abortabort

abortabort

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 1211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mirrorlessplease: The lens focal lengths I am interested in are 1.4 50mm, 1.4 35mm, 1.4 24mm, 2.8, 17mm, 1.4 85mm, 2.8 100mm macro 1:1. Tilt shift 24/17mm. These can all be manual focused if it means they're as small as leica lenses. I want as small as possible lenses I can have for street photography. I know this is asking for a lot but there's no harm in mentioning what I'd like! Please don't suggest voigtlander, I hate the bokeh on those

While I agree with you on the 35/40mm f1.4 Voigtlanders, by all accounts the 50mm f1.5 seems to be quite nice and the upcoming 35mm f1.7 Ultron should also be quite a step above these two (and designed for digital) as the old one was. Haven't seen any significant drawbacks to the 75mm f1.8 either.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:27 UTC

35mm f1.4 seems to be almost exactly the size of the 16-35mm, which is good for me. 28mm seems to be about 1cm shorter than the 55mm and seems about the same length with WA adapter (it integrated hood) as 55mm with hood.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:19 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Al_10D: Still no portrait lens, like FE 85mm F/1.4 and 135mm F/2?
Still no F/2.8 zooms?
Way to go, Sony, make more bodies!

I already have and use 85mm f1.4, 135mm f1.8 and f2.8 zooms with mine. These lenses are more interesting to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

rjjr: I'm very interested in seeing how the 90mm macro compares to my Canon 100L IS macro (with adapter) on my A6000.

Regardingthe pricing: Both of these lenses are priced about the same (90mm is $50 more) but add the cost of the adapter to use the Canon on the A6000 and the 90mm winds up costing less.

While prices getting thrown around are in EUR they are usually the same in USD 1:1 (despite the actual conversion rate).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 00:34 UTC

172 comments, not one pointing out that there are currently 7 FE lenses in the lineup, not 6?

16-35mm
24-70mm
28-70mm
28-135mm
70-200mm
35mm
55mm

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 08:20 UTC as 70th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mosc: so the A7-II with an f2.0 28mm lens is pretty small and all but it's also very bright and 5-axis stabilized. Am I wrong or is that the largest physical aperture (fstop is a ratio, I'm talking about the physical aperture) stabilized lens seen for 28mm?

Methinks there were some Alpha 35mm lenses that can be used with the IBIS A99 SLT but none that fast at 28mm.

I have a Minolta AF 28mm f2 (IBIS on digital bodies) and there is the Sigma 28mm f1.8 also available in A-Mount.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

And the advantage of hyper focal shooting is set and forget, you can do this very easily with a MF fisheye on a live view camera with or without accurate distance scale.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

Samyang have released a 12mm full frame fisheye that is available for E-Mount.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 08:02 UTC
In reply to:

Dazed and Confused: Are the lenses with OS built in going to come in unstabilised versions?

I'm not that keen on buying a camera with OS built in, then still paying the cost and weight penalty of a lens with OS too.

(I know some lenses are not stabilised, and the stabilisations 'add up', but it'd still be nice to have the choice.)

So you are keen to pay MORE for lenses with less? That makes sense. If Sony make two versions that means they have to sell them for more, both of them.

And what if you decide that you want to use your lens on a different camera, one that doesn't have IS in the body? Say like an FS7 for example.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 08:00 UTC
In reply to:

Valen305: Dang, these are huge! Why can't they make small yet moderately fast wide and tele primes like the Contax G line's Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and 90mm f/2.8?! These are ridiculous.

90mm is a 1:1 OS Macro. Not a 90mm rangefinder lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 07:25 UTC
In reply to:

samhain: I just can't take any full frame system that doesn't have a 50/1.4 seriously. That should've been the FIRST lens they released.
85/2 or 90/2 should've been 2nd.

7 new lenses later and still no dedicated portrait lens, with the only 'fast' lens being a wide angle?

The only lens in that entire lineup that's even halfway appealing is the 35/1.4, and that's a focal length that I've never felt the need to have a lens faster than f2.

I just don't get Sony cameras. Every new product, I'm left feeling the same way: Close, but no cigar.
One of these days they'll nail it.

YOU need a 50mm f1.4... YOU don't need a 35mm faster than f2...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

Ido S: The 24-240mm with the Sony a7S could be an amazing travel combo. For most uses, one doesn't really need a fast lens with that camera. That lebs covers a great range, and goes down to 24mm, unlike the more ordinary 28-300mm. Now Sony shooters just need to hope it's good enough optically…

While speed is less important to the A7S, it is also very forgiving for resolution and aberrations of lenses... So yes agree this is particularly interesting for the A7S.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Amazingly EVIL/mirrorless aren't any cheaper. EVIL/mirrorless doesn't have the complex mirrorbox, AF module, metering sensor, pentaprism, LED overlay, AF baffle, viewfinder curtain and big battery yet still charge about the same price.

@Peiasdf - Agree, other MILC are quite heftily priced for what they are, but this is nothing particularly new. No the A7 is not discontinued, it is sold alongside at a new cheaper price.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: no OS..

@ JAP = Douche bag: Fact.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2015 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

princewolf: What part of "Never buy a newly launched camera" some do not understand?

There is nothing much 'new' in the D750 though, apart from the casing it is mostly (a pretty impressive) parts bin special.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:57 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Amazingly EVIL/mirrorless aren't any cheaper. EVIL/mirrorless doesn't have the complex mirrorbox, AF module, metering sensor, pentaprism, LED overlay, AF baffle, viewfinder curtain and big battery yet still charge about the same price.

An A7 is about half the price of the D750.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

jdh99: In my opinion there are some people posting who are looking at this lens in the wrong way. There seems to be people who don't feel this is really an f2.8 lens compared to say the canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses and that somehow Fuji are inferior to Canon and Nikon/Sony because of the weight of this lens. If we take that same argument why aren't these people complaining about Canon/Nikon full frame lenses in terms of subject isolation/weight compared to say the equivalent focal length medium format lenses...its the same pointless argument.
Make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!
Yes in terms of subject isolation it will behave slightly differently to a 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens...The best way to look at it is that it will behave the same as a full frame 16-55mm f2.8 lens!

You are absolutely right, the exact same argument applies going from FF to MF. What is your point? If you can afford a MF then definitely go for it. If it is also the same size weight even better! The difference in 'equivalence' between FF and MF (well cropped smallish MF) like the 645Z is smaller than the difference between APS-C and FF. Your point is valid, but so is the comparison to MF.

"make no mistake this is an f2.8 lens!" - Absolutely. 'Equivalence' isn't about 'lying' about lens abilities, aperture is purely the ratio of entrance pupil to focal length. Equivalence merely tries to adjust for the performance differences across sensor formats.

So it is definitely a 16-55mm f2.8 lens, but it is not equivalent to a 24-84mm f2.8 lens on FF, it is equivalent to a 24-84mm f4.2 lens on FF.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:32 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

HiRez: Not sure why all the hate on this lens, it looks like a pretty good package to me for the price. 24mm-84mm equivalent is a good range, 84mm is in the range of a true portrait lens. With most high-end FF zooms you get 24-70. Plus weather sealing and < 1 foot minimum focus. Sure OIS would be nice but it's really not necessary in this focal range, again most comparable FF zooms will not have it either.

Big question for me is how is the performance wide open? It has to be exceptional at 2.8.

Agree with nerd2 - The X100 had amazing output and lovely colours, but X-Trans just seems to have downsides. Fuji colour science doesn't only exist for X-Trans.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:16 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: It is neat that the minor players are upping their game...fuji is showing innovation slowly but surely.

*sigh* When was the last time I visited the Fuji forum? When I HAD a Fuji maybe? I don't know where you come up with this sad nonsense.

Again did I SAY either were innovative? No. Because they aren't. I wouldn't say either is more or less innovative, but if I HAD to choose one on innovation alone, it would be the Sony (call me a fanboy or whatever) because the Sony DOES actually manage to be smaller than it's DSLR counterparts, the Fuji... Not so much.

You also missed my point, one lens is well regarded (the Fuji) and the other is not (the Sony) by internet 'experts'. I have had both and can tell you night and day which is the better lens. Of course I will get called a fanboy for saying it's not the Fuji (this is DPR after all). But then my Zeiss stomps all over my (former) Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G as well on the same format and resolution sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:13 UTC
On Fujifilm announces XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens article (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: no OS..

So you feel the need to defend your little system with personal attacks? Bravo! Not JUST a photographer then are we? I think there are a few other things we could call you.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 18:02 UTC
Total: 1211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »