Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[Animagic!]

Can't wait to see your shots.

I have the Tamron 70-300 usd.... I really liked it a lot on my A55, but I'm not as keen with the A99. It's certainly a good lens, but it doesn't fully do the A99 justice. (I got spoiled, I started shooting with a Minolta 200/2.8 prime which produces amazing results) .

Of course, shooting with the 70-300 at the safari, that's the time you will miss a crop sensor. The good new is that 70 becomes ok for normal view shots... but 300 isn't really thaaaat long when you lose the crop factor.

I just bought a new/old used 2x teleconverter to pair with my 200, it gets mixed reviews but will need to try it out. (As it stands, my 200 is so good that I can do major cropping and keep top image quality).

I have mixed results with face detection. To me, the biggest issue with the A99 is the tight cropping of AF points in the middle of the frame. For portraits, the "face" is often outside of the AF points, so I still need to lock the focus and then re-position.
If the faces are closer to the middle of the frame, face detection does work very nicely. Face recognition is so-so. I need to take multiple saved shots of my kids I guess, to get the face recognition to be more reliable.
And I haven't tested the face detection in super low light.

I will be taking both my a99 and my a58. My camera rig allows me to carry two bodies very comfortably so before I was carrying the a58 and the Pentax K30. But now I'm leaving the K30 home for the a99. My plan is to take the Tamron 70-300 and use it on the a99 for most of my shots at the zoo and safari park. When I need the extra reach I'll slap it on the a58. I've also used the Tele-Zoom feature with great success, albeit diminished image quality. Using the Tamron 70-300 on the a58 at 300mm with Tele-Zoom feature is a lot of zoom! I used it to take pictures of boats on the other side of a lake. Haha

Ok, good to know. I don't plan on using face recognition but I would like to try face detection to see how it works. If it can accurately focus on faces then it will be a great tool! I'm kid of curious to see how it would work on something like Mickey and the Magical Map.

 

[Hockeyman]

Lorikeet by Havoc315, on Flickr

Great photo Adam

 

[Hockeyman]

I will be taking both my a99 and my a58. My camera rig allows me to carry two bodies very comfortably so before I was carrying the a58 and the Pentax K30. But now I'm leaving the K30 home for the a99. My plan is to take the Tamron 70-300 and use it on the a99 for most of my shots at the zoo and safari park. When I need the extra reach I'll slap it on the a58. I've also used the Tele-Zoom feature with great success, albeit diminished image quality. Using the Tamron 70-300 on the a58 at 300mm with Tele-Zoom feature is a lot of zoom! I used it to take pictures of boats on the other side of a lake. Haha

.

That sounds like its going to be a good workout

 

[Hockeyman]

did anybody get any shots? I was up until 2am but the clouds never cleared here.

I had clear skies but I got nothing, called it a night around 3am. I saw one fireball fall down to earth and of course it was to the left of what my camera was pointed to. That was all I saw so I tried to make the best of it and get some star trials out of it.

 

[Hockeyman]

Entrance to Jurassic Park at Island of Adventure. I know most of you are Disney folks and have never ventured over to Universal but I highly recommend a visit
JP River Adventure by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Took this while at Van Suan park in Paramus, NJ on our trip. My wife wasn't too happy to be posing for pictures but was able to sneak this one really quick. And of course she loved it once she saw it.
A Day At the Park by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Do believe this scene needs no introduction, lol. Taken on our trip in Feb
Blow Out the Candles (Explored) by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


From a small carnival in Paramus, NJ while I was up there
OLV Carnival by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Entrance to Jurassic Park at Island of Adventure. I know most of you are Disney folks and have never ventured over to Universal but I highly recommend a visit
JP River Adventure by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Took this while at Van Suan park in Paramus, NJ on our trip. My wife wasn't too happy to be posing for pictures but was able to sneak this one really quick. And of course she loved it once she saw it.
A Day At the Park by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Do believe this scene needs no introduction, lol. Taken on our trip in Feb
Blow Out the Candles (Explored) by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


From a small carnival in Paramus, NJ while I was up there
OLV Carnival by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

Nice shots! My wife (and kids) have the same "shyness" disease. Take as many pictures of your children as you can before they become teens.

It seems that every celestial event over the last few years have been blocked by cloudy weather here in PA. At least you did get some good star trails.

 

[Hockeyman]

Nice shots! My wife (and kids) have the same "shyness" disease. Take as many pictures of your children as you can before they become teens.

It seems that every celestial event over the last few years have been blocked by cloudy weather here in PA. At least you did get some good star trails.

Thanks Fractal. So far im 0-2 with meteor showers. Last year there was supposed to be one and woke up in the middle of the night and everything but never saw anything that night either.

My wife and kids are usually anything but shy when it comes to posing for photos but that day my wife was on the cranky side and when I asked her to pose with the kids she said she wasn't in the mood for a photo shoot.

 

[HPS3]

I thought I was the only one with grouchy ladies! LoL

Nice photos fellas!

Here are 2 with the a7 and Zeiss 55. I don't know if my copy is worse than others but I find it OK wide open. It's not as sharp as the fuji lenses @1.8. In bright light @1.8 I find it has that glow like old legacy lenses wide open with old coatings. Stopped to f2.2 it's tack sharp. I guess it's $1k because it carries a blue badge.


Houmas House Gardens by Harry Shields, on Flickr


Houmas House Statue by Harry Shields, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

I thought I was the only one with grouchy ladies! LoL

Nice photos fellas!

Here are 2 with the a7 and Zeiss 55. I don't know if my copy is worse than others but I find it OK wide open. It's not as sharp as the fuji lenses @1.8. In bright light @1.8 I find it has that glow like old legacy lenses wide open with old coatings. Stopped to f2.2 it's tack sharp. I guess it's $1k because it carries a blue badge.

Those results look tack sharp to me, and the reviews of the lens have been outstanding. Maybe you are just perceiving less sharpness because the DOF is so narrow at 1.8 on full frame?

I've still never quite spent that much on one lens. While I understand the benefit of quality glass, I've generally been able to find great results without spending quite so much. But then again, I've progressively spent more on lenses over time... $600 now being the most I've spent on a single lens. (And I am considering the Sigma 24-105 for $900 if it ever is released for Sony). So I guess it's just a matter of time before I'm commenting that "nothing less than a $1500 lens produces decent results!" lol.

 

[fractal]

I thought I was the only one with grouchy ladies! LoL

Nice photos fellas!

Here are 2 with the a7 and Zeiss 55. I don't know if my copy is worse than others but I find it OK wide open. It's not as sharp as the fuji lenses @1.8. In bright light @1.8 I find it has that glow like old legacy lenses wide open with old coatings. Stopped to f2.2 it's tack sharp. I guess it's $1k because it carries a blue badge.


Houmas House Gardens by Harry Shields, on Flickr


Houmas House Statue by Harry Shields, on Flickr

Love the statue pic! Just based on the reviews and tests I've read on the 55mm, you may want to consider returning/exchanging it. It is supposed to be super sharp.

Yeah, I wish somebody would want to take my picture as much as I want to take my family's. It's like pulling teeth. Now my 12 year old is giving me attitude as she approaches the dreaded teen years. She was always my eager model but that it slipping away.

 

[Hockeyman]

I thought I was the only one with grouchy ladies! LoL

Nice photos fellas!

Here are 2 with the a7 and Zeiss 55. I don't know if my copy is worse than others but I find it OK wide open. It's not as sharp as the fuji lenses @1.8. In bright light @1.8 I find it has that glow like old legacy lenses wide open with old coatings. Stopped to f2.2 it's tack sharp. I guess it's $1k because it carries a blue badge.


Houmas House Gardens by Harry Shields, on Flickr


Houmas House Statue by Harry Shields, on Flickr

Harry, those photos are so blurry I don't know how you can even post them. Joking aside, like everyone else said, they look sharp and really good to me.

 

[Hockeyman]

Harry, what lenses do you have for the A7 so far?

 

[HPS3]

Thanks everyone!

I have only seen problems in the bright sunlight @ 1.8. It just has this glow to it that reminds me of my old Minolta 50 1.4 Rokkor that I sold a while ago. in shade its really sharp, but is it worth that much more than most 50s?

Mike, I could only afford the kit and Zeiss 55 right now. I do wonder if I should have bought the 70-200 instead of the 55 and just gone with a manual 50 for now. IDK which is the better way to go. I even thought about the Zeiss 35 but went with the 55 for a faster lens.
The kit lens is nice but not nearly wide enough. I am thinking about the Rok 14 or a manual 17-20.

Havoc, what do you think? Rokinon 14, Canon FD 20, Tokina 17 or a Minolta lens? I would like to keep it pretty cheap.

 

[fractal]

 

[havoc315]

Thanks everyone!

I have only seen problems in the bright sunlight @ 1.8. It just has this glow to it that reminds me of my old Minolta 50 1.4 Rokkor that I sold a while ago. in shade its really sharp, but is it worth that much more than most 50s?

Mike, I could only afford the kit and Zeiss 55 right now. I do wonder if I should have bought the 70-200 instead of the 55 and just gone with a manual 50 for now. IDK which is the better way to go. I even thought about the Zeiss 35 but went with the 55 for a faster lens.
The kit lens is nice but not nearly wide enough. I am thinking about the Rok 14 or a manual 17-20.

Havoc, what do you think? Rokinon 14, Canon FD 20, Tokina 17 or a Minolta lens? I would like to keep it pretty cheap.

Sorry, I can't be of much help. I consider myself very knowledgeable about Minolta AF lenses and A-mount lenses in general. I can't really speak to the older adapted lenses.

You should *consider* whether to get the LA-EA4 adapter, which would give you AF on all A-mount glass. Unfortunately, the adapter isn't cheap at $350. Plus, it will take away about 1/3rd-1/2 stop of ISO performance.
But it will giving you blazing fast AF on A-mount lenses, and would then open the door to a ton of great old Minolta glass.
(I wouldn't buy a $350 adapter just to use 1 $100 lens.. but it could open you up to several lenses).

I don't have any ultra-wide suggestions (I shoot with a Minolta 17-35 for my ultrawide, which is merely "ok" but it was a cheap $300).

Since you passed on the 70-200/F4 though, I do have a suggestion there --- The Minolta beercan 70-210/f4. It is a truly beloved and famous lens in the Minolta lineup. You can use it with the cheap adapter for manual focus of course, or get the more expensive adapter for AF.
It's actually a little bit smaller and lighter than the new Sony 70-200 E-mount. But it's built like a tank.
I'm sure it can't compete with the new lens, but it is about 90% cheaper!
You can get a good copy for $100-$150.
You'd get the same focal length and aperture (actually slightly longer). I'd rate the resolution of the lens as above average. It has perhaps the best Bokeh I've ever seen in a zoom lens.
On the down side, you'd lose stabilization. And the lens can suffer from really bad chromatic aberration and purple fringing. (Corrected in lightroom).

A couple beercan examples:

novplayground-6.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

thanksgiving-18.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

thanksgiving-7.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

lillystarbucks-170.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

Thanks everyone!

I have only seen problems in the bright sunlight @ 1.8. It just has this glow to it that reminds me of my old Minolta 50 1.4 Rokkor that I sold a while ago. in shade its really sharp, but is it worth that much more than most 50s?

Mike, I could only afford the kit and Zeiss 55 right now. I do wonder if I should have bought the 70-200 instead of the 55 and just gone with a manual 50 for now. IDK which is the better way to go. I even thought about the Zeiss 35 but went with the 55 for a faster lens.
The kit lens is nice but not nearly wide enough. I am thinking about the Rok 14 or a manual 17-20.

Havoc, what do you think? Rokinon 14, Canon FD 20, Tokina 17 or a Minolta lens? I would like to keep it pretty cheap.

Harry,

FWIW, Trey Ratcliff did a review of the Sony E 10-18mm using it for on the A7r. Here is a snip-it...

I did a full comparison here of the two main wide-angle lenses that are currently available from Sony for the new Sony A7r (see my ever-growing Sony A7r Review here on the site). One of them is this NEX 10-18mm that worked so well on the cropped-sensor of my NEX system. The other is the full-frame Sony 16-35mm lens from their DSLR system. The latter needs an adapter to work on the Sony A7r.

As you can see in the video below, the NEX lens is my surprising favorite! I didn’t really expect it to be equal in sharpness and quality to its bigger full frame counterpart. The advantages to the bigger 16-35mm are that it can shoot all the way down to f/2.8. This would be valuable in low-light wide-angle handheld shooting (which I don’t do). It would also be valuable in astro-photography (which I rarely do).

But the advantages of the NEX 10-18mm are manifold! You basically get to move it between 12mm-17mm without seeing the ring around the outside. And yes, you get the full-frame goodness of the 36 megapixels of the Sony A7r! That’s much wider than the 16-35mm. The distortion is pretty much exactly the same on both cameras, as you can see in the video review. Even better, the NEX lens is over 2x lighter, 3x cheaper, and a fraction of the size. Amazing! I’m not seeing any difference in the sharpness of the lens.

link to the full article and video showing samples...

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/sony-10-18mm-lens-review/

 

[Hockeyman]

Im using the Rokinon 14mm now and im not sold on it just yet. I loved my old Rokinon fisheye but for some reason haven't quiet grasped the 14mm yet and sometimes think the bottom left corner of the photo comes out blurry no matter what I do.

 

[HPS3]

Fractal, that looks like the faces I get from my girls!

Mike, I don't know if I want the Rok. The Sony 10-18 is pretty expensive but has OSS. I don't use the UWA enough to justify a high price.

Havoc, thanks for the info. I definitely want OSS on a tele lens.

 

[havoc315]

Fractal, that looks like the faces I get from my girls!

Mike, I don't know if I want the Rok. The Sony 10-18 is pretty expensive but has OSS. I don't use the UWA enough to justify a high price.

Havoc, thanks for the info. I definitely want OSS on a tele lens.

I can understand wanting stabilization on a telephoto lens. Any time I think about switching to E-mount, that's what holds me back. I don't want to start all over in glass. And I don't want to lose stabilization.

But on the wide end, you definitely don't need stablization. Unfortunately, ultrawide options really are limited. That 10-18 looks pretty good. I note if you buy it off ebay, you should be able to get it for around $600. (I'm never afraid to buy used lenses, as long as the seller is reputable).

 

[havoc315]

Mike, Harry, Animagic, Fractal.....

Keep your eyes on this eBay listing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-AF-...18370136?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5d4cad1558

This is the greatest lens I have ever used. I bought mine for $600, and it has a crack in the body (which doesn't affect its operation or performance). This copy is in better condition, being sold by Adorama with a 60 day warranty. And I bet it ends up going for about the same price I paid for mine.

Why I'm strongly recommending this lens:

It's 200/2.8 -- and the image quality will surpass zoom 70-200/2.8s. It is the sharpest lens I've ever personally used. When using telephoto zooms, I tend to use them at the maximum focal length anyway. The only downside of the lens due to its age, is some purple fringing which sometimes needs to be fixed in lightroom.

For Harry and Fractal... on your E-mount bodies... Okay, you'd lost stabilization. But it's a 2.8 telephoto lens, and it's size goes well with an e-mount body. It is smaller and lighter than the new Sony 70-200/f4.

So comparing it to the Sony 70-200 f/4 -- 1 stop faster aperture, smaller, lighter, and sharper. (Both lenses were reviewed on photozone.de. The Minolta 200/2.8 has significantly less distortion than the new 70-200 f4. The new Sony still has moderate vignetting at 200/f4 -- Practically no vignetting on the old Minolta. At 200/f4, the new Sony has very soft corners, the Minolta is super sharp across the entire frame even at 2.8). So about $700-900 cheaper than the Sony version, optically superior in just about every way at 200mm, faster....

Here is what Photozone concluded about this antique lens when they did the review fairly recently:

"The Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS is a marvel of a lens indeed. It is sharp as a tack in the relevant aperture range and even superior to the current Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM."


Some sample images from the lens:

baseball-127.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

anniversary-492.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-5.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Chappaqua Train Eagle by Havoc315, on Flickr

zoo-113.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr
(this was with a cheap teleconverter that degraded the image)

anniversary-447.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Lorikeet by Havoc315, on Flickr

untitled-26.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

dance-41.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

I love the lens so much, that I practically use it as my walk-around. (It can be pretty awkward using a 200mm prime as a walk-around, lol.... often find myself backing up).