Lenses for Sony

[BananaRepublic]

As there is not much talk about Sony (except fanboi bashing), I thought I would write up something on my lenses.

I started out with Sony to continue to use Maxxum glass that BlackSheep started (I was a Canon FD guy so I sold off everything).
I realized that working with APS-C digital is not the same as my experience with old full frame Canon film lenses. I only had fixed focal length lenses with with Canon as zoom lenses sucked or were way out of my budget.

The Sony digital experience:
I started with kit lenses ... then realized that they suck, so I grabbed some old Maxxum fixed focal length lenses (even though the used prices are over-inflated). Then went to some midrange third party zoomlenses as I did not want to spend my life savings.
After much selling and buying I eventually realized that better IQ does come with a price ... and makes a difference what you spend. Zoom lens quality has come a long way for a lot lower in price.

Sony DT 18-70mm -> DT 18-55mm -> DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 50mm macro -> Tokina 100mm macro (old version) -> Sigma 150mm macro APO OS HSM f/2.8
Sigma 70-300mm -> Sony 70-300mm -> Maxxum 100-300mm APO -> Sigma 100-300mm APO f/4
These three are going to be my staples.
The 16-105mm and 150mm are new to me, but the IQ seems to be very good (to great) in my test shots.

I am dropping my Maxxum 28-135mm (awesome IQ) as I have a Maxxum 24mm and 50mm.

The Maxxum 24-85mm and 100-300mm APO are shared lenses since they are full frame, and handy on our Maxxum film bodies.
BlackSheep has the Sigma 50mm macro, Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, and a Tamron 200-500mm.

All the lenses that I have were purchased used ... except for the two 18-xxmm kit lenses ... so that reduced the pricing a lot.
I would love some Sony G or CZ lenses but I have not won the lottery yet ... I think I will be satisfied with the lenses I have now for the 2013 season.

Do you need a SCART lead for each lens then, could I play Grand Theft Auto on it.

 

[dxqcanada]

I am not aware of compatibility for PS games ... I don't think they have released a firmware update for that ... yet.

 

[dxqcanada]

If anyone wants to know ... the Sony SAL55300 is actually a pretty good lens in terms of IQ for a cheap price, though SAM is not really fast.

 

[dxqcanada]

The Tamron 10-24mm was chucked ... replaced with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.
Limitation that it is specifically a UWA zoom, but it is wayyyyy sharper (I did make a mention of this somewhere on the forum) than the Tamron.

Our current lens round-up (again):

Minolta 24mm f/2.8
Minolta 50mm f/1.7
Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta 80-200mm f/2.8 APO (black)
Sigma 50mm /f2.8 EX macro
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM macro
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II APO EX DC HSM
Tamron 200-500mm SP Di LD
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 IF DX II
Sony DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6
Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8
Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G
Sony 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DT SAM

 

[dxqcanada]

So, to keep this stale thread going ... and to show that A-mount is still alive ...

Minolta 200mm f/2.8 APO (I posted about this lens earlier) ... is definitely one A-mount you really want.
I picked up a Minolta 50mm f/2.8 macro ver. I ... it is tiny (hmm, like a 50mm) lens, and very sharp. I think I might get rid of the Sigma 150mm. It is an awesome lens, but I have not used it enough.
I am going to try out a Minolta 2x APO with the 200mm ... will be posting about after I get it.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I still have a couple of Canon lenses. One is an old 50mm F1.4 FD lens which I kept for portrait work on my Sony a6400. But oddly, I never really got around to using it on the a6400. I have almost always had better portrait setups. I decided to put it on the a6400 and at least knock out a few. It turns out that this was a good choice because I found that my manual focusing "skills" had grown sloppy. My first group of pictures were all out of focus, and worth deleting. I am generally not foolish enough to make a mistake like that "when it counts", but it was a shock to me that I had done that badly, even for casual, unimportant stuff. Ok, back out and with a more serious mindset, I took a few more with "depth of field" in mind.

This time I did a quick set of F1.4, 4.0 and 8.0. Things went better. The subject matter was grey tree branches, made even more grey from my camera settings (HLG3 w/BT.2020, detail neutral). Sharpness was as expected. The F1.4s of that era were mainly good for the extra light. They were not generally sharper than the cheaper, more common F1.8s, and I remember this copy being an average (pretty good but not wonderful) performer. I am happy that I still have it, and will probably use it more, but if you find one on the used market, I would not suggest you put a "priority" on grabbing it.

NOTE: The difference in contrast in these pictures were due to the changes in cloud cover, not the lens, nor the camera settings

V3N01122.JPG (F1.4?)
- Canon 50mm F1.4 lens (@1.4?)
- Detail Crop from 4800,2000
- both lateral and longitudinal chromatic abberation

V3N01123.JPG
- Canon 50mm F1.4 lens (@4.0?)
- Detail Crop from 2700,1180
- less lateral and longitudinal chromatic abberation, but still there

V3N01126.JPG
- Canon 50mm F1.4 lens (@8.0?)
- Detail Crop from 2700,1180 (not really same crop as '123 above)
- lateral and longitudinal chromatic abberation gone

2023-07-16
Test Picture V3N01228-C83t.JPG
It occurred to me that I could make a "linearity" test picture. I "sighted" the bricks before the test and the wall looks acceptable (not a surprise). I did not do the measurements and calculations, but it looks better than 1% deviation, which is my minimum standard. There is slight barrel distortion.

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, I noticed a big difference in IQ when I switched from the f/1.8 to the f1/4 on my Canon New F-1 back in the 80's ... I don't have any of my FD lenses so can't try it on my NEX-6.

 

[dxqcanada]

I picked up a really cheap Minolta Maxxum 50mm f/2.8 macro 1st gen ... it is really sharp, and a lot quieter than the Sigma on my list.

 

[petrochemist]

Yea, all our lenses and bodies are pre-Maxxum. The camera I took my 75-300 (105-400) from is a Minolta Maxxum 5. No issues at all on either the A100 or A77 and neither are full-frame.

So they are SR mount, (aka MD) easy to adapt but need you to focus manually.
The problem comes with post Maxxum minolta lenses - the Vectis range (for APSC film) are all electronic focus by wire lenses, which are the devil to adapt.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Oddly, I tested my Canon lens "randomly" with no particular reason. But now, in the last couple of months there have been a bunch of 50mm F1.4 lens tests and comparisons. Here is a link to a comparison video on YouTube by Dustin Abbott a couple of days ago. It is a typical review.

"Sony vs Sigma | Battle of the Premium 50mm F1.4 Titans",
posted Mar 31, 2023 by "Dustin Abbott", [length 10:53]
""

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I ran across this on YouTube. It goes beyond my experience, so I do not know how much of it is right or wrong, but it seems worth looking at:

"Why Rehouse Companies are Doing it WRONG",
posted Nov 1, 2022 by "Justin Phillip" [length: 32:05]
""

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I was up around 2:30 and took a picture using my Pentax Takumar 300mm lens (on my Sony a6400), F4 or F8. I think this one was F8.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Some time ago, "ibreakphotos" discovered that Samsung phones produce "fake" moon pictures. Under some circumstances Samsung uses "AI" routines to enhance pictures of the moon making them look "better". They are not substituting the picture with an actual data image, but rather "reworking" the image taken. Under some circumstances, when the phone's camera system determines that it is taking a picture of the actual moon, the camera takes the part of the picture that includes the moon and alters it by creating fake detail.

I found this out through Tony Northrup, so I decided to take fresh pctures of the moon and see if anything like that was happening with any of my cameras (phone or otherwise). I don't know right now if I will get around to making other pictures of the moon with other cameras. I want to do this, but it is a low priority.

This is the link to see what Tony Northup posted about this issue:

"Samsung FAKES more than MOONS!", Tony & Chelsea Northrup, posted "Mar 16, 2023"

""

Here is a "new" picture of the moon taken by my Sony a6400 w/Pentax SMC Takumar 300mm F5.6. I believe I used F9.5 for this one.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I have been trying to use my a6400 for some astro videos. I have posted, what I consider to be passable "beginner" stills (the moon in the previous post), but I was hoping to record time-lapse video. After some testing, I have to say I cannot do what I wanted to do. It might not take much more in the way of equipment, but so far, it is a failure. My last attempt was to record an "slog2" time-lapse using my 20mm F2.8 lens. Despite the 1 fps recording rate, the a6400 would not use shutter speeds longer than 1/30 sec. If the software had supported it, I should have been able to use shutter speeds at least up to 1/2 sec and almost a complete 1 sec. But it refused to do so. I am linking my last attempt which used an exposure of EV-+2.

​

 

[VidThreeNorth]

For comparison, this is a still photo taken on a Nikon 1 S2 Aug 11, 01:40 with a similar composition to post #44 above. The auto-exposure (bias +1.3) time was 2 sec. I have reduced the detail for this upload, but the stars seem to be intact. Some of these stars will not be possible in a video due to reduced resolution, but a 1 sec. exposure per frame might have captured many of them even in a video. I think that the main problem was the short 1/30th sec exposure per frame.