the same shot, taken at 35mm:

oflhdr2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

As you can see, 35mm is fairly "wide" on fullframe. A good landscape focal length on full frame, but too wide for most other uses.

And just for fun.. the same image in ultra wide on the A55 -- 10mm, so 15mm equivalent:


lenses-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

And finally, 28mm on the A55 -- so the equivalent of 42mm.....


Fall colors by Havoc315, on Flickr

As you can see--- The 50macro is almost as wide as the 28mm on the A55.

 

[Hockeyman]

Seeing those pictures I might agree the 35mm might be too wide for me for dark rides and a walk around lens. Would be nice to have but if im going to cover that with a zoom there really is no need right now if I get a 50. That Minolta 50mm f/1.4 might be right up my alley and the price is easier to swallow over that Sigma big time, im sure the 50 from Sigma will be pricey also and maybe down the road I get it but for now I have no problem getting older lenses.

 

[havoc315]

Seeing those pictures I might agree the 35mm might be too wide for me for dark rides and a walk around lens. Would be nice to have but if im going to cover that with a zoom there really is no need right now if I get a 50. That Minolta 50mm f/1.4 might be right up my alley and the price is easier to swallow over that Sigma big time, im sure the 50 from Sigma will be pricey also and maybe down the road I get it but for now I have no problem getting older lenses.

I know most photographers will always put lenses above the body.. put most of their budget towards lenses.
I'm not about to say "lens makes no difference." Can definitely get better results with better lenses. But once you put aside the really cheap cruddy lenses, and once you post-process It can be pretty hard to discern the difference between a mid-quality and high-quality lens in many circumstances.
Sure.. the cheaper lens may have slightly more distortion and vignetting.. which is correct in post, where the more expensive lens didn't need the post-work. The expensive lens may have sharper corners, IF you pixel peep the corners.
Then, must like a more expensive body, a more expensive lens may have some benefits that don't directly affect IQ -- weather sealing, silent focus, direct manual focus, etc.

So now looking at the Minolta 50/1.4.. unfortunately, I don't see any professional review tests of it..... but..... The current Sony 50/1.4 is probably the exact same optics....

Photozone tested it a few years ago on APS-C..

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/373-sony-50-f14?start=1

As you can see, the center resolution is brilliant. I doubt the Sigma will be noticeably better. It's also flat with low vignetting-- though that could be worse on full frame.
Extrapolating the results to full frame.. the corners are probably quite soft wide open. But stopping down to 2.8 will likely give you sharp across the frame.

The Sony version is $450 new... You can get it used for closer to $300. You can check if the A99 supports AF-D with the lens. If so, it may be a reason to buy the Sony version. Or save a bit more and buy the Minolta for virtually identical optics.

Don't know what Sigma will charge for the new version. The old version is now $399 on clearance..... The advantage over the Sony, is ultra-silent motor (for video particularly).
In terms of sharpness, it appears the old Sigma is very close.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=1

So ok, the new ART version will be better. But how much better? And it will have hypersonic focus.

Almost all primes produce better results than almost all zooms. The best most highly touted zooms... basically match mid-level primes. So personally, I don't see the need to spend big money on a prime lens, when there are many affordable primes that perform wonderfully.

Unless you are doing macro work though, I would not get the 50/1.4 and the 50/2.8 macro. Just get the 1.4. But perhaps get the Minolta 100/2.8 macro -- For macro work, short telephoto, and portraits. Even 100mm.. on FF is not very long. (only slightly longer than your Tamron set on 50!)

 

[havoc315]

My last post for the day (at least till tonight, I have work to do).

This discussion about cheap primes versus expensive primes..
Got me thinking..
I looked at the testing for the Sony 85/2.8 SAM lens ($300)... versus the Zeiss 85/1.4 lens ($1700) ---
Now... obviously the Sony version has a slower aperture, and a much cheaper build quality.
But if you are shooting F2.8-5.6... how are the optics?

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/599-sony85f28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14?start=1

The Zeiss outperformed the Sony version -- But just by the tiniest of margins. Even aside from sharpness, the lenses are close. Tiny distortion on the Sony, even less on the Zeiss.
So for most of us hobbyist photographers... if you don't totally need 1.4... Hard to justify paying six times the price.

 

[Hockeyman]

I know most photographers will always put lenses above the body.. put most of their budget towards lenses.
I'm not about to say "lens makes no difference." Can definitely get better results with better lenses. But once you put aside the really cheap cruddy lenses, and once you post-process It can be pretty hard to discern the difference between a mid-quality and high-quality lens in many circumstances.
Sure.. the cheaper lens may have slightly more distortion and vignetting.. which is correct in post, where the more expensive lens didn't need the post-work. The expensive lens may have sharper corners, IF you pixel peep the corners.
Then, must like a more expensive body, a more expensive lens may have some benefits that don't directly affect IQ -- weather sealing, silent focus, direct manual focus, etc.

So now looking at the Minolta 50/1.4.. unfortunately, I don't see any professional review tests of it..... but..... The current Sony 50/1.4 is probably the exact same optics....

Photozone tested it a few years ago on APS-C..

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/373-sony-50-f14?start=1

As you can see, the center resolution is brilliant. I doubt the Sigma will be noticeably better. It's also flat with low vignetting-- though that could be worse on full frame.
Extrapolating the results to full frame.. the corners are probably quite soft wide open. But stopping down to 2.8 will likely give you sharp across the frame.

The Sony version is $450 new... You can get it used for closer to $300. You can check if the A99 supports AF-D with the lens. If so, it may be a reason to buy the Sony version. Or save a bit more and buy the Minolta for virtually identical optics.

Don't know what Sigma will charge for the new version. The old version is now $399 on clearance..... The advantage over the Sony, is ultra-silent motor (for video particularly).
In terms of sharpness, it appears the old Sigma is very close.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=1

So ok, the new ART version will be better. But how much better? And it will have hypersonic focus.

Almost all primes produce better results than almost all zooms. The best most highly touted zooms... basically match mid-level primes. So personally, I don't see the need to spend big money on a prime lens, when there are many affordable primes that perform wonderfully.

Unless you are doing macro work though, I would not get the 50/1.4 and the 50/2.8 macro. Just get the 1.4. But perhaps get the Minolta 100/2.8 macro -- For macro work, short telephoto, and portraits. Even 100mm.. on FF is not very long. (only slightly longer than your Tamron set on 50!)

I would much rather buy a nice body first and build my collection of lenses around that versus having just and average body with nice lenses. The average body will still be limited no matter what you put on it.

The Minolta 50mm f/1.4 might just be the first lens I do buy whether I go FF or not. Ideally it makes more sense for me to have it if I end up with the A99 but if I do end up with the A79 or something similar Ill look into something 35mm f1/.4

 

[Hockeyman]

My last post for the day (at least till tonight, I have work to do).

This discussion about cheap primes versus expensive primes..
Got me thinking..
I looked at the testing for the Sony 85/2.8 SAM lens ($300)... versus the Zeiss 85/1.4 lens ($1700) ---
Now... obviously the Sony version has a slower aperture, and a much cheaper build quality.
But if you are shooting F2.8-5.6... how are the optics?

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/599-sony85f28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14?start=1

The Zeiss outperformed the Sony version -- But just by the tiniest of margins. Even aside from sharpness, the lenses are close. Tiny distortion on the Sony, even less on the Zeiss.
So for most of us hobbyist photographers... if you don't totally need 1.4... Hard to justify paying six times the price.

Its like buying an Apple product, paying extra just because of the name.

 

[havoc315]

I would much rather buy a nice body first and build my collection of lenses around that versus having just and average body with nice lenses. The average body will still be limited no matter what you put on it.

The Minolta 50mm f/1.4 might just be the first lens I do buy whether I go FF or not. Ideally it makes more sense for me to have it if I end up with the A99 but if I do end up with the A79 or something similar Ill look into something 35mm f1/.4

The difference between the Minolta 1.4 and a 1.8 is only about 2/3rds of an F-stop. The 1.7, even less.
If you do go full frame, you are getting the high ISO advantage.
So, shooting 1.4 on the A55/77/79 at ISO 3200 would be the same result as shooting the 1.8 at around ISO 5000. Or ISO 6400 vs ISO 10,000.

If you want to squeeze every possible ounce of low light advantage out of your lens, then definitely go for the 1.4. And I'm pretty sure the 1.4 is a sharper lens than the Minolta 1.7, though you're not really going to be looking at corner sharpness in dark ride pics.

Just saying, the jump from APS-C to full frame -- giving you a 1-2 stop low light improvement, will mean more to your dark ride pics then going from 1.7 to 1.4. Though if you can do both, why not!

And the Minolta 50/1.4 would probably serve you as a pretty good walk around lens as well.

Body vs Lens.... In terms of pure image quality, even cheaper somewhat older bodies can perform amazingly in the right hands, with the right lens.
But, unless you are pixel peeping or shooting under extreme lighting circumstances, a mid-level lens can produce results indiscernible from an elite lens.... Meanwhile, upgrading bodies improves the shooting experience. And a better shooting experience makes it easier to capture better shots, get more keepers.
Focus peaking for example as a feature -- It doesn't make the IQ higher. But makes it easier to get that perfectly focused picture.
So for example... If you told me.. you were considering whether to upgrade from the A55 to the A65... or upgrade from a kit 18-55 lens to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens... I would say your money is better spent upgrading lenses.
But take someone else... For example, they shoot with the Canon t1i and the Tamron 17-50 2.8... and they are considering whether to upgrade to the Canon 70d, or to get the Canon L 17-55 /2.8..... Going from a very good lens to a great lens... Or going from a very old entry level body to a top new enthusiast body... I'd would think that person is better off upgrading bodies.

Changing from APS-C to fullframe changes the equation a bit more, as that can lead to a real IQ change. While changing from one APS-C to another usually won't have a massive affect on IQ.

In your situation..... I think you would really appreciate the benefits of fullframe. The naturally wider angles, the lower light performance. Not to mention the amazing body design (though you can get that in the A77 for the most part).
But as you don't currently have any FF glass (I had a little bit when I switched), I'd make sure you lay out a good 12-24 month plan to build up your fullframe glass.
The 50/1.4 would probably be a very good start.

 

[havoc315]

Its like buying an Apple product, paying extra just because of the name.

It's more than that. The Zeiss 85 is better than the Sony 85... but it comes down to diminishing returns.
A strong metallic build.. versus something that feels plasticky and cheap.
A silent auto focus motor.. vs the noisier SAM system.
DMF capabable vs. Not.

And most important.. a lens that is usable from 1.4-2.8 aperture.

Sure.. if you are shooting in the 2.8-8 range... The 2 lenses can produce nearly identical results.
So you can pay extra -- A LOT EXTRA -- 6 times the price, for these benefits.

I recently read a book by a professional portrait photographer -- He stopped using ultra fast lenses, which you would expect for portraits. He sticks to constant F4 zoom lenses, because they are more versatile and not as heavy. And the reality is, for portraits, especially on full frame, you can get all the DoF control you need at F4.
But there remain professionals and hobbyists who remain willing to pay massively extra for small incremental improvements in the lens.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

My last post for the day (at least till tonight, I have work to do).

This discussion about cheap primes versus expensive primes..
Got me thinking..
I looked at the testing for the Sony 85/2.8 SAM lens ($300)... versus the Zeiss 85/1.4 lens ($1700) ---
Now... obviously the Sony version has a slower aperture, and a much cheaper build quality.
But if you are shooting F2.8-5.6... how are the optics?

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/599-sony85f28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14?start=1

The Zeiss outperformed the Sony version -- But just by the tiniest of margins. Even aside from sharpness, the lenses are close. Tiny distortion on the Sony, even less on the Zeiss.
So for most of us hobbyist photographers... if you don't totally need 1.4... Hard to justify paying six times the price.

At the moment I own both of those primes. The 85/2.8 was not released at the time I bought the Zeiss (which I bought used after selling my Minolta 85mm. And I got the SAM used too - most of my lenses are bought used actually!). Sometime I need to get around to selling the Zeiss because I just don't use it after getting the SAM which is a wonderful lens IMO for the price. Sharp, good colors and much smaller and lighter weight. I slightly miss not having the wider aperture but since 2.8 is usually plenty I'm not going to worry about it much. The build definitely feels less substantial but the IMO the plastics are strong and I'm very comfortable with their quality for the weight and price reduction they provide.

I also have had the Sony 50 1.4 for a long time. Even with APS-C it was my favorite lens for dark rides and on full frame it's almost like using a 35mm on the aps-c so if that has been your preference you should be fine. As a general walk around and dark ride lens at WDW though I do like a little wider so if going with only one on FF it's my Minolta 28mm but the 50mm would be my second choice. I like the wider to allow me to get closer to my subject - particularly helpful at Disney to help reduce the number of other guests in the pictures.

One thing when considering the Minolta lenses is that the coatings were not designed for digital and CA or purple fringing can be prominent under certain conditions. Personally I've not delved into the technique to remove it but have read it can be done.

 

[Hockeyman]

The difference between the Minolta 1.4 and a 1.8 is only about 2/3rds of an F-stop. The 1.7, even less.
If you do go full frame, you are getting the high ISO advantage.
So, shooting 1.4 on the A55/77/79 at ISO 3200 would be the same result as shooting the 1.8 at around ISO 5000. Or ISO 6400 vs ISO 10,000.

If you want to squeeze every possible ounce of low light advantage out of your lens, then definitely go for the 1.4. And I'm pretty sure the 1.4 is a sharper lens than the Minolta 1.7, though you're not really going to be looking at corner sharpness in dark ride pics.

Just saying, the jump from APS-C to full frame -- giving you a 1-2 stop low light improvement, will mean more to your dark ride pics then going from 1.7 to 1.4. Though if you can do both, why not!

And the Minolta 50/1.4 would probably serve you as a pretty good walk around lens as well.

Is it sad that I am basing my next purchase on how well it handles dark ride photography Even walking around HHN last year I was so mad that I couldn't come away with anything decent while walking around with my Sony 35mm f/1.8 shooting at ISO 6400 1/100th shutter speed. If i had the extra 1-2 stop with body alone I would be happy. On dark rides I try to keep it at 3200 ISO or lower so a gain there would be awesome also.

Body vs Lens.... In terms of pure image quality, even cheaper somewhat older bodies can perform amazingly in the right hands, with the right lens.
But, unless you are pixel peeping or shooting under extreme lighting circumstances, a mid-level lens can produce results indiscernible from an elite lens.... Meanwhile, upgrading bodies improves the shooting experience. And a better shooting experience makes it easier to capture better shots, get more keepers.
Focus peaking for example as a feature -- It doesn't make the IQ higher. But makes it easier to get that perfectly focused picture.
So for example... If you told me.. you were considering whether to upgrade from the A55 to the A65... or upgrade from a kit 18-55 lens to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens... I would say your money is better spent upgrading lenses.
But take someone else... For example, they shoot with the Canon t1i and the Tamron 17-50 2.8... and they are considering whether to upgrade to the Canon 70d, or to get the Canon L 17-55 /2.8..... Going from a very good lens to a great lens... Or going from a very old entry level body to a top new enthusiast body... I'd would think that person is better off upgrading bodies.

Changing from APS-C to fullframe changes the equation a bit more, as that can lead to a real IQ change. While changing from one APS-C to another usually won't have a massive affect on IQ.

This is why I wouldn't bother with the A77 and will want to see a lot of samples and test of the A79 even.

In your situation..... I think you would really appreciate the benefits of fullframe. The naturally wider angles, the lower light performance. Not to mention the amazing body design (though you can get that in the A77 for the most part).
But as you don't currently have any FF glass (I had a little bit when I switched), I'd make sure you lay out a good 12-24 month plan to build up your fullframe glass.
The 50/1.4 would probably be a very good start.

I really agree with you on that. I have known since I first started out with photography with my A390 that I wanted something bigger and better. I would have no problem starting out with an A99 and the 50mm Minolta f/1.4, even if it took me another year to get a new lens (which odds are it wont)


.

 

[Hockeyman]

On a totally different note any of you catch the Sony presentation at CES of the new Xperia Z1S phone? What really has my attention are the camera specs and not that I use my phone all that much for photography but would be great to have something decent for when I want to take some on the fly, mostly of the kids. I currently have an HTC One and I find the camera is horrible and the focus flat out sucks and just forget about low light or flash photography. I might pick this up since I already am with Tmobile and on there Jump program so wont cost me much to switch.

http://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProduct-Start?SKU=27-C6916

Primary Camera : 20.7 megapixel camera with Exmor RS® for Mobile, Sony G Lens, BIONZ for mobile

 

[fractal]

 

[Hockeyman]

^Awesome shot Fractal

 

[fractal]

^Awesome shot Fractal

Thanks!

 

[vandort]

Beautiful! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Animagic!]

Finally got bored and broke out the tripod. This was shoot at 300mm (450mm on APS-C) so it was majorly cropped.




And in other news I picked up a Pentax K30 body for pretty darn cheap and some old Pentax MF prime lenses from the 80's. I want to see how the K30 handles low light and I would like to try manual focusing on dark rides.