TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1525, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Carl Mucks: It will be interesting to see if 85/1.8 is any good. Though it still looks overpriced compared to Canon, it's not as expensive as Batis. Unfortunately, Sony has a history of producing crappy lenses, so it's only reasonable to be skeptical at this point.

The only thing "crappy" about the 50mm, is AF, which is where the largest cost vs quality tradeoff was made. Optically, it's good for the money, at f/1.8 even comparable or better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and Nikon 58mm f/1.4 at the same aperture.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

EcoR1: Best part with this new Sigma is the fact that it truly reveals how much bigger, heavier and unbalanced it is compared to the mirrorless equivalent Sony 85 GM: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.516,669.612,ha,t

Who's talking about a 85mm f/1.8 lens? No one.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

alberto_b: Don't forget that Sony has a half stop advantage in TRUE, not declared, aperture. Think about it when you compare full aperture sharpness and aberrations... and price.

A slight difference in measured T stops (between 1/3 and 1/2 EV).

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

EcoR1: Best part with this new Sigma is the fact that it truly reveals how much bigger, heavier and unbalanced it is compared to the mirrorless equivalent Sony 85 GM: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.516,669.612,ha,t

The Sigma is almost an inch longer and requires another inch extra clearance between sensor and rear of the lens (hence the chunky part behind the mount on the Sigma SD Quattro).

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

CanonKen: Happy to see Sony cranking out more and more lenses, and not just a parade of bodies.

"It is also the only brandname to,offer a very expensive 24-70 which is way under standard quality"

Not sure what you're talking about, but here goes:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 12:07 UTC
In reply to:

Ace of Sevens: This is a surprisingly reasonable price for the 85mm f1.8.

The Batis 85mm f/1.8 is twice the price.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

SirSeth: I looked it up and thought I'd share that the aperture of the 100mm is f2.8 max not f5.6. The T stop of T5.6 has nothing to do with depth of field, but instead brightness after some light is absorbed by the STM technology and glass in the lens. No lens delivers the theoretical amount of light predicted by the f-stop because all glass lenses absorb some light. The usefulness of T-stops comes into play when grading lighting in video. So this is not false advertising. It's f2.8 and it's going to be brilliant. People will buy Sony just to use this lens because it's one of a kind being AF and will rock socks on any A series body.

Both the Laowa and Fuji have very suble smoothing through their apodization elements. I'm expecting much smoother results from such a strong apodization element, probably similar to the 135mm STF, which had a smaller "loss" of light but a longer FL to make up for that in terms of background and foreground smoothing.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 12:00 UTC
In reply to:

PieterB: And yet again no new aps-c lenses. Sony has forgotten the aps-c owners.

And will remain the same size, even if APS-C only. Hence why there is no APS-C only 85mm for Canon, Nikon or Sony (see A mount too). The 50% larger claim, is bogus, as demonstrated by what is already around us.

What's missing for the APS-C line is exactly this, tele lenses in the mid (and longer) range. You want it, here it is.

It's like claiming there are no OEM tele lenses made for any APS-C format.... Good luck defending that, while the rest is enjoying their 70-200, 85mm, 100mm etc lenses on APS-C. Heck, I'm enjoying a "pocket rocket" 135mm f/2.8 AF lens on my APS-C camera that fits regular jeans pocket. Guess what: it's FF too. And no, it can't be made smaller with those features.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

PieterB: And yet again no new aps-c lenses. Sony has forgotten the aps-c owners.

I take those MPIX scores with a large grain of salt, seeing as the same lens scores higher on a 20MP A3000 or A5000 than the A6000. The AA filter plays a big role here too.
Not to mention the fact that this example doesn't fall in the category lenses specifically designed to cover both formats (there's already a 50mm f/1.8 APS-C only to fill that role, with OSS to boot): tele lenses (>70mm).

If you don't care for tele lenses, that's fine, but if you want a tele lens on your APS-C body, there is no free lunch. That's the size you're looking at and it's not getting smaller, unless you trade in the maximum aperture size. Incidentally, that is the major factor in deciding the size of tele lenses, regardless of format.

And let's be honest, the major holes for the APS-C line ARE in the tele range.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

PieterB: And yet again no new aps-c lenses. Sony has forgotten the aps-c owners.

" But the point is that a FF lens will always be worse on an aps-c camera than on an FF camera."

This is a long standing myth. Name me a Nikon tele lens >70mm that only covers the APS-C image circle. Likewise an example for Canon? You won't find them, because there is no benefit limiting the design to a smaller image circle. Not in terms of image quality and not in terms of size or weight. Want an extreme example? Look at the Olympus 300mm f/4 and then compare it to the Canon, Nikon or Minolta 300mm f/4 lenses that cover a full frame format too (4 times larger format). The Oly is generally larger and a tad heavier, while being newer too.. But at least the Olympus is cheaper right? Not really, it's 25% to 85% (!) more expensive.

The 7D(mkII) is a pro grade camera and works wonders with those 70-200, 85mm, 300mm or even longer lenses. For sports, weddings, studio portraits, birding, you name it. Regardless of whether those lenses cover a FF format too.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: If memory serves, Tony Northrup contends that FF lenses produce inferior results when attached to an APS-C camera. Lenses specifically designed for (only) APS-C are said to produce better results.

Makes you wonder why all those 7D (mkII) shooters still shoot with tele lenses that cover the FF format (70-200, 85mm etc).

In general, tele lenses always cover the largest format for a certain brand/mount, because there is little/no point limiting it to a smaller format only, when it doesn't save any weight or size worth mentioning. This is different for wide angle designs though (shorter than about 70mm).

So the only OEM ones covering a smaller format only, are those made by brands that don't have a FF format to begin with (anymore).

And Tony's comments would only make sense if you disregard pixel density. The A7RII sensor has a larger pixel density than most of the earlier E mount APS-C sensors. For which incidentally, most of those APS-C only lenses were designed.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: I have the 85Batis, will be interesting to compare, as I find that over-large.

"And as far as the A7rII IBIS is concerned, it is not very effective."

That's a rather subjective call, when there's objectively 2.5 stops measured improvement. Nothing to sneeze at IMHO.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

PieterB: And yet again no new aps-c lenses. Sony has forgotten the aps-c owners.

These both likely work equally great on APS-C, just with a different FOV. And for that FOV, they won't be larger than an APS-C only version either, as is the case with all longer FL lenses in general.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: I have the 85Batis, will be interesting to compare, as I find that over-large.

Shouldn't be too much of an issue if your camera has built in IS.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Why is 2.8 this big? Nikon is doing 1.4. It could've been 2.0 or at least 1:1 macro.

Here's a comparison of the 135mm STF against the 135mm Nikon DC. Different techniques, different results:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/135-stf-vs-nikon-135-f2-and-nikon-70200-f28_topic94551.html

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: hrmmm ... a99ii screen face-forward ... not really .., canted upwards, or pr photos incomplete? missing screen fully-forward capability?

saw a77 video of screen-facing fully forward ... but no a99ii?

And another false claim:
"if a camera has no ability to focus push/pull (rack) or follow af on a subject (except it not move to different spot) via touch af, it will not do it with any mobile touch app.
maybe sony apsc alpha mirrorless can, but not sony ff slt a99ii (nor sony a7 series)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp5UzdDAu8s
That's not follow focus, but that is touch focus, specific to the area in the frame that is touched (different AF points) and that is an A7 (not APS-C).

You're starting to sound like someone who's claiming the earth is flat. If you haven't witnessed that it's round, it cannot be round.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 20:06 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: hrmmm ... a99ii screen face-forward ... not really .., canted upwards, or pr photos incomplete? missing screen fully-forward capability?

saw a77 video of screen-facing fully forward ... but no a99ii?

Assuming people don't know what you're talking about, when you change your argument in every new post, is rather showing your own ignorance instead. And to reiterate that, I'll quote your exact words again:
"most mobile devices will only offer "focus now" on a screen, which differs from "focus on this or that""
And:
"vast majority of touch AF are type A; very few offer B or C, much less both"

False, almost every phone has A and B and many newer phones (mostly from the past 2 years) have an option to follow (C) in addition to that.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: hrmmm ... a99ii screen face-forward ... not really .., canted upwards, or pr photos incomplete? missing screen fully-forward capability?

saw a77 video of screen-facing fully forward ... but no a99ii?

"now watch the subject walk near far left right, etc
does af stay focussed on the subject, or not?
no. it doesn't."

You're changing the claims as you go: first you claim most phones can't focus where you tap (B) and now you only limit your claim to not being able to follow (C). Nice try, no cigar.

I don't know which phones you tested it with, but your S4 does not have follow focus or focus tracking (C), so of course it can't do what you described there, same goes for the S2. No one has claimed they can. But the S6 and S7 generations do. The S4 does have B, as does the S2, where it focuses specifically on the area that you tap.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 19:33 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: hrmmm ... a99ii screen face-forward ... not really .., canted upwards, or pr photos incomplete? missing screen fully-forward capability?

saw a77 video of screen-facing fully forward ... but no a99ii?

More false assumptions, thinking I can't distinguish between the obvious difference of those three modes (A,B and C). Fact: my S2 and every Samsung smartphone sold the past years, has supported B. The same goes for almost every Android phone out there. That's a few billion phones the past years. That includes your supposed S4. The past few years, they have added C to that.

Simple way to test: frame a distant and a close subject in 2 different corners within the same picture, touch the distant subject in one corner and see if it focuses on that, then the close subject in the other and again, it will focus on that closer subject. Now hit another subject that is outside the focus plane of either those 2 and notice the former 2 subjects going out of focus. B confirmed.

Next false claim to debunk please.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 17:02 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: hrmmm ... a99ii screen face-forward ... not really .., canted upwards, or pr photos incomplete? missing screen fully-forward capability?

saw a77 video of screen-facing fully forward ... but no a99ii?

"just assuming it has that functionality doesn't make it so."

You mean, I have actually used it, unlike your assumptions based on thin air, similar to your false assumptions about the swivel screen.

And another correction, most smartphones have offered local touch AF, linked to the actual area you touch, for many years (again, my 6 year old phone does it...). You would have known that too, had you owned one.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
Total: 1525, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »