Sony E-mount/mirrorless/aps-c Lens Discussion

[AyoBeng]

Bumping to share my experience with the Sigma 56mm 1.4. I am super impressed, extremely sharp and the auto focus is unreal. It excels in both categories over the native Sony 18-135, which I am also happy with but the Sigma 56 blows it away.

Sigma 56











Sony 18-135 for comparison

[Norseman]

bump!

Just bought an a6600, arriving tomorrow. Hmmd and hawed, kinda wanted the a7iii but have been pleased with the compactness of the NEX-5r that I've been shooting with since 2013, lol... so APS-C it will be again. I just really love how packable that form factor is. More important to me than flat out image quality and full feature set. Maybe if I get another stimulus check I'll get the big dog and change my mind, ha.

Ordered it with the 18-135 and stoked to give that lens a try. Still got the kit lenses from the NEX (18-55, 55-210 which is a pretty decent lens IMO), plus a 35mm F1.8 prime which is fun (and quite compact... the only one I took on last year's trip to Switz).

[NW_SKIER]

Post up some nudes with it


Eta: you take sick photos. Looking forward to seeing what you actually do with it.

[smmokan]

bump!

Just bought an a6600, arriving tomorrow. Hmmd and hawed, kinda wanted the a7iii but have been pleased with the compactness of the NEX-5r that I've been shooting with since 2013, lol... so APS-C it will be again. I just really love how packable that form factor is. More important to me than flat out image quality and full feature set. Maybe if I get another stimulus check I'll get the big dog and change my mind, ha.

Ordered it with the 18-135 and stoked to give that lens a try. Still got the kit lenses from the NEX (18-55, 55-210 which is a pretty decent lens IMO), plus a 35mm F1.8 prime which is fun (and quite compact... the only one I took on last year's trip to Switz).

You'll dig it. I sold my A7iii last year and bought an a6400, and I'm definitely impressed. There is obviously a sacrifice in performance, but I realized that in order to get what I wanted out of the A7iii, I had to buy expensive lenses that were really big and heavy. And I didn't want to do either. Instead, I'd rather "sacrifice" a bit with the a6400 and smaller/cheaper/lighter lenses, but have it with me more often. So now I use that all the time and I barely know it's in my pack. I primarily use the 18-135, but also have the 11-18 which is a great (and small) lens.

[Norseman]

You'll dig it. I sold my A7iii last year and bought an a6400, and I'm definitely impressed. There is obviously a sacrifice in performance, but I realized that in order to get what I wanted out of the A7iii, I had to buy expensive lenses that were really big and heavy. And I didn't want to do either. Instead, I'd rather "sacrifice" a bit with the a6400 and smaller/cheaper/lighter lenses, but have it with me more often. So now I use that all the time and I barely know it's in my pack. I primarily use the 18-135, but also have the 11-18 which is a great (and small) lens.

Word. I recall reading your embrace of the switch. I'm pretty interested in the in-body stabilization of this new one, which I think descends from the full-frame models and should be kickass in a camera this size.

Post up some nudes with it


Eta: you take sick photos. Looking forward to seeing what you actually do with it.

Artful beach sunrise cockshot is headed your way, bro.

[NW_SKIER]

Artful beach sunrise cockshot is headed your way, bro.

Sweet!

[Norseman]

aaaaaand jeezuz h, the first few shots from this thing make it clear that my skill is the weak link, LOL. Got some growing to do!

[Timberridge]

The bee seems to be in focus with a nice blur on the fore and back, and the exposure fine. Just crop the left a bit.

[Norseman]

Ok yeah, agreed. At first I kinda liked the vast void out there but it's distracting.

Well, I'll work on figuring out how to do this shit and will leave the discussion here for awhile. Thanks for the tips and opinions yall, peace.

[Timberridge]

It would be a nice desktop wallpaper as is though. The white space on the left could be the icon area.

[grskier]

It would be a nice desktop wallpaper as is though. The white space on the left could be the icon area.

That was my first thought when I saw the shot.

[smmokan]

I love the focal system on the A6xx Sony cameras, and the touch focus on the A6400 works so well.

[AZskibum]

Hey guys, question from a newbie getting into ski photography. Is it rude to snap some picks of people throwing it at places like beartooth? Should I ask ahead of the jump, or ask after? I don't have any friends throwing stuff, and I usually ski solo. Offer to tag them if it comes out well?

Also, 30 prime or E mount or 55-210? Looking to get some air shots looking up maybe. Thanks!

[smmokan]

If you use a 30mm prime, you're going to have to get really close to skiers in order to get decent shots... it will be especially tough if you don't know them, and they don't know you're taking pics. With a prime that wide, your best bet is to set up a shot ahead of time so you know your field of view and perspective.

A wider or longer zoom is going to be much better for skiing shots: something like the 18-135mm or the 55-210 where you can track the skier and give yourself more room for setting up the image.

[adrenalated]

The 18-135 is the only lens I carry for skiing shots 99.9% of the time. I picked up a 35mm prime, but plan to use that mostly for mountain biking where it's easier to get in the exact right position to frame a shot and the rider is in a more predictable location (the trail).

I could maybe see a prime working for shooting park stuff specifically (where again, you can frame your shots and you know exactly where the skier will be), but for everything else skiing, a zoom is definitely the way to go.

FWIW I own both the 18-135 and the 55-210. The 18-135 is sharper and IMO a better range for most skiing, unless you're on really big lines with long sight lines.

[Norseman]

55-210 is pretty meh, imo

70-350 G preferred for long schlongin w/ crop body

[adrenalated]

55-210 is pretty meh, imo

For $300 (or included in a kit) I think it's fine. It's not amazing, but for the price it's fine. It's not the steaming pile of hot garbage that the 16-50 is.

70-350 G preferred for long schlongin w/ crop body

I'd like to try this guy but feel like I need to be prepared to buy it before I do... but at $900, it damn well better be much better than the 55-210.

[Rhyno]

Has anyone use the Tamron 17-70 F/2.8? It look like a versatile lens and I like the range, but a bit it would be an investment for this amateur. Keep up the great pics. Love coming here for inspiration.

[GoldenBC]

Heyo. I don't often venture outside of Tech Talk but this is a nice thread. I'm shooting an a7iv, usually with the 70-300g which I am very happy with. Just picked up a 55 1.8 which is a nice addition after shooting so many years on an old asahi 50 1.4. 24-70 kit lens and 16-50 kit lens get a little bit of use (I feel like the 16-50 is sharper throughout).

Looking for new lenses and want something a bit wider for biking, so fast and wide. 35 1.4 would be nice, which then has me looking at first gen 24-70 2.8 in the same ball park. But I find 70 pretty wide. Then when I think of alpine biking and skiing, the 24-105 would be very versatile and it gets amazing reviews.

So my question is, in dark forest, does the 24-105 cut it? I would think at f4, that's some high ISO.

Does anyone have the cheap 35 1.8?

[smmokan]

FWIW, I had a tough time in the dark BC forests with the Tamron 20-40 2.8, so I don’t think the 24-105 will cut it. Honestly, I’d go with a small wide prime that’s 1.4 or 1.8 to shoot MTB in the forests… and then maybe the Tamron 28-200 (which is excellent, btw) for skiing?

[GoldenBC]

Thanks for the real world feedback. I definitely was curious about shooting 2.8 in the forest. It seems to be what the pros are often shooting at as that’s what the good lenses are at and the biggest depth of focus is wanted, but with my 55, I found I was shooting at f2 a lot to avoid too slow shutter or too high ISO.

I guess at one point, using natural light, you have to make sacrifices. Or use the software that lets you work with high ISO.

[smmokan]

I was shooting with the A7c and the above-mentioned lenses... realistically, I didn't want to go over ISO 6400 if I wanted a usable image. In most cases shooting at 2.8 and that ISO, I couldn't get the shutter speed fast enough for regular action shots. I found myself trying to compensate by shooting spots where I knew the rider was going slower (around a corner, down a slab, etc) and hoped it came out OK.

All this said, I usually don't take much time to set things up on our trips since I don't want to interrupt the ride, and so I typically take what I can get. If I was just out with friends, I think it's a different story (as long as they don't mind). I also err on the side of size/weight when looking at lens options as well, since the nicer/faster lenses get way heavier and larger than I ever want to carry.

[GoldenBC]

Great feedback. Thanks. When in the forest I usually do dedicated shoots (hence the nicer, faster lenses). In the alpine I’ll just carry a camera and shoot on the fly since I have a backpack anyways and there’s more than enough light.

I’ll probably grab the 35/1.8 for now since they are so cheap used and will do a decent job at rounding out the kit.

[singlesline]

Unless the forest is super dark, I feel like the F4 should still be OK?

It would obviously be nice to have the wider aperture available, but I'd think for bike shots that you'd usually be stopping down a bit for wider depth of field anyways--F4 on a full frame is equivalent to slightly less than F2.8 on a crop sensor. Pushing the ISO a bit on recent camera bodies shouldn't be a huge deal.

Have you tried any of the recent AI-enhanced noise removal like lightroom's new 2023 built-in AI denoise, DxO, Topaz AI, etc.)? They are pretty fantastic and should let you push the ISO on the a7iv no problem (as long as you are shooting in uncompressed or lossless compressed L raw)

[GoldenBC]

As I said above, I haven’t explored the software side of dealing with this. Partly because I prefer the art of doing it in camera, partly because I hate computer work.

F4 would be quite slow in the forest. Either shooting well below 1/1000 or probably 6000 ISO.

Here’s a shot that is straight off the camera, 1/1600 F1.8 iso2500. The grain is noticeable. Maybe I’ll look into post solutions.