TrojMacReady

TrojMacReady

Lives in Netherlands Netherlands
Joined on May 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 1532, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: Too bad Sony has all but abandoned the A-mount lens wise.

" all the latest Sigma and Tamron lenses like the 70-200mm G2 and Sigma 85mm f1.4 are now launched for A mount."

You probably meant "not", but this doesn't tell us anything, since Sony (and Pentax) versions were often announced much later, even when the A mount was Sony's bread and butter in the ILC market. The 35mm Art for A mount was announced almost a year after the Canon/Nikon/Sigma version as well.
Using this logic, the Pentax K mount has been dead for longer than the A mount.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 10:44 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: Too bad Sony has all but abandoned the A-mount lens wise.

It's a bit of a fallacy. It's like saying Canon stopped supporting its top 50mm and 85m prime shooters respectively 10 and 27 years ago.

Strange thinking.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 09:07 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: I will be tempted to buy a Sony once they improve their light skin tones.

It's an interesting topic and I used to follow Iliah Borg's posts on the subject with great interest. His stance was that older Sony cameras like the A900 were very good at discerning subtle hue changes/between colors, better than the A99 that followed it and much better than most Canon cameras at the time which were said to have sacrificed colors for sensitivity. And yet, many seem to prefer and have since preferred the output from Canon based on many of the popular RAW converters, especially when it comes to skin colors.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/

In the end, still a head scratching topic.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 13:19 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: I will be tempted to buy a Sony once they improve their light skin tones.

Skin color is also highly dependent on the RAW developer used and there are plenty to choose from in this regard. Granted, if Adobe converters are your preference, you're better off calibrating the default profile yourself.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: "The company is making big claims about bokeh ..."

They made pretty big claims about the other G-'Masters' too, and neither Photozone, nor Lensrentals were all too impressed with the reality.

"It seems to me that you are more interested in finding a source that confirms your personal opinion of the lens, than actually finding valid evidence. Confirmation bias."

Which is exactly what you did yourself above. Pick comments from Lensrentals about the 70-200 and conveniently ignore Roger's comments on the 24-70 GM, but rather instead pick a different review to find a negative comment on that one. Because this is what Roger had to say on that same lens:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

To put this claim of yours in context: " nor Lensrentals were all too impressed with the reality"

Pot, cattle, black.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:05 UTC
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.

Lot's of chatter about APS-C, but people with APS-C cameras likely opt/opted for the OSS 50mm anyway, since it sits in the same price range.

The fact is, it's measurably better on a FF sensor, in overall light transmission, overall lack of optical distortion and in overall vignetting by a huge mile. And also much more consistent in sharpness over the frame when used wide open. The edges and corners on the Canon are simply not that useful wide open, which means for any type of sharpness, you need to frame towards the center = boring pics most of the time. The bokeh suffers a lot more from double edges and other artifacts as well.

Another "funny" detail, the A5000 with 20MP gives it an equal maximum sharpness rating compared to the 20MP Canon equivalent, the 70D, for a more apples vs apples APS-C comparison.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
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.

"It is a bit worse than Canon 50mm F/1.8 STM which sells for a little more than 1/2 the price. "

No it's not. Peak resolution is similar on FF, but the Sony is much more consistent wide open (much better outside the center where the Canon is weak) and the Canon suffers much more from vignetting (up to a whopping 3 EV vs 1.9 EV), worse transmission and worse distortion, according to DXOmark.

Not sure why you would compare them on APS-C cameras to begin with. On the A5000 (20MP) it scores higher peak sharpness than on the A6000 too. In other words, small differences like those can easily be attributed to differences in the AA filter.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 16:37 UTC
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
Total: 1532, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »