Sony lenses of Canon "L" quality?

[Gil Knutson]

And Carl Zeiss almost exited the glass game, thanks to Sony they
are now hanging on ....

They are in a different league that we are... more professional
than "common" SLRs/dSLRs.

But if the A100 is a hit, I bet Sony will
soon kill off both Minolta & Carl Zeiss...

Really? I think Sony would milk that Zeiss cow for all that
it is worth. The Minolta will probably become Sony, and we
will never hear of it again... just use the glass, because it IS
good.

But, when Sony wants to grasp all the money they can from
a lens, they will lable it as Zeiss. They may even create a
demand for the things!!! ))

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

 

[DanSantoso]

I have never heard of pentax.., just Leica and voigtlander apolanthar

i just check the price for Pentax SMC-FA 77mm f1.8, it is only $500
Do pentax have a good DSLR? it is very tempting to test the lens.

too many new toys these days ..doh

 

[aarif]

Thank you

Well between the 5D and the 7D the first I’ll say is image quality is the same so you don’t have to worry about that, but there are pros and cons in both camera’s like for instance the 5D you can zoon in raw which is a great help to me, the 7D has a bigger buffer, better built quality and AF/MF lock. But its safer to buy a 5D, as you know a lot of 7D buyers had problems.

As for me I will defiantly go for the Alpha the image quality the details it captures is absolutely fantastic better them almost all DSLR’s out their, as for noise issue you saw my gallery how many ISO 800’s did you see non, I don’t like to shoot with ISO 800 even with my KM’s the image suffers even if it doesn’t exhibit as much noise as the Alpha at 800.

Also think that staying with A-Mount is better because Sony has so much money and technology behind them and they love to lead the Market in every thing, so I think they’ll come up with even better camera’s in the new future plus the lenses there will be more available in future

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites

 

[David Kilpatrick]

particular is one of the few lenses around which seriously compared
with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L, yet it was axed by 1990

That was 1980, sorry... 2 many beers!

I think you probably got it right the first time. 1980 was 5 years
before Minolta AF even existed so you must have meant 1990 like you
said the first time. My Minolta AF 70-210mm f4 was made after 1985.

Too many beer cans...!

I was thinking of 1990 being 1999 for some odd reason. The lens survived to about 1989 and in fact I suspect it was axed around 1988.

David

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Is this speculation and base on the rumors going around, or do you
know something we don't?

Speculation on Japanese/Chinese sites right now because someone has seen a sample at a Japanese trade briefing - apparently a 7D-like body, said to contain a full frame sensor, scheduled to be released Nov 21.

Seems unlikely to me, Sony assured me that no further camera would be released until 2007.

David

 

[David Kilpatrick]

This whole post makes perfect sense except for the "probably much
better" part. Better is subjective. You're trading one stop for
lighter, smaller, cheaper, and faster focus. The difference in
sharpness is negligible to the point that it's probably
immeasurable to the naked eye. The 1.8 lenses are definitely more
practical, but I'd hardly say they're much better. I say this
having used the Canon 1.8 and the Minolta 1.4, as I'm sure you have
as well... the Minolta G is no slouch... just a bit slow and bulky.

See Ander Uschold's test in the BJP this week. He hardly dares say so, but the Canon 1.2 is a dog. It either doesn't focus properly or the lens is barely usable at full aperture, while the 'lesser' Nikon is pretty impressive.

David

 

[marek b]

I aslo miss 85/1.8 in minolta/sony lineup. I hope they will at least make 28/ 2 and 35/2. Do you think there will be another batch of lenses soon? Maybe with the next camera?

 

[gkalemanis]

You should use them. I have experience using them on Medium format gear, nothing short of incredible, with film or digital back. You get what you pay for. The Sony Zeiss prices are inline. Hopefully these are real Zeiss lenses and not manufactured by a third party.

 

[Olaf Ulrich]

Minolta in the MD range had a wonderful 85 mm f2 ...

Yes indeed ... that one was one of the best lenses Minolta ever made.

When they went AF, [...] the 85 mm became a heavy,
big 1.4 [...]. I waited for an 85 mm f2 to follow - a neat,
compact, 55 mm or even 49 mm thread lens ... and it
never did. Ever.

Sadly true ... but on the other hand there was an absolutely great AF 100 mm 1:2 with 55 mm filter size. Did you ever check out that one? As far as I can tell, it also works well on digital (better than the 1st-generation (i. e. non-D) AF Macro 100 mm 1:2.8---as sharp, less internal flare, better contrast). And personally, I like 100 mm better than 85 mm for a portrait lens anyway (on 35-mm format).

Too bad the wonderful AF 100 mm 1:2 was discontinued early---just like the famous but short-lived (today sought-after) MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2 back in the early '70s ... :-(

Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Germany

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Minolta in the MD range had a wonderful 85 mm f2 ...

Yes indeed ... that one was one of the best lenses Minolta ever made.

When they went AF, [...] the 85 mm became a heavy,
big 1.4 [...]. I waited for an 85 mm f2 to follow - a neat,
compact, 55 mm or even 49 mm thread lens ... and it
never did. Ever.

Sadly true ... but on the other hand there was an absolutely great
AF 100 mm 1:2 with 55 mm filter size. Did you ever check out that
one? As far as I can tell, it also works well on digital (better
than the 1st-generation (i. e. non-D) AF Macro 100 mm 1:2.8---as
sharp, less internal flare, better contrast). And personally, I
like 100 mm better than 85 mm for a portrait lens anyway (on 35-mm
format).

Too bad the wonderful AF 100 mm 1:2 was discontinued early---just
like the famous but short-lived (today sought-after) MC Tele
Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2 back in the early '70s ... :-(

Yes, I had two of the tele-Rokkors and much later than the early 1970s, though mine were both 1960s examples. The 100mm f2 is superb. I have the 100mm f2.8 SF, variable soft focus, which is equally amazing used as a straight lens. I use it preference to the 100mm macro for general work as it's much higher in contrast and crisper, when the SF is not being used.

David

 

[josefnemecek]

And personally, I like 100 mm better than 85 mm for a
portrait lens anyway (on 35-mm format).

Depends on the perspective you want. 85mm is perfect for head shots with parts of the corps, 100 is good for more detail, 135 is good for head shots only. All in 35mm equivalents.

I like to shoot with all three lenses (85/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/2.8), but the crop shifts their usage. I would highly appreciate a fullframe DSLR from Sony...

Regards, Josef.

 

[José B]

The 85/1.8 focuses fast, pretty sharp and very good bokeh. However, IMHO the 85G beats it in CA control, bokeh, colour and contrast-----heck after all, it is a G lens. As a matter of fact, there are some Canonites who wish Canon would make an 85/1.4 L IS. I doubt if that will happen as it will likely cannibalize the sales of the 85/1.2 II L.

José

Anthony,

Try shooting with the 85G with A100/7D/5D and compare it with your
5D and 85/1.2L II and I'm pretty sure you will be impressed with
the 85G too.

But Canon has an 85mm f1.8 USM, a far more practical and probably
much better lens, at a budget price. Minolta in the MD range had a
wonderful 85mm f2, which replaced a bulky but good 85mm f1.7. When
they went AF, I was surprised that the 85mm became a heavy, big 1.4
which would not accept my regular studio filter system (needed at
that time, in the days of film, for a stack of vignette, warm-up,
diffuser etc slot-in filters). I waited for an 85mm f2 to follow -
a neat, compact, 55mm or even 49mm thread lens... and it never did.
Ever.

Despite the 85mm f1.4's performance, I have never bought one or
wanted one. My use of 85mm is for fashion and portrait, and also as
a street photography lens, taking the place of the 90mm
Elmar/Minolta on CLE/Leica. The 85mm f1.4 was and is just too big,
too fast, too heavy, too expensive.

While Canon and Nikon both sensibly produced affordable, neat 85mm
f1.8s.

David

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d