The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,798
Location
What used to be a UK
Are there many A7riv users in here? I'm thinking of getting the A7riv for the crop apsc mode and am wondering how much more efficient the focusing will be than the Riii & A73? The 60 Meg will come in handy for macro and sedentary wildlife etc. What would have been ideal would be A9 focusing ability with a 60 Meg capability. I'm currently using a A7r2 and A73.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,613
Location
Co Durham
Are there many A7riv users in here? I'm thinking of getting the A7riv for the crop apsc mode and am wondering how much more efficient the focusing will be than the Riii & A73? The 60 Meg will come in handy for macro and sedentary wildlife etc. What would have been ideal would be A9 focusing ability with a 60 Meg capability. I'm currently using a A7r2 and A73.

I have the A7riv and came from the a7iii. The focusing is good on the A7riv but not as good as the a9 or a9ii. The issue with the high resolution on the a7riv is that its even harder to nail focus. I had many more keepers with my a7iii despite the a7riv been technically better in its focusing if that makes sense? The high res means been slightly off is really more noticable. Of course using crop mode negates this.

The crop apsc is great though. With my 200-600 zoom and my 1.4tc i end up with an effective reach of 1260mm which is pretty incredible and great for wildlife.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,798
Location
What used to be a UK
I think I'll sell the A7r2 and go for the the iv. In the meantime I'll keep the A73 with a view to waiting for what comes next or trading for an A9. It's good that your happy using the 200-600 on it because that's what I'll be using sometimes.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
10,042
Location
Europe
Anyone here have the 24-105 f4 G lens?

I lost a few lenses at sea, so only have my 35mm f2.8 at the moment.

Thinking of getting the 24-104, then a either an ultra-wide prime or zoom.

I'm usually shooting the vastness of landscapes, but it could be good to have the versatility this offers.
 
Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2007
Posts
1,368
Location
Cambridge
Anyone here have the 24-105 f4 G lens?

I lost a few lenses at sea, so only have my 35mm f2.8 at the moment.

Thinking of getting the 24-104, then a either an ultra-wide prime or zoom.

I'm usually shooting the vastness of landscapes, but it could be good to have the versatility this offers.

I had it for a while but didn't like it. I found f4 too limiting in the 35-50mm range (which is where I usually shoot) and optically it was poorer that the 16-35/4 at 24mm (contrast and micro contrast were noticeably worse).

I'm using the Tamron 28-75mm as my utility zoom now as it fits my style better and gives nicer images (sharper but I also prefer the rendering). Have you considered the Tamron 17-28? I'd steer clear of the 16-35/4 as it's very poor at 35mm, especially if you're used to the 35/2.8.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
10,042
Location
Europe
I had it for a while but didn't like it. I found f4 too limiting in the 35-50mm range (which is where I usually shoot) and optically it was poorer that the 16-35/4 at 24mm (contrast and micro contrast were noticeably worse).

I'm using the Tamron 28-75mm as my utility zoom now as it fits my style better and gives nicer images (sharper but I also prefer the rendering). Have you considered the Tamron 17-28? I'd steer clear of the 16-35/4 as it's very poor at 35mm, especially if you're used to the 35/2.8.

Hmm. That's interesting. I love fast primes for photography, but these days I do more video work (not work just fun). I used the 28-70 kit a fair bit due to the OSS. Came in handy on a boat but not wide enough. Light isn't usually a problem in fact often there will be an ND on it so I keep 1/50 shutter. I think for video the 24-70 f4 Ziess OSS or 24-105 f4 would work well. It would either be used wide or long, not in the middle.

For UWA the 16-35 f2.8 looks nice but expensive. The 12-24 is out of the question. The Tamron could be interesting, but so to the Batis 18 2.8, considering I hope to take a trip to Iceland once things settle down.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2011
Posts
21,226
Location
SW3
Got the A7Riii, oh my, IQ is amazing.

Should have gone for the Riii when it first released.

Sadly no 24mm GM yet so I’m using the 50mm F1.8, bargain brand new for £160.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Apr 2007
Posts
13,452
Got the A7Riii, oh my, IQ is amazing.

Should have gone for the Riii when it first released.

Sadly no 24mm GM yet so I’m using the 50mm F1.8, bargain brand new for £160.
That's on the expensive side for the 50 F1.8 got mine for £129, quality is good, just lacking in AF.
 
Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2007
Posts
1,368
Location
Cambridge
Hmm. That's interesting. I love fast primes for photography, but these days I do more video work (not work just fun). I used the 28-70 kit a fair bit due to the OSS. Came in handy on a boat but not wide enough. Light isn't usually a problem in fact often there will be an ND on it so I keep 1/50 shutter. I think for video the 24-70 f4 Ziess OSS or 24-105 f4 would work well. It would either be used wide or long, not in the middle.

For UWA the 16-35 f2.8 looks nice but expensive. The 12-24 is out of the question. The Tamron could be interesting, but so to the Batis 18 2.8, considering I hope to take a trip to Iceland once things settle down.

Definitely avoid the 24-70/4 - it's terrible, especially for the money. The 16-35 2.8 is eye-wateringly expensive even on the grey market, but the Tamron 17-28 reviews well. There's a rumoured Sigma 24-70/4 on the way, which could be worth a look.

Primes are definitely where I feel happiest on Sony. The 55/1.8 had been my go-to ever since I got my 1st a7, but the new Sigma C series primes are also worth a serious look.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
10,042
Location
Europe
Looked a few reviews there isn't much talk of the Sigma lenses really. I guess they are still pretty new for the FE mount.

I think I've got a plan. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (No OIS thought), and the Sigma 20mm 1.4. Together they are less than £1500.

The Sigma 16mm 1.8 looks interesting, but 16mm would too specialist.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Apr 2007
Posts
13,452
I didn't find the Sony 24-70 f4 terrible, it was a good lens I only changed mine to the Tamron 28-200 for the extra range and now useful light gathering at the wide end.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,613
Location
Co Durham
Well i succumbed. Dealer rang me up and offered me £2k for my A7riv, 2 years extra warranty and 12 months interest free on the A1 so I said yes!

Should be here next week, maybe even this Friday.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,613
Location
Co Durham
Looked a few reviews there isn't much talk of the Sigma lenses really. I guess they are still pretty new for the FE mount.

I think I've got a plan. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (No OIS thought), and the Sigma 20mm 1.4. Together they are less than £1500.

The Sigma 16mm 1.8 looks interesting, but 16mm would too specialist.

The Sigma's are all sound, 95% of the quality of the Sony lenses(or in some cases, better) and two thirds of the price.

I am gutted they have still not released the 70-200 F2.8 though and are stupidly releasing yet another 28-70mm f/2.8 tomorrow for £900. Did we really need another zoom in that range? I guess they saw how well the Tamron sold and wanted some of that money. Should be light and good quality though
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,613
Location
Co Durham
They'd have done better imo making a 24-70f4.
I miss the 24mm on my Tamron 28-200.

I can see why they do it though. Adding the 24mm makes it harder and more expensive to make the lens, may not be as optically good and adds weight and size. The sigma 28-70 is 67mm filter vs 82mm on their 24-70.
 
Back
Top Bottom