The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

robj20 said:
Id miss the 24-27 range. Was happy to sacrifice it on the 28-200 but i definitely miss it.
I think these 28+ lenses suite people that prefer the longer end of that range, when i had a 24-70 the majority of my shots are at the wide end.

My absolute ultimate lens would be something like a 20-60 or there abouts. Really looking forward to my 20mm coming, being limited to 28mm widest for too long now.
Click to expand...
Have you ordered the Sony 20mm F1.8 G?
 
robj20 said:
Id miss the 24-27 range. Was happy to sacrifice it on the 28-200 but i definitely miss it.
I think these 28+ lenses suite people that prefer the longer end of that range, when i had a 24-70 the majority of my shots are at the wide end.

My absolute ultimate lens would be something like a 20-60 or there abouts. Really looking forward to my 20mm coming, being limited to 28mm widest for too long now.
Click to expand...

I'm the same. I'm mostly travelling in vast open landscapes, and not really interested in anything long. 28mm seems like a bit of nothing focal length to me. 24mm starts to get wide, and 35mm seems about standard.

The 28-70 kit had was never used in anger at anything other than about 28mm and then mostly for video.

I've had a look for my catalogs and found that 90% of my shots are with the ZA 35 f2.8, A few percent at 13mm using the Sony 10-18 f4. Yes it works full frame down to 13mm but with potato quality in the corners. The rest are bunch of adapted primes for fun (Contax 50mm f1.7), and one event with Nikkon 70-210mm. Manually focusing that on subjects running was a challenge.

Not sure what that tells me really since I could only use the focal ranges I had.
 
I mostly got the 28-200 as I do usually have a need for a long zoom but liked the idea of it being more useful than a 70-200. It does that nicely.

It also means I can flesh out my primes before I get a 24-70 that I normally have, strongly leaving towards the Sigma 24-70.
 
Captain said:
Think that’s the cheapest you’ll get it, next best one is wowcamera at £779.

Do you need 24 1.4 and 20 1.8?
Click to expand...

Need? No. Want? Yes :)

I am going to sell my Batis 18mm f2.8 so this is just a straight replacement. after watching a renowned astro photographer review the sony 20mm and saying its really 19mm anyway when you measure it and blows away every 18mm to 21mm lens out there and is even sharper than the 24mm then I was sold.

Should get £600 for the Batis so only £115 to swap.
 
Greebo said:
Need? No. Want? Yes :)

I am going to sell my Batis 18mm f2.8 so this is just a straight replacement. after watching a renowned astro photographer review the sony 20mm and saying its really 19mm anyway when you measure it and blows away every 18mm to 21mm lens out there and is even sharper than the 24mm then I was sold.

Should get £600 for the Batis so only £115 to swap.
Click to expand...
Wow, sharper than the 24mm GM, hmm, you may have twisted my arm :p
 
robj20 said:
Only in the centre. 24 is more consistent across the frame. But there really isn't much in it at all.
I think the only reason the 20mm isn't a GM is that it isn't F1.4.
Click to expand...

The review I saw had it sharper in the centre and AS sharp as the 24mm at the edges so yeah you are right the 24mm is more consistent but you cant dispute the 20mm is either going to be as sharp or sharper wherever you look on it.

Its also better on CA and the funny star blobs on astro work.

And an effective 19mm is a massive difference to 24mm.

I mean its not like I am getting rid of my 24mm is it? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom