gurbally_seth

<p>I used 85mm 1.8 briefly on my 5D, and it is a great lens, tack sharp from 1.8. I am told 85mm 1.2 shows CA wide open, and has slow AF in low light. It is almost five times costlier than 1.8. Go with 1.8. </p>

<p>I agree wth Robin. Sony lenses are costlier that IS lenses of Canon and VR lenses of Nikon. These prices make mockery of Sony's in-body stabilisation.<br>

But I would still love to have CZ glass, nothing beats them.</p>

 

<p>Shun, A900 may be on its way out. Looks like that as part of its clever marketing strategy, Sony has put a cheaper A850 in its place. We can expect A950 or something in the coming months.</p>

<p>I am waiting to see whether A850 has better performance at higher ISO than A900. If so, I am going for Sony. </p>

<p>I used it on D300 for four months before selling it.<br />It is okay at 1.4, but not that good. Well, bokeh too is so-so. Definitely, its AF is slower compoared to 50 1.4 AF-D.</p>

<p>It is not Sony or Nikon for me. I have no brand loyalties. I have used D300 before selling because I wanted primes for portraits and wide-angle photography. So I bought affordable Canon 5D with 135mm f2 and 35mm 1.4.<br>

Frankly, D300 is a great camera. But I have also tried my hand at A700 now, and I find that it is as good as D300, and costs a lot less and has built-in IS. It has the speed as well.<br>

I love Carl Zeiss (CZ) lenses that Sony offers. CZ 135mm 1.8 blows you away. It is bloody so good, as are 85mm 1.4 and 16-35mm 2.8. Will buy them once A850 comes out.<br>

Again, Sony has enough good lenses to go around.<br>

<br />Gregory, don't give a damn about brand prestige and buy what suits you. It is ridiculous to read that some people have complexes about Sony, thinking it is only a electronic consumer giant and will be no match for Canon or Nikon. Every man/company that became great later was initially laughed off as something not to be taken seriously. Sony has done well since venturing into this field in 2006.<br>

Just enjoy your shooting.</p>

<p>Can any user tell me how 35mm 1.4 performs on full-frame Alpha 900? <br>

Photozone shows that it is just mediocre on Alpha 700. Does it do well on FF?<br>

I am interested in buying this lens and 135mm 1.8 to go with Alpha 850/800. </p>

<p>It is rumoured to be August 27th</p>

<p>Robin, how many Zeiss lenses do you need if you are a Sony owner?<br />Basically, their current line-up --- 16-35mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 (jointly by Zeiss and Sony) -- is more than enough for any photographer. Who wants MF these days if AF versions are available? Zeiss has also now exclusive agreement with Sony.<br>

It is a matter of time when Sony, which has much deeper pockets than Canon and Nikon, catches up with them.<br>

Already, Sony has tripled its dslr sales since last year. Great numbers in times of recession worldwide.<br>

I am Canonite, but will definitely buy A850 because of Zeiss glass.</p>

<p>Jiun, yes A850 for $2,000. That is what we are hoping for. <br>

Could anyone please tell me when Sony makes its usual annual announcements? </p>

<p>Jiun, I have tried my hand at A900 in Sony Style in Toronto...took some shots with CZ24-70. I never said it is a bad lens. It is really a great and sharp lens, but I would love even a better bokeh.<br>

Otherwise, 16-35mm 2.8, 84mm 1.4, and 135mm 1.8 just blow you away. That's all I need. I am just waiting for A850 to take the plunge.</p>

<p>BTW, when does Sony announce its new stuff each year? Don't know since I have not kept track of Sony till now.</p>

 

<p>Philip,<br>

You are bang on about Sony lenses. ZA 24-70mm 2.8 needs to be upgraded because of its poor bokeh. Even otherwise sharp 70-200mm 2.8 is also very poor in the bokeh department.<br>

Sony will have to act quickly in the lens department to wean pros off Canon and Nikon.</p>

<p>I have used Nikon and now use Canon. But I guess it is only a matter of time now when Sony becomes front-runner alongside Canon and Nikon in the professional segment. <br>

They came out with a great FF camera (A900) in their maiden attempt last year. They have best Zeiss lenses like 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, 16-35mm 2.8. I love these lenses. See what happens when their new cheap FF cameras come out any time now.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Richard, no I have been using Canon 5D (with 35mm f1.4 and 135mm f2) since selling my D300 three months ago because I wanted fast 35mm, 85mm and 135mm.<br>

Nikon's 28mm 1.4 was just too costly for me. But now I find that Canon bodies leave a lot to be desired. <br>

Sony may not have a great lens line-up, but its offers 85mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.8 which are unsurpassed. Then there is the very good 16-35mm 2.8.<br>

So I will just wait for this new FF cameras from Sony, and then decide, as I am not interested in 5D MarkII because of various issues.<br>

I have also read that there could soon be an Alpha 950 to replace the noisy Alpha 900.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will definitely consider it because of superb Carl Zeiss 16-35mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.8. In fact, 135mm 1.8 is unmatched by Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>I guess after Canon and Nikon, Sony is getting very serious in the 35mm market. Just watch because they have the best Carl Zeiss lenses like 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 and 16-35mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Canon will have to quickly produce one ``wow'' full-frame, fast camera body to let pros use its WA primes like 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 to their full strength. It has to move quickly to annul the advantage that Nikon now enjoys because of its better bodies.<br>

Nikon is busy consolidating itself in the consumer market. It thinks that pros can do with high ISOs. Which is very wrong in the long run. </p>

<p>Go for 85mm 1.8. It is a great lens.</p>

<p>I live in Toronto, and have never had any problems with Nikon Canada service. Wonder how come suddenly all your gear started going haywire. Did you buy it brand new or from Craiglist/kijiji?</p>

 

<p>Shun, I guess the cheap 28-200mm G will also be outstanding on FF.. I used it on D700 briefly and it was outstanding.</p>

<p>Relax, Dieter. It is a forum and keep your language civil.<br>

When did I say ``that there are less skills required to shoot with a D300?'' <br>

When I wrote ``you now upgrade your skills quickly to use it effectively'', it was in reference to the OP who said ``I'm still learning about photography.'' That's it.<br>

I hope you understand the English language.<br>

As for flash with D700, I hope you have ever used this camera. </p>

<p>Joseph, don't press the panic button. I too sold my brand-new D300 after using it for only three months to get full-frame.<br />Sell your 18-200 and sigma. With that money you can buy Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 and 28-200 ED G (both used). I have both and they are great. You have done NOTHING wrong by buying full-frame D700 provided you now upgrade your skills quickly to use it effectively.<br />D300 is great, but still NO match for D700 in low light and wide-angle photography. D200 is too old now.<br />Happy shooting.<br>

Brian, I agree with you. No need for flash with D700.</p>

<p>Chris, I agree with you that exception, a prime ``does not necessarily'' outperform a zoom lens.'' But this is more of an exception than a rule. </p>

<p>"Primes" are not always best as a lot of people think.<br>

Shun, you buy primes basically to shoot at wide apertures, not at f8 as your posting shows. <br>

At that aperture, primes cannot be any different from a zoom. </p>