Jump to content

Pieter

Members
  • Posts

    728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    69

Everything posted by Pieter

  1. Would certainly help if you shared the pictures you liked for reference. You're not giving us much to work with...
  2. Is it on the outside of the front element or in the inside? Difficult to see on the picture. If on the outside, I'd try a gentle but thorough cleaning with lens cleaning liquid and an optics cloth: could be grease/muck. Defects like this shouldn't affect sharpness much but they do show up in bokeh balls if you shoot wide open. Unless the defect was mentioned in the advertisement of the lens, I'd certainly try to get a refund. Defects like this should give you a serious price cut.
  3. Both Canon and Nikon first and foremost focussed on fullframe format in their transition to mirrorless (R and Z mount, respectively)*. They both released an enthusiast model APS-C camera with the same mount, along with some entry level lenses, a couple years later. Sony on the other hand started E-mount with just APS-C cameras and started producing fullframe models a couple years later. Sony is surely putting their focus on fullframe now as the market for smaller format cameras is being eaten by smartphones. Same with Canon and Nikon: primary focus is on fullframe. All these brands realize though that they need APS-C to draw starters and enthusiasts into their system. Once people are invested in a certain mount system, they tend to stick with it and sometimes follow the upgrade path to fullframe. *Canon also had the M-mount mirrorless system alongside EF-mount DSLRs. This system was entirely focussed on APS-C and, while succesful among starters, didn't provide an upgrade path to fullframe. This system was therefore doomed to be abandoned as soon as Canon released the fullframe R-mount.
  4. This is most certainly true if you stick to F/4 zooms and F/2.8 primes or slower on APS-C. If you go faster, the only real advantage is in price of the camera: the A6600 and A7C are almost identical in size, weight and specs (except sensor size) but the A7C is about €/$ 600 more expensive. As to size, weight and cost of lenses: I appreciate you refuse to be educated by some random annoying internet smart-ass like me. Instead, I suggest you have a very interesting read here. Might help you in properly comparing your apples: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso/amp Yes, disappointing. I was hoping for a 50-140 F/2.8 zoom to complement the 16-55 F/2.8. But happy nonetheless that Sony keeps supporting the APS-C system.
  5. I guess the part of equivalent aperture didn't really stick. That's what makes the whole difference in this discussion. Not if you take equivalent aperture into account, which is what I am doing when speaking of getting exactly the same image across systems. Not at all: my second post in this thread showed you 5 other options with equivalent focal length and aperture, showing size/weight savings is negligible between the two systems. The only relevance of comparing same aperture lenses between systems is to determine correct exposure at similar settings. For all other things related to the final image, you should compare equivalent aperture. Any loss of light in the fullframe system compared to APS-C can be compensated for by raising ISO, negating the improved dynamic range / noise performance of the fullframe system over APS-C but resulting in exactly the same image. I hope so too. As said, I am a dedicated APS-C shooter myself and am welcoming any new product related to the system.
  6. Yes, that one is for APS-C. Guess it was before Sigma started using the DC designation to specify an APS-C design.
  7. These seem pretty identical to me, except the top photo is taken slightly more to the right and the bottom photo is taken a bit more to the left. The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN is also designed for APS-C by the way.
  8. It is common that the focal length mentioned on your lens is not exactly what it claims to be. A 50 mm lens can really be a 46 mm or 54 mm lens. This might cause a difference in field of view between any two '50 mm' lenses. But it surprises me there is a couple of steps difference between the two to get the same framing. Care to share a pic of the two lenses with focal length markings?
  9. The guy you spoke to was wrong and is spreading the confusion. It's not like the fullframe equivalent focal length is the 'true' focal length of a lens. Your 56mm is as true a 56mm lens as if it were designed for fullframe, medium format or micro 4/3. Crop factor is only relevant when comparing one system to another. If all you've ever used is an APS-C system and know what a 56mm lens looks like on your camera, why would you want to relate to a fullframe system? Somehow mankind decided fullframe is the general standard to relate to when talking about equivalent focal length. Could have been any other format.
  10. Crop factor is a property of your camera(sensor), not of the lens. Focal length is a property of the lens and has nothing to do with the camera. The only difference between a lens designed for APS-C and a lens designed for fullframe is that a fullframe lens can cover a larger image circle if used on a bigger sensor. On your A6400, a 56mm lens will always look the same, be it designed for APS-C or fullframe.
  11. I guess you are referring to 'long exposure noise reduction'. We had a discussion about this before, and the reason why it should be left on in-camera rather than dealing with it in post:
  12. Was just thinking: our misunderstanding might be caused by different starting points. Your reasoning: given the fact that I have an a6XXX camera, I want to achieve result X. What lens do I need? My reasoning: given the fact that I want result X, what camera system do I need? From your standpoint (correct me if I'm wrong), it makes total sense to get a lens designed specifically for APS-C. From my standpoint however, it hardly makes sense to get an APS-C system just to save size and weight. To illustrate this, let's proceed on your 35mm(ish) APS-C lens: let's take the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 DC DN. To get exactly the same end result on a fullframe camera, you only need a 45mm F/2 lens, such as the Samyang 45mm F/1.8. Again, these setups create exactly the same image I'm after. As a photographer, the final images are the apples I'm comparing. I don't care about any other apples.
  13. I never said that this wasn't the case so your entire post was not needed. From a purely technical standpoint you are totally correct, I need not be convinced about this. But I am a photographer. All I care about is the resulting image. A 12 mm lens on an APS-C camera produces an entirely different result than a 12 mm lens on a fullframe camera. So what is your point in comparing these? Lens specs are meaningless if you don't consider the system as a whole, lens+camera. That's where the whole equivalency principle comes in. If you take equivalency into account (which you don't), you'll find there's hardly any size/weight benefit in APS-C over Fullframe.
  14. Also remember that focus magnifier only works when the camera is set to manual focus mode.
  15. Ok this discussion is going nowhere. It's the end result that counts. Just comparing same focal length and/or F-stop on different sensor sizes really has no practical meaning. Fullframe sensors have an advantage of about one stop of ISO-performance over APS-C, so for all practical purposes comparing end results, you should compare equivalent focal length AND aperture. Using a 12 mm F/2 lens on APS-C gives identical end results (in terms of field of view, depth of field, shutter speed and noise) as an 18 mm F/3 lens on a fullframe camera. The only thing different in this comparison is the aperture and ISO (the fullframe setup being 1 stop slower, compensated for by higher ISO).
  16. While there are some specific comparisons where your point is valid, when you compare current gen lenses with equivalent focal length and depth of field, the size/weight difference is actually really small if you look for it. I guess you compared the Samyang 12 mm F/2 against the old Batis 18 mm F/2.8. If you compare it to the new Samyang, it's a whole different story: Samyang 12 mm F/2.0 (18 mm F3.0 FF equiv): 59 mm long, 230 grams <> Samyang 18 mm F/2.8: 61 mm long, 145 grams. The FF-option is a whole lot lighter! Some other comparisons: Tamron 11-20 F/2.8 (16.5-30 F/4.2 FF equiv): 86 mm long, 335 grams <> Sony 16-35 F4 PZ: 88 mm long, 353 grams. Tamron 17-70 F/2.8 (26-105 mm F/4.2 FF equiv): 119 mm long, 525 grams <> Sony 24-105 F/4: 113 mm long, 663 grams. Sony 16-55 F/2.8 (24-83 mm F/4.2 FF equiv): 100 mm long, 494 grams. <> Sony Zeiss 24-70 F/4: 95 mm long, 426 grams. Even for the great and tiny Sigma 56 mm there is a small FF alternative: Sigma 56 mm F/1.4 (85 mm F/2.1 FF equiv): 60 mm long, 280 grams <> Samyang 75 mm F/1.8: 69 mm long, 230 grams. Even though I'm a dedicated APS-C user, I stopped thinking there's a real size/weight advantage if you compare equivalent focal length plus depth of field vs fullframe. The main difference to me is in the size of the camera (though the A7c negated some of that advantage), cheaper glass and the small long range options like the 70-350 F/4.5-6.3. There just doesn't exist a small 400mm+ FF lens. It would likely have to be an F/9 lens to be close to the APS-C option in size.
  17. I guess your best compact option in E-mount is the Tamron 70-180 F/2.8 at the moment. This lens likely wouldn't be much more compact if designed for APS-C. A 150mm F/2.8 with 1.4× teleconverter on APS-C would give you a FF-equivalent field of view and depth of field of 320mm F/6.0. There's really nothing to be gained here in terms of size and weight by using an APS-C setup. Teleconverters don't just fit on any lens. In E-mount, the selection of lenses taking teleconverters is pretty limited and they're all pro-oriented long focal length lenses. The odds of Sony making an APS-C prime lens in the 100-200 mm range which takes teleconverters is pretty much zero: way too niche of a product.
  18. Panasonic Lumix LX-cameras also have a larger sensor than your average point-and-shoot in the $200 price range, which underlines my point: if you don't mind much about image quality, use your phone. If you do mind, invest in something better than a $200 compact camera.
  19. You know the SEL 55-210 can be bought for less than the price of an adapter?
  20. Personally, I think the small sensor pocketable cameras have lost their purpose: image quality in (d/r)ecent smartphones is just as good if not better due to vastly better computational power in phones. And that's a camera you'll surely always have with you. I therefore suggest investing that $180-200 in your next smartphone rather than buying a separate camera with mediocre quality. If you really want something pocketable and a noticeable upgrade to a phone camera, I'd be looking at a 1"-sensor camera such as an RX100. Those are out of your budget though.
  21. Not the type discussed in this thread, that's for sure... Why would you prefer an adapted lens anyway?
  22. Yes, it's a E-mount lens. All E-mount lenses fit all E-mount cameras. Really depends on your purpose and expectations. Of all E-mount zoom lenses, this one is optically the worst. However, it is also the cheapest, most compact (camera+lens will fit a large jacket pocket) and still delivers quite acceptable results. So if you want a cheap and compact setup and aren't a pixel peeper, go for it. If you want the absolute best results, better look elsewhere. No: your a6500 is an APS-C camera. The lens is also designed for APS-C, so the image circle of lens and camera are compatible. Only when used on a fullframe camera (A7, A9, A1) does this lens cause serious vignetting.
  23. You're welcome. Be sure to post some of your macro shots on one of the showcase boards for us to enjoy, and to let us know how the combo worked out in practice!
  24. If you've been following this forum for as long as I have, it's not hard to diagnose DrJohns well-developed case of GAS.
×
×
  • Create New...