Search the Community

More than satisfied about my A7r and A7r2. But lacking the “ultra wide angle zoom f2.8”. Have already the Sony 16-35mmF4 and Loxia 21mmf2.8. For astrophotography use also the Samyang 14mmf2.8, Loxia 21mm and 24mmf1.4…. But the Nikon and Tamron seem to cover it all, maybe the quality on the A7r2 will be a little behind the Loxia but would give me the possibility traveling with one lens, max two (like to much the little Loxia) in stead of 4 lenses… Have to say I meanly use these lenses for landscape (at f8-f11) and astrophotography (wide open or one stop closed), so don’t really care about AF… But do care about quality all over the picture, also in the extreme corners certainly regarding landscaping. Did anyone compare it to primes or other zooms on the A7r2 ? Could also consider the Canon 11-24 but a little dark for astrophotography, only f4.0…prefer f2.8 Don’t know how this lens performs on the A7r2 in the extreme corners. Thanks for any reply and friendly greetings

The new Nikon DL compacts look pretty sweet. They're probably packing the same Sony sensor found in the RX100iv, but it looks like the implementation may be even better. The one with the most attractive lens, for me, the 24-85mm, is also the cheapest at $650. On paper, these have everything the RX100iv does, but you lose an EVF in favor of a touch screen, and wifi for bluetooth only. They've got built-in time-lapse, HFR, 4k video, OSS and electronic OS, and Nikon say they've eliminated rolling shutter, which is a huge problem on the RX100iv in 4k. Not sure you power it with USB (probably not). That, and the fact that I've already got a zillion backup batteries for my RX100iv means I probably won't be switching, but still . . . Has Nikon bettered Sony in the premium compact? The 24-500 version looks arguably better than the RX10ii. If I were buying today, I'd probably get the Nikon. Your thoughts? http://nikonrumors.com/2016/02/23/nikon-dl-cameras-specs-comparison.aspx/#more-102482

The new Techart adapter (M mount to E-mount) enables AF with Leitz lenses that do not have a built in focusing motor. The motor is in the adapter. As present adapters for e.g. Canon lenses do not allow AF with ALL lenses but only with a few newer ones, it may be a good idea to have the motor in the adapter instead of relying on the motor in the lens. Such an adapter would be a rather complex affair as the diaphragm would still have to be set by the camera body through the electrical contacts on the camera body and lens. But the system would not have to rely on a possibly not working focusing motor in the lens as that would be done by the adapter. Hopefully Techart, Metabones or whoever will take up this idea and construct an adapter which allows AF with all Canon/Nikon etc. lenses.

Just curious if anyone out there has ordered or plan to buy this thing. If it works, it will solve big problems for me. I have lots of Nikon F mount lenses I would love to put on my A7Rii and my wife uses an A7R. B and H is taking preorders. It's expensive ($400) but would save me buying a long telephoto lens. Any thoughts?

By Rad Alzyoud. March 2016

I'm new to this list. A search brought up none of my key words, so sorry if I missed a relevant thread. Here goes: I bought the A7II to get as much of a fully manual SLR feel and control as possible. I've since purchased a mix of AI and AIS lenses. I'm simply looking for tips, tutorials and recommendations to better my skills and photos. The only specific for this post is: are there any adapters out there that aren't ~3cm long? the length of the adapter creates weight by its cantilever. Best, -Josh

Just another question while I'm waiting on my Sony A7 I'm just wondering if it is possible to use Nikons VR or Tamrons VC when adapted to Sony A7? Maybe it's not but it would be nice to have image stabilization. Just wondering if those IS technologies work independent of camera bodies or must the camera body support the IS on the lenses in question?

Well, the title says it all. It come in handy when you're out shooting with Nikon legacy glass to keep things nice and easy, having to bring (and to keep track of) just one kind of lens cap.

（D810 + AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G @f/2 1/100s） （D810 + AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G @f/2 1/100s） I've been a Sony user from the start, ever since I first bought the RX1R about 2 years ago. I dove into the DSLR world on Nikon's side when I purchased the Df and then the D810 last year. After selling my RX1R, I've always been thinking of buying a backup-cam for my everyday use (because let's be honest, the D810 is a chunk of a camera). That's how it started. It looked like it was a good timing for me to buy the A7 II after seeing mostly positive reviews online, and with me going more hands-on in camera shops, I decided, "Yeah, why not." I was always jealous of the A7 II's 5-axis IBIS and better ergonomics, coming from using the IMHO ergonomically-poor RX1R. The auto-focus was for me, apparently faster and more accurate than both the RX1R and the A7/R/S even in single point AF. Therefore, in the end, it was the A7 II for me. （This was me testing out my friend's A7R for a few days，α7R + FE 16-35 F4 ZA OSS @f/4 1/20s） （This was me testing out my friend's A7R for a few days，α7R + FE 16-35 F4 ZA OSS @f/4 1/20s） Thoughts on the A7 II: There is quite a design change ergonomically for the A7 II compared to the A7R. Although it's not a whole overhaul of the body design, it is pretty apparent once one grabs onto the grip on both cameras. The plastic dials are easier to turn IMO, and my middle finger finally has a comfortable place to rest on the grip. Overall, I enjoyed the ergonomics of the A7 II more than the A7R. As for the lens, there was no other answer for me at the time than starting out with the Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA (keep in mind this was pre-Distagon 35mm F1.4 announcement). This also deterred me from buying the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art for my D810, with the Sony-Zeiss being smaller, demonically sharp wide-open, and free from needing focus micro-adjustments at all times. The single point AF on the A7 II, IMO, has reached the level of 'capable' in comparison to the D810. Although my D810 trumps the A7 II when it comes to continuous tracking AF, with Nikon's AF-C 3D tracking being almost god-like in real life usage, the A7 II tracking is quite fine in the center area where the PDAF points lie. Single point of the A7 II is a pain in low-light situations, but at least the camera doesn't pretend to grab focus when it is actually out of focus like my previous experiences with the Olympus E-M1 and E-M10. （α7 II + Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA @f/1.8 1/4000s） （α7 II + Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA @f/1.8 1/1250s） （α7 II + Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA @f/5 1/60s） A7 II pairs fine with my Yongnuo 560TX + YN56-IV combination. This is a great news. I sometimes even think of replacing my D810 and make my Sony the main-cam. However, it's only after real usage of both in shoots that I started to realize how difficult it's for me to balance both cameras' RAW files in post to have similar colors and tonality. Even with the help of Lightroom and Photoshop, I found that both cameras/lenses combination produce quite different color rending even with RAW files. (More to come... Will talk about mounting Nikon lenses... Editing in progress...)

Since 2012 I've tested hundreds of legacy lenses on the SONY NEX7 and A7r. Here's a quick overview of some favorites Biggest bang for the buck - the Minolta MD Rokkor lenses. The 50mm 1.7 tests as well any other 50s until the FE55 and Otus 55 - especially as you head into f4 to f5.6. These lenses were as cheap as $17 from KEH. The MD 28 2.5 is also a fun lens that I prefer over the Zeiss Hollywood Distagon f2.0 depending on the situation. The best zoom value ever is probably the Contax Zeiss 28-85mm. It's a dust pump, it's heavy, the g'damn front element rotates, no one single hood works across its range, but it is very very sharp, has perfect Zeiss color and is cheaper and broader than the fragile 35-70mm. Coming up in focal lengths - The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 (not legacy really) but a screaming bargain at $300ish. I had to test several to get a great one, and the damn thing reaches infinity halfway in the throw. But otherwise perfect corner to corner. 21mm - hands down the Zeiss Distagon 21mm - we all know DXO is wrong again in their guesstimates. 28mm - in daylight and 3d effect - the Hollywood Distagon 28mm 2.0 AEG - but at night leave it at home - it absolutely sucks due to coma. 35mm - The Contax 35 f.15 AEG - some PF wide open but settles down nicely by 4.0 - 5.6 50mm - either C/Y 50mm 1,4 and 1.7 - same issues as 35mm 1.4 but nice by 4.0 - the Minolta's are a bargain 85mm - as many swear by as swear at the Contax 85mm lenses. I never missed them too much. 100mm - overrated Contax - the ones I've tested had crazy bad CA. I passed 135mm - never found a good one until the new Zeiss Apo-Sonnar - this is probably the finest lens bargain on the planet. It is a true APO. 180mm - The C/Y Sonnar 2.8 is good for reach as long as there isn't high contrast. 300mm - the 300 f4 is a piece of crap - not really good for anything other than clubbing a Leicaphile with. I never really found a Leica that performed really well but they do draw nicely if blurred pixels are your thing. There is almost always an issue with every Leica lens - flare, ca, poor resolution, it's always something. I tried a few Nikon manual focusing lenses out - they weren't that good either - the Contax always won over the Nikons in the 20mm-100mm range.