Jump to content

mark_amos

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    1,240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello Old Friends, (I don't mean you are old, but I'm older than I was when I started reading this forum about 1999.) One of my on-going needs over the decades has been architectural interior photography of my own work in the field of museum design. I design museum exhibits and galleries and all the structures, graphics, and media used to present content and artifacts in museum story-telling. In my Film days in this work from about 1996 to 2006, I used a Nikon 24 2.8, 20 2.8 and later the Voigtlander 15 4.5 v1 for Leica screw mount. I did good work with a tripod and those manual focus lenses on film, but it was hard and time consuming, and things have changed, and new opportunities present themselves to move a lot quicker but with their own limitations. So now I have learned to enjoy AF - finally but understanding it's disadvantages - and I have also come to appreciate how image stabilization can actually let me do away with the tripod in certain situations, but I admit I'm being spoiled to hope for that - but it's feasible. I have spent the last 5 or 6 years using the Samyang/Rokinon 12 f/2 manual focus lens on my Sony A6xxx bodies. It is sharp enough for my work, but when it flares as it does' terribly like when there are museum can lights aimed directly into the lens or a window to a bright outside world directly in the frame, the lens is unusable - You just can't take that shot that you wanted. So I bought the new Samyang/Rokinon 12 F/2 with Auto Focus and also with much improved coatings to help with that flare just over a year ago before some of the other aps-c wide angle options came out. Let me just say this is an amazingly handy lens at a great price. It is really compact. One common dumb criticism is that the hood can't be reversed, but the hood is so small that you would never need to do that. It's a great improvement over the manual focus lens that had a huge hood. The Zeiss Touit 12 has a similar huge hood. But it still flares too much in some situations, and my question is: who can speak specifically to lenses with the least flare? I have read so - so - many reviews of other lenses, and just when I think I might have an answer, somebody has a review that contradicts the others about flare. So here are some of my assembled assessments of other lenses I've considered, and I'd like your input. Sony 11 1.8: I have read much different things. It has to be wide for the blogging cameras, but it's too wide for what I do - but not so much too wide, but how is the flare? Zeiss Touit 12 2.8: Still expensive new, but available used, but unsure if you get the newest firmware update with a used lens that required the lens to be sent back to factory. The hood is huge. I've read the lens flare is low, but then I read a review from a respected source that said the flare was high! Also, the AF motors are loud, I've read. The lens is very sharp at 2.8, but I've said the caveats. Samyang/Rokinon 12 f2 - I wrote about these in my post - see above please friends. Viltrox 13 1.4: Seems too big to me, but if ya'll can say it has really low flare, I'll seriously thing about it. I prefer smaller lenses for my kit, but I'm weighing size, flare, aperture, sharpness of course. Sony 15 1.4: I love this kind of sexy lens, but it isn't as wide as I need all the time, but I would love this lens for private use and work when needed IF IT HAS LOW FLARE IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS, but I don' think it does - I've read it has bad flare too! Sigma 16 1.4: I think this lens is too big for my double-duty needs, meaning I would prefer that my work architectural lens is small so I can use it on vacation too, and I think this lens is too big and heavy, but it's also not really wide enough. I welcome any thoughts you all want to offer. Thank you, friends, Mark
  2. I've been thinking about this post of mine from 4 1/2 years ago because I think Sony aps-c has developed about as well or better than I could have imagined at that time, and any issues of physics and cost with regard to lenses I hoped-for seem to have been handily addressed as well. May of this year, 2022, I bought the Rokinon/Samyang AF version of their 12mm f/2 manual focus lens. At just 7.5 ounces, quite compact and on sale for $350, this little equivalent 18 is quite a gem. It's actually lighter in weight than the manual focus lens. With filter 62mm on the AF instead of 67 and by making the hood a little shorter, the new lens over-all is much handier. I believe it came out April/May 2021. I also have the manual focus lens and found it very useful although it flares terribly, which makes it useless in some situations. The lens coatings are much better in this regard on the AF version although I think it is the same optical design. I also purchased the Tamron 17-70 December 2021, and it is incredible. It is sharper in the corners at 2.8 than any of my primes except the Sigma 56 1.4. So I suppose the problem in 2022 is choosing. As you all must know, now there is also the Sony 16-55 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Tamron 11-20 2.8, Tokina 11-18 2.8, Sony 11 1.8, 15 1.4, new 10-20 f/4 pz and the Viltrox AF APS-C 1.4 primes too as well as all the TTArtisan and 7Artisan and other Chinese-made manual focus options for playing around. I just ordered the TTArtisan 25 f/2 for $55. In a thread 5+ years ago when I was complaining about the total lack of anything of similar focal length to the $1200 Sony 24 1.8, I was as much as being told that something like that wasn't going to happen. Now there are quite a few equiv. 35-ish options. Perhaps it is ironic that we have all these unanticipated choices, but there still isn't a super compact APS-C fast 85 (equiv 128). I have the Rokinon 85 1.8 manual focus for aps-c, and it is fantastic, but I need the a6500 sensor stabilization just to keep the image still enough in magnified view to focus the lens. With it's 62mm filter at 12 ounces and only about 3" long, if they make an AF version of this lens, I'm buying it even though I already have the MF version. I say this because according to what I have seen in reviews (Chrisopher Frost on YouTube in particular), the bulkier, heavier Sony 85 1.8 FE just doesn't hold up in the corners on APS-C, and we often can't count on performance to hold up putting FE lenses on APS-C. So I've polished my crystal ball and seeing a small AF 85 1.8 from Sanyang for $400 😉
  3. Well I am indeed curious about whether Sony will ever release an aps-c road map. In several articles from August 10 and 11 2017 interviews with Sony management, they were quoted as saying they would never abandon aps-c and that it is an important part of their overall vision. Having said that, I concede that if you think about what they said specifically, aps-c could be "important" to them for entry level cameras (meaning no need for many aps-c primes) and also for professionals wanting a smaller body and also to easily get more reach out of their full frame lenses (again not requiring more aps-c primes.) So we shall see.
  4. Because every 85 you just listed is a full frame lens that is heavier and more expensive than necessary for aps-c cameras. I have chosen to stick with aps-c because the camera is smaller, and the lenses can be smaller. I realize we don't always get what we want, but it isn't clear to me why it made sense to Sony to offer the light weight inexpensive aps-c 85 2.8 for A mount but not for E mount.
  5. Edward, you touch on several issues, and I appreciate that you are offering information. I always think it is dumb when people are debating and one idiot says, "You are not going to change my mind." To that I say that my mind can always be changed with good information. By the way, I think you are saying that indeed a 85mm crop sensor lens could indeed be produced for aps-c e and be smaller and lighter, which should be obvious because I gave the example of the a mount 85 2.8 lens that only ways 6 ounces, so obviously if Sony wanted to give us some great 85 aps-c lens at a bargain they could, ...but they don't want to.
  6. I'm not as much accusing Sony of anything as just wondering about the precise reasoning behind their products and plans, and I would never think of their plans to make profit as a "conspiracy." To not offer one particular product to try to encourage customers to buy another product isn't a conspiracy either. I DO get the impression that companies plan their products carefully to try to sell as much as they can. For example, Fuji initially had their expensive 23 1.4 and also their 27 2.8 pancake, and they probably wanted you to buy both, and they are indeed very different in size and speed. You could only get a 24 f/2 on their X100. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if you wanted the best balance of size and speed of a 24 f/2, they wanted you to buy the X100 and probably the 23 1.4 and 27 2.8 too for an x-1 or other Fuji ILC? After the market for those products was drying up a little, they finally introduced the 24 f/2 and at a reasonable price. I don't think that's a conspiracy, but if I were a Fuji user, I would have found that strategy to be disappointing because I happen to like 24 f/2 = 35 f/2 Ed, I gave a specific example of how there exists a 6 oz 85 2.8 aps-c Sony A mount lens that was/is much lighter and more compact than the new/current 85 1.8 FE and still an excellent performer. I realize that is 2.8 vs 1.8. I don't understand why you are saying a crop sensor 85 1.8 wouldn't be much lighter than full frame FE? Wouldn't the elements typically have half the glass? Maybe not?
  7. Thank you Ed. I genuinely appreciate every aspect of your input, but that doesn't mean that you have addressed my post, but that does't really matter in the scheme of everybody just enjoying the forum. I admit that I don't understand why Sony doesn't offer a wide fast aps-c prime lens. Nobody knows what they are thinking. And I want to say again that I appreciate that you are willing to offer answers and insights when sometimes nobody else is willing to do so. Thank you Ed. As far as my fast telephoto needs, I still feel in limbo because I am not going to buy a 14 oz 85 1.8 full frame lens when I would love an 85 2.8 aps-c only lens that could weigh just 6 ounces and be fantastic. The A mount 85 2.8 defines what is possible for aps-c users and in fact what is possible for photography, but the vested interests in this and that lens will never do away I guess, which make me sad, but there it is.
  8. I am aware of the issues with extreme angles of incidence of the light approaching the edges of digital sensors even though I admit my insights are limited, but I know enough to know that in general for lenses to be optimized for sensors, it is best that the light strike the sensor as near perpendicular as possible (or per some particular relationship) and that means more elements and more weight and size, but all of that can only be quantified with respect to the precise chosen balance of size, weight, maximum aperture and quality and all that entails. What I mean is that if Sigma can make a 16mm f1.4 with 67mm diameter filter size at about 14 ounces to the high optical quality standard that everybody seems to attest for $440, then it seems to me that Sony could grab some of that market share with an 18 or 19 1.8 or even f2 that could be made somewhat smaller and lighter and more in line physically with the 24, 35, 50 line. It would be both less-wide angle and with a slower aperture. But it may be that what is possible with the design/physics just doesn't fit in quite as tidy as I thought it might, so they have just passed, but I don't see why that would be the case. While such a lens might cut into Sigma's sales, I don't think it would really hurt the sales of Sony 20mm tiny pancakes, $1,000 Zeiss 24s nor 10-18 f/4 zooms. A 19mm f/1.8 aps-c prime would be something quite different than their other aps-c offerings. I can only conclude that they don't want to cut into their full frame sales.
  9. Karim, I agree about the Sigma 19 2.8 in that it is nice and small, and I find that in good light stopped down, it is pretty much hard to complain about. When I've seen comparisons to the 16 1.4 at 5.6, I just don't think it is that different, but shooting indoors in moderate light at 2.8 is different, but I understand and agree about how spoiled we are with darn good iso 6400 when needed and especially with the stabilized sensor. Gary, I understand about being happy with what we have, but it just seems to me that the way Sony created their 24,35,50 laid the foundation in the road map (mixed metaphors?) to expand it. I also wish we had an aps-c 85 1.8 in that line (for light weight equiv fast 135/127) because it would be so much lighter than the FE version, but I can understand why they might not jump on that since at least the 85 FE exists is there. However they don't make a Sony 18, 20 or 21 1.8 FE to be the equivalent of a classic 28mm. (Plus it would be very large.) Having lenses available from Sigma, Rokinon and Zeiss has indeed And also concerning lens pouches and lens size, I have many brief cases and small lens pouches because as I said, I think the subtle aspects have a big effect on usability. When I'm carrying only two lenses, one on camera and one in a pouch, it is ideal of course if they are similar in size. For example, I have a zippered Tamron belt case that is perfect for the Zeiss Battis 85 (without hood) and big enough for the 67mm diameter of the Rokinon 12 f/2 (but still not big enough for the 12's hood, which I find is essential because the lens is flare sensitive), but the fact is that case is almost ridiculously large on the belt (so I've looked at fitting it with a strap). I have a very handy neoprene pouch that works very well with the small sigmas and the standard Sony 49mm lenses and is compact enough to almost fit unnoticed under an untucked shirt. I'm willing to give up on the idea of lenses that fit in a khaki pocket and are superb for aps-c, but 2.5" long lenses with 49mm to 52mm diameter and a weight below 11 or 12 ounces seems like a constraint to me that isn't as arbitrary as it might seem for what I like to do. For my few professional shooting situations, none of this is an issue, but for any kid's birthday party, soccer game, school event of any sort, regardless of whether I take 100 pictures or 10, I prefer to have a couple of very very good lenses with me almost invisibly.
  10. I find that the size and weight of the Sony 24 1.8 and 50 1.8 are about ideal for the a6xxx bodies: a little longer than I prefer, but they are light and handy and balance well. I have various belt pouches, and I often find that I am in good shape with two lenses: one on the camera and one in a pouch. That would usually mean obviously a wide and less wide like the Sigma 19 2.8 and Sony 50 or Rokinon 12 f2 and Sigma 30 1.4. (I don't have the Zeiss 24 1.8 because of price but I have shot with it.) I have and love the Sigma 30 1.4, and the rubber focus ring is nice and tactile, but I find that it is trickier to get in and out of the most compact pouch because the rubber texture grabs at pouch fabrics. Plus the lens is a bit larger than the 50 1.8 OSS. The way the size of a lens affects how and where you can carry it on your person is a significant characteristic of a lens. So I have read all the reviews and love the idea of the performance of the Sigma 16 1.4, but I'm concerned it is beyond my size and weight threshold. I have the Sigma 19 2.8, but 2.8 is often just not quite fast enough, and the edge performance isn't quite in league to the Sony 24, 35 and 50 nor the Sigma 30s. So I guess what I'm getting around to is this: doesn't it seem there is a need for a wide f1.8 lens in the Sony aps-c lens system. To be precise, a 18 or 19 1.8 about the same size as the 50 1.8 would be really handy. Most systems have a fast equivalent 28 don't they, and the 20 pancake just isn't that? As it is, they have the crappy 16 2.8, the mediocre and not fast 20 2.8 and also the 10-18 f4 zoom, which is nice for what it is, but it isn't a semi-fast prime. I would say there is a conspicuous absence of a wide 1.8, and if they could avoid the Zeiss branding, perhaps it wouldn't have to be too expensive. I would prefer a semi-compact 18 1.8 to Sigma's 16 1.4 if the Sony quality is consistent with the 24, 35 and 50. I recall reading that Sony said somewhere that they were committed to continue developing the aps-c line, so what might that mean in the short term anyway?
  11. It is not crazy to want what you want, but as you are doing, it is probably a good idea to research whether your perception and desires are well founded/justified for what you will get. I think the Leica CL and the 40 cron-C are a watershed accomplishment as an offering for the enthusiast photographer about 1972. My first M mount film combo was that combo exactly, and it was a great find even about 2003 when I bought it. used Things change. Still, my Leica 40 cron-C and 90 elmar-C are such compact fine performing lenses that I use them on my digital mirror less cameras often. An M4-2 and a Voightlander 40 1.4 would be a world beater in the hands of a believer, but it can't do what it can't do. It is a great one-lens concept on a film camera in a film world I should redefine my message to you though. You are considering an M4-2 film camera and a 40 cron. BTW, I started with CL and 40 and then others and then an M6 and then 35 cron aspherical and other lenses. I know the road. I don't think anybody can tell you that you won't want to know what a 35 would be like if you get a 40. My best answer is that if a person is an amateur enthusiast learning the ways of a rangefinder as a hobby and as a fascination with what is possible, you will never be happy with any amount of in exactitude about what area is framed by one focal length vs another, but the fact is that the Leica rangefinder system isn't exact. even though the rangefinder cameras can be among the most satisfying to use. I think if you are using an M4-2, you will enjoy having the most accurate frame lines you can by using a 35mm lens, BUT BUT BUT, if you take the time to use an illustration program like illustrator or Canvas or even photoshop to look a the difference in angle of view of these focal lengths, you will see that the difference between 40 and 35 isn't gigantic. Its very subjective. You look for yourself. You would just need to frame your pictures oh so slightly wider, but if that is a concern, then you won't like it...what can I say?
  12. Hey great point Karim. I like the fact that it is a full frame lens. It would be a great first FE AF lens for me if I eventually get a full frame camera, but then the camera would be a7 or later, and there would probably be a firmware update to correct for the lens. Thanks. If anybody knows however, I am still curious. Wouldn't it be possible for the camera to use a correction system so that newer lenses can be corrected without a firmware update perhaps because the lens could tell the camera what corrections to use? While I don't mind the concept of in-camera correction at all, it seems like a huge problem is equipment within a system is limited to what firmware updates are issued going forward.
  13. Hello Ed. Thanks for your input. I have read a lot about the lens and recognize it as a good product overall. Otherwise I wouldn't be considering it, but I have read the distortion can be an issue. I often have straight lines near the edge of my frame as I often used architectural features to help me ensure I am level. I just check the typical distortion of the lenses I often use (which are admittedly only some very good lenses) and they are more typically not more than 0.5 or -0.5%, so I think I would notice. I've seen uncorrected example shots, and I notice. That's why I'm asking whether my NEX-6 can correct this? I can't do it in post. I don't do post. I shoot far too many pictures to do that.
  14. Ed, thank for replying. I really appreciate it. I know that these days, some new lenses are made to have desirable qualities like optimized sharpness even if that means they have some distortion because the distortion can often be corrected in the camera, and this is common for jpegs made in the camera. I don't use light room, and I am generally happy with the jpegs that come right out of the camera, but I am typically using expensive legacy lenses that don't require in-camera correction because that wasn't possible when these lenses were made and sold, and most of my lenses are designed to be highly corrected. I like the idea that a lens can be cheaper and lighter because the manufacturer is counting on the idea that there will be some in-camera correction. I don't shoot raw, but I don't want terrible pin cushion or barrel distortion. I would like it to be corrected "in-camera." SO, if I have a camera that only has a firmwear update from a couple years before a new lens was introduced, will my camera be able to make compensation for a new lens? It might well be that the "language" is already established so that an older body can totally understand some kind of communication coming from a newer lens, but I don't really know. I DON'T WANT TO BUY THE SONY 28 F2 IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE THAT THE IMAGES WILL SHOW BAD LENS DISTORTION BECAUSE MY NEX-6 CAN'T MAKE IN-CAMERA CORRECTION. Thanks guys!
  15. I have an NEX-6 with the 1.02 firmware update. The 1.03 update doesn't specifically say it has the in-camera jpeg corrections for the Sony 28mm f/2, and 1.03 came out before that lens was introduced, so I don't see how it could/would. If I were to buy that lens, how would I be able to get the in-camera jpeg correction? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...