Search the Community

Blackberry with Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 Spring Foliage with Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focus Lilium martagon via Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Listera Ovata

From Kew Gardens with Tamron 90mm f/2.5 on A7II Flames Tulipa clusiana var. chrysantha All photos on Listera Ovata

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

First two with Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 CF, remaining with Tamron 90mm f/2.5 52B all on A7II. Anthemis cretica Prunus avium Erythronium OoF by Listera Ovata

Mostly for travel purposes (I sometimes travel by motorcycle), a general zoom, reasonably priced would be great. At the moment only the Sony-Zeiss FE 24-70 F4 is available. Rumors say a new lens is about to be released with a bigger aperture. Sounds great but if one looks at the corresponding A-mount lens it'll likely be (way) above the 2 000 EUR barrier. Wondering if anyone has tried the SIGMA or TAMRON 24-70 F2.8 together with an adapter. I actually have a Metabones to use my old (film-era) Canon/Sigma lenses, so I could use it and purchase the TAMRON 24-70 2.8 which gets good reviews (mounted on Canon...). How would it perform on Sony A7II? Anyone?

Hey guys! I need your knowledge, experience opinion! I am new to this forum, as I just sold everything and switched from Canon to Sony (A7III) and need advice. I have already read and watched hundreds of reviews, comparaisons and discussions on the best 35mm lens I can get for my needs and I still don’t find any satisfying answer. I had no issue to find the adequat prime lens for every focal lenght I use but the 35mm. It has been giving me headaches for weeks... Maybe some of you own some of the lenses I am hesitating on buying (I have specific questions for each of them) or maybe you’ll find some interesting advice and experiences as well in the following discussion. Anyway, we all know there is no perfect lens. You have to make compromises. The best one is the lens that suits your needs. I do street and travel photography for my personnal pleasure, and I mainly shoot concerts and music festivals professionally. I also do video for fun but want to start being more professionnal about it. 35 mm being my favourite all-around go-to focal lenght, I really care about this choice. So here are my personnal needs, by order of importance, followed by the possible choices that I get, and their downsides. 1/ Fast and accurate Auto Focus ( even in low light) I love vintage lenses. And I will probably end up using Zeiss and Voigtlander MF glass for my personnal stuff, as the quality is incredible. But as I shoot moving subjects in low light, MF does not give me as many keepers. I need AF for more reliability (unless those MF to AF adapters work efficiently?) 2/ Fast aperture (low light, DOF, cinematic shots) Ideally f1.2 (but only 1 AF third party lens available) or f1.4. Maybe f1.8 or 2. F2.8 could already be too slow but I have not tried the low light performances of the A7III. Maybe it would be fine. Thoughts? 3/ Smooth manual focus ring for video. I don’t need a professional cine lens. But a decently smooth focus ring for video is important. 4/ Good IQ (sharpness wide open, microcontrast, bokeh...) I don’t need the sharpest lens in the history of mindkind. I prefer good rendering microcontrast and buttery smooth bokeh, but the sharper the better, obviously. BONUS (less important) 5/ Weather Sealing is a plus. I shot some pretty hectic and dirty gigs with mud and rain all over the place without Weather Sealing and it was fine, so it would be a big plus, but i can deal without. 6/ Size/Weight I can handle big heavy bodies and lenses, but a small and light equipment is a plus in certain situations (traveling, being invisible, shooting secretly, trying to be intimate with the si ject without intimidating them, shooting all day etc). 7/ A bit of character ? Again, it is about the photographer, not the gear and I can give my twist to the pics in post, but if there’s some character to the lens, that’s a plus. 8/ The cheaper, the better, obviously. If I can manage to get it under 1000 us Dollars new or second hand, that would be nice. 9/ Build quality. Full metal is better, but I don’t mind plastic. 10/ And the least important to me: design/handling/balance/look. If it is well designed and balanced with the body, and if it is pleasing to the eyes and hands, That’s perfect. But it is not an important requirement at all. So, here are the possible choices that we have (from what I know) and their apparent downsides: Sony Zeiss FE Distagon T 35mm f1.4: - Seems to fit every criteria - But expensive - And a lot of reviews say a ton of copies are abnormally soft in some parts of the frame... Rokinon/Samyang 35 mm AF f1.4: - Seems to hold up well against the Zeiss in terms of sharpness. - I don’t have my computer at the moment but from my low res phone screen the bokeh seems pretty equal. - Cheap in price and good looks/ergonomics. - But some report a problem with low light autofocus. - Some say the manual focus ring is not good and precise for good video work. - Strong CA? (easily fixed in post?) Sigma Art 35mm 1.4: - Amazing reviews - Seems to fit most criterias - Very sharp - Some people say the autofocus is bad, especially in low light, which is the most important criteria. I can handle some missed focus, but is it 5-10% or more like 20+% of missed shots? - Has someone tried the emount version in low light already? - Flat rendering? Not good in terms of microcontrast and bokeh? Sony FE 35 mm 2.8: - The size, weight, look, ergonomics seem perfect. - The IQ is very pleasing to me (character, bokeh, sharpness, microcontrast). - But 2.8 may be a bit slow? What is you experience at this aperture in low light environments with tge A7II or III? Tamron 35mm f1.8 VC: - This lens seems to be so perfect in theory for a price so cheap - Every detailed reviews says it is amazing, a steal, a no brainer - Build quality, macro, weather sealed - But it is 1.8 - I am afraid of the ergonomics and handling with a metabones or other adapter (+price) - Huge CA? - And I don’t remember having seen any picture taken with this lens that I found beautiful (and I don’t know if it is just me, the rendering, or the photographers who used it, or I didn’t search enough, I don’t know) I didn’t recall another one that seemed to be in the price range and fits those criterias . For now I still hesitate between the Sony, the Sigma and the Zeiss but everyone of them has huge downsides that I don’t know if I could work with... Maybe you have some suggestions and answers for me. I am listening. Thank you for your time and consideration, it is very much appreciated!

Once I get my hands on an A7iii I’m going to start buying lenses (kit 24-70mm, 85mm 1.8) and I’m considering buying something for sports and wildlife photography. I’ve been doing research and I’ve narrowed it down to these two lenses, I like the Tamron because it’s preserves the full frame capability. I’m concerned about sharpness though and I don’t mind shooting in APS - C mode to get the clarity out of the sigma. I would love to hear your opinions on the topic.

Hi everyone ! I am trying to decide what combination is best for my sony a7r2 : Sony 24-240mm FE f3.5-6.3 lens Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 lens with adapter So I bought those two off amazon and plan to return the one I won't use. I took the Tamron sony mount with the LA-EA4 adapter from A-mount to E-mount. I have a few questions regarding those lens. Is it better to own the Tamron sony mount using the LA-e3 adapter or go for Tamron canon mount with a metabones ? I am asking that because there is a mirror in the LA-EA4 adapter that makes a lot of noise when turning the camera on and off (focus phase detection ??) Is the quality of Tamron glass different for different mount ? canon vs nikon vs sony ? Because the lens have different sizes with the sony one being the smallest one. Do you know any ressource that compare the sony 24-240mm vs tamron 28-300mm in terms of sharpness ? The focus ring do not activate the magnification helper on the Tamron. Is it normal ? Why the sony 24-240mm is significantly bigger and wider than the Tamron ? Why the 300mm focal on the Tamron seems to offer the same framing as the 240mm focal on the Sony ? Shouldn't the Tamron zoom farther ?? I would like to know if there is a difference between LA-EA4 with Tamron sony A-mount and Tamron Canon mount with metabones (or viltrox) which I like because it doesn't add supplementary mirrors or glass and is less bulky. Thank you for helping me decide which one to keep and what combo is the best.

My first ever DSLR is a Sony A300 and the Tamron SP90 macro lens and this pictures pretty much brings back all the nostalgic moments~=) Shots taken with my trusty old Sony A300 with the Tamron SP90 F2.8 Macro, natural lighting. PP: Sony IDC, Adobe Fireworks. Feel free to comment~ This is my first post in SA forum, so apologies for the bad image compression due to upload file size limits~=P