By D.R. SmithHi everyone. I'm pretty new here. I have a Sony A7III and shoot mostly outdoors photography.
I'm considering buying a 200-600mm lens but have also heard rumors that Sony is going to be introducing the Sony A7IV soon.
I have a 400mm lens that works for most purposes so the longer length isn't that critical and I'm wondering if I should save my money and wait till the A7IV comes out.
Has anyone heard when Sony expects to release that camera. If it's going to be fairly soon, I will probably hold off buying the lens, if not, well...
Any thoughts you folks might have would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks and it's nice to be here.
This is my first post. Just bought my first digi camera less than week ago (Sony a6000 with SELP1650 for 190€).
I did try to search but I did not find what I was looking for. If there is already topic about this feel free to link it here and I will delete this thread.
So I study communications and me and my friend have a plan of shooting a "0budget" interview/documentary about drugusers life on street.
Here in Finland is so dark during these winter months that I need lense that has good F-value. The current lense has f3.5 when not zoomed.
What is the cheapest zoom lense that you guys would recommend for my purposes? And how about some cheap wide angle prime lenses for this type of videography?
By kalforeverHi everyone!
I just acquired a couple of months ago the Sony a6000 to start into serious photography (I used to shoot IPhone and even if I love it, I've always looked for better and true stunning photos), I paired it with the Sigma 16mm F1.4 and love the versatility and the results especially the image quality. I've used primarily as an all-round, travel, every day photography even environmental portraits in low light.
I'm very excited since just received the A7III in addition to start in the FF world and I'm just trying to decide the first lens should I buy for, after reading and watching a lot of reviews I narrowed my search to the following candidates:
Sony 24-105mm F4 G, very useful focal length range and super sharp, F4 aperture may be compensated by increasing ISO in low light situations. Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, standard zoom lens for landscape, portrait and street photography, the F2.8 and apparently good sharpness is something really gets me. Sony Zeiss 50mm F1.4 / 55mm F1.8 standard primes, the overall performance and good perks of the 55mm are great, but the reviews about the stunning pop ("like magic") of the 50mm image quality really wants me to incline for this lens, is that really good? Sony 24mm F1.4 G Master, in pre-order right now but I really expect an excellent performance and to be a go-to for landscape photography and overkill the previous experience with the Sigma 16mm 1.4 (APS-C). I can just afford 1 lens this year (I won't be buying another lens even after savings) and don't mind to be walking in or out to get the perfect composition, I just want to get the best experience and image quality and start building my lens kit after time.
Thank you for the feedback!
By Al PhaDoes anyone know why Sony (or 3rd parties) can't make a better adapter for their A-mount SSM and SAM lenses? For example, the relatively inexpensive Sony 28-75 f2.8 is a really good lens. I've tried several copies and they make sharp, contrasty images. However, the AF on my E-mount bodies (a9 & a6500) is hampered by the paucity of focus points. The limiting factor is obviously not the bodies, and I don't think it's the lenses. It seems to be the adapter!
By CeallachI am one of the many who is transitioning to mirrorless from the Canon system (6D). I have been researching lenses and it's making my head spin. Until I decide which Sony or aftermarket lenses to get I will use the MC-11 adapter with my current setup. I have always used zoom lenses but am considering using primes with this camera. The biggest obstacle I have is budget.
What lenses would be recommended for a new Sony shooter? Also, how are the aftermarket lenses with regards to sharpness/IQ?
FYI, here is my current collection of lenses.
- Tokina 16-28mm; use for landscape, architecture,etc.
- Sigma 24-105mm; used as my general--purpose lens.
- Canon 70-200 f/4; considering keeping this if the IQ with the adapter is good.
- Canon 100-400; same as the 70-200
- Tamron 90mm Macro; used for macro
So my immediate needs would be to cover from wide-angle to around 100mm,
Thanks. I am new to this forum and this is my first post. One more day and I can pass out cigars.
Pieter, You answer your own question why: " absolute best image quality despite bigger file size and more noise on pixel level." Given my experience with 35mm, med and large format I know what increased resolution looks like even with much smaller prints of 8x10 and 11x14. In this case its certainly not marketing crap. Its a real world improvement. If you are using the kit zoom then perhaps there is not much more to resolve but again I'm using quality prime lenses and I know
I was also going to mention the A7x's. 24mp is absolutely fine for me, image quality is great and it's more than big enough for any print I would ever want to do. Until then, I don't see a need for more. For what it's worth, I previously owned a Pentax K1 (36mp). It was nice to have that additional crop-ability but it was entirely unnecessary for every scenario I would use my photographs (currently).
Hi, many forums and the "pros" once were certain that the star eater issue makes the Sony A7 Series unusable for astrophotography but I always had good results with my Sony A7rII. So I recently went ahead and had it astromodified. The thick IR-Block Filterglas was replaced with a thin Baader substitute that lets IR Light down to the h-alpha line and the sII line through to the sensor with high transmission. The results can be seen in detail on my google drive link here: https://drive.g
Honestly, why do you need more MP? 24 MP is plenty for any kind of print you may ever want to make if you factor in optimal viewing angle. All these bells and whistles you speak of result in a vastly better image than just boosting the MP-count would (better AF and subject tracking, better low light ISO-performance, etc). Higher MP is just marketing crap unless you plan to heavily crop or print billboard size and stand with your nose against the canvas. For good reason the A7x you refer to