[Digitalis]

the 90mm macros was OK, but not great, considering that it was a macro lens and all 90-100mm macros are supposed to be sharp.

Something has to have gone spectacularly wrong for a 100mm macro not to perform well. Even the Pentax D-FA100mm f/2.8 gives the Canon 100L a run for its money.

[normhead]

We like objective accounts of other people's camera use. We don't come here to listen to brand bashers like you pontificate on the superiority of their latest purchase. What? You think we are some kind of ignorant, captive audience that will just say "oh Slver-Surfer, you da man, we are so glad you came by to enlighten us." This isn't a forum for "Pentax sucks, my new camera is great". This is a forum where people can intelligently discuss their non-Pentax gear.

If you can't make a point without dissing everyone else's gear, you don't have a point. There are no threads on the forum for bashing Pentax gear. If you want to do that, there are lots of other places I suspect you could go.

Essentially all, you've said is you prefer Sony. We have had lots of other users say they prefer Pentax. Stop thinking you're some "last word " on anything you're not. All you've established here is you're not someone I care to listen to. That doesn't mean everyone who shoots Sony is. I've had some great conversations with Christine Tham about Sony gear, and she doesn't muddy up her posts with needless Pentax bashing. It's not Sony users, it's not users of other camera systems, it's you.

Maybe you're the one who needs to take a pill. You seem to be on some kind of "I just bought some new gear " high. Act like you've been there before.

How long does that high last for you before you sink into depression again?

You can share your experience of "new gadget euphoria " on the internet, but other people can never really understand it, until they actually buy exactly what you bought, and even then they'll experience it in their own way, it's not a communicable experience.

A guy put his new Nex system in my hands the other day,,, and was telling me all bout it. But, I have a natural hand shake, the weight of my gear actually helps provide me with stability, My only thought with the Nex in my hand was, "this will never work."

I even shoot with a tripod mounted to the bottom of the camera for long lenses. I just retracts he legs for portability and hold the tripod with my left hand, and operate the camera one handed with my right, with no issues. Despite ignorant statements by some that that's impossible.

The goal isn't lightest, or smallest, or anything "eat". The goal is what works for the individual person and their individual goals and needs.

Sorry to cut this off short, but I'm going out tot are some pictures. Catch you later.

[Winder]

My understanding is that Sony is baking lens corrections, even into the RAW data. The only person I have seen look at it was Roger Cicala, with his optical bench (LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests) and he said the 55 was pretty decent, but none of his copies of the 35 f1.4 had consistent corners and the 90mm macros was OK, but not great, considering that it was a macro lens and all 90-100mm macros are supposed to be sharp.

I really don't care much. I'm not particularly interested in Sony. They don't make gear that clicks particularly for me and their expensive stuff makes Pentax's expensive gear look cheap in comparison. My impression is that an awful lot of folks buy Sony cameras to mount whatever other brand lenses they own -- K mount, EOS, Leica, whatever -- rather than purchasing FE mount lenses.

I don't know how much the RAW files are cooked, but again that is not a huge issue. Pentax has been applying NR to RAW files and I'm sure others are as well. I know that when I apply NR to the Zeiss 55mm you can see the software adjust for the pincushion distortion. The 90mm shows basically no difference. The Loxia lenses that I have tried both show it and the FE 28mm shows a lot of movement when you turn it on. If Sony is cooking the RAW files they are doing very little.

My 90mm macro is definitely sharper than the Pentax 100mm (non WR) that I tried. I wanted a manual focus macro and I wanted an aperture ring. I looked a 3 or 4 different legacy macros. At that time LR didn't support the Sony 90mm so I didn't have lens profiles for any of the lenses. I have not read a lot of reviews on the lens, but the none of the ones that I did read before buying had anything negative to say about it. My only complaint is the AF is slow, but its a macro lens and something I just have to live with.

I don't really care for Sony gear one way or the other. The ergonomics are average. The build quality is decent, but not on the same level as the K-3. The EVF is good enough that it usually doesn't get in the way. There is still a lot of room for improvement. I don't sell many images of test charts, but for shooting people the 55mm F/1.8 is excellent. The colors and skin tones are excellent. I don't really love the Sony equipment, but I do love the image quality. I know this is gear collectors forum and for a lot of people the name on the gear is more important than the images. I really don't care too much for brand name.

[Sliver-Surfer]

We like objective accounts of other people's camera use. We don't come here to listen to brand bashers like you pontificate on the superiority of their latest purchase. What? You think we are some kind of ignorant, captive audience that will just say "oh Slver-Surfer, you da man, we are so glad you came by to enlighten us." This isn't a forum for "Pentax sucks, my new camera is great". This is a forum where people can intelligently discuss their non-Pentax gear.

If you can't make a point without dissing everyone else's gear, you don't have a point. There are no threads on the forum for bashing Pentax gear. If you want to do that, there are lots of other places I suspect you could go.

Essentially all, you've said is you prefer Sony. We have had lots of other users say they prefer Pentax. Stop thinking you're some "last word " on anything you're not. All you've established here is you're not someone I care to listen to. That doesn't mean everyone who shoots Sony is. I've had some great conversations with Christine Tham about Sony gear, and she doesn't muddy up her posts with needless Pentax bashing. It's not Sony users, it's not users of other camera systems, it's you.

Maybe you're the one who needs to take a pill. You seem to be on some kind of "I just bought some new gear " high. Act like you've been there before.

How long does that high last for you before you sink into depression again?

You can share your experience of "new gadget euphoria " on the internet, but other people can never really understand it, until they actually buy exactly what you bought, and even then they'll experience it in their own way, it's not a communicable experience.

A guy put his new Nex system in my hands the other day,,, and was telling me all bout it. But, I have a natural hand shake, the weight of my gear actually helps provide me with stability, My only thought with the Nex in my hand was, "this will never work."

I even shoot with a tripod mounted to the bottom of the camera for long lenses. I just retracts he legs for portability and hold the tripod with my left hand, and operate the camera one handed with my right, with no issues. Despite ignorant statements by some that that's impossible.

The goal isn't lightest, or smallest, or anything "eat". The goal is what works for the individual person and their individual goals and needs.

Sorry to cut this off short, but I'm going out tot are some pictures. Catch you later.

I don't care about any of your long winded whining, seriously. Like I said I Love My Pentax I love my Sony.

[richmondthefish]

They just vary a lot. The FE 35mm f2.8 has 2.6 stops of vignetting wide open. Which is a lot, considering that wide open is only f2.8. Border sharpness really isn't great. The Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 has fiercesome distortion throughout and pretty bad vignetting at 24mm and f4. My perception from the reviews is that a lot of these lenses rely pretty heavily on software manipulation to make them usable.

People have told me that this is the wave of the future and that they would rather have a smaller, cheaper lens and use software to correct them, but I have always felt that if you could have a decently corrected lens, then you don't have to manipulate it as much in post.

I wasn't even aware of the software correction going on.

I think I recall reading some issues about the FE 35mm but then I read glowing reviews about the Distagon and Batis lens. Then again they cost an arm and a leg.


Do other companies have much software correction in their lens lineup to the point where you think has an impact on your images? Pentax, Canon, Nikon...etc? (Sorry if this is a dumb question?)

[Winder]

I wasn't even aware of the software correction going on.

I think I recall reading some issues about the FE 35mm but then I read glowing reviews about the Distagon and Batis lens. Then again they cost an arm and a leg.


Do other companies have much software correction in their lens lineup to the point where you think has an impact on your images? Pentax, Canon, Nikon...etc? (Sorry if this is a dumb question?)

It's relatively new, but it is becoming normal for some level are optical correction to be applied to JPEGs. Most RAW converters have the option. There is no perfect lens. They all need some help. Sharpening, contrast, color, vignetting...... distortion.

---------- Post added 02-05-16 at 10:56 AM ----------

Motoyuji Ohtake interviewed by Dpreview and IR: GM Lenses are made for future High Res cameras. | sonyalpharumors

High resolution lenses: Mr. Ohtake made it clear that those lenses are designed for the future high reoslution cameras. The current FE (non GM) lenses are good enough for 40MP sensors. “For the G Master lenses we decided we would assess the spatial frequency at 50 lines per mm. Usually lens makers, including ourselves, evaluate lenses at 10 and 30 lpmm (or 10, 20 and 40 for Carl Zeiss-branded optics).“

Bokeh: “We developed a way to evaluate bokeh and were able to make a simulation. This meant we didn’t have to build a lens to see how it performed, we could now computer model it before taking a design too far.“

New own designed mold-machine was developed for the 85mm FE GM “Sony’s approach to eliminating the problem was to design and build their own mold-making machine, one that allows creation of aspheric lens molds that don’t have the previously-characteristic ridges present in the first place. Lenses produced from such molds have a surface roughness of only 0.01 microns. That’s a factor of 2 or 3 better than current technology used by the rest of the industry. Because they are so incredibly smooth right out of the micro-lathe machine, it’s a much more production-oriented process than the manual polishing approach Panasonic developed. This should translate into lower production costs, and ultimately, more Sony lenses at modest price points able to take advantage of the technology.”

Sony delayed the 85mm FE GM planed autumn launch to “wait” for the new machine “It’s an interesting side note that the ultimate design of the 85mm f/1.4 G-Master lens had to wait for this new aspheric technology to be deveoped before the design could be completed. Wanting beautiful bokeh, the lens designers could see no other alternative to using conventionally-polished aspherical lens elements to build it with. The problem is that would have made the lens huge and heavy, with a very complex optical formula. What was needed was aspheric technology that could avoid the onion-ring problem from the get-go, so the lens designers had to wait until the lens-fabrication people could solve the surface-finish problem. All told, the combination of surface finish and extreme-molding capabilities took 3 to 4 years to develop.”

There is also one more very criptic answer from Sony about the future of APS-C lenses: ‘The focus elements are light, so it’s easier to design. We have all these focus motor technologies in-house and we’d like to try them in APS-C lenses if that’s what the Product Planning team says is required.” That answer really avoids…to answer if they are currently developing “native” APS-C E-mount lenses.

[Rondec]

I wasn't even aware of the software correction going on.

I think I recall reading some issues about the FE 35mm but then I read glowing reviews about the Distagon and Batis lens. Then again they cost an arm and a leg.


Do other companies have much software correction in their lens lineup to the point where you think has an impact on your images? Pentax, Canon, Nikon...etc? (Sorry if this is a dumb question?)

The answer is that most companies will allow software correction of their lenses in jpeg. I think most brands would avoid doing things like distortion correction or vignette correction to the RAW files, feeling that that sort of adjustment is up to the user. Some companies seem to apply a certain amount of adjustment to the RAW files, but obviously it is unclear how much, since it can't be turned off.

[petrakka]

Lots of bashing here, but their glass is really good stuff.

Sony is doing killer stuff in general - it's new, there will be quirks (as there def are with Pentax digital...), but their cameras are pretty revolutionary depending on the sort of work you do.
I love my A7RII - it works beautifully with my old Contax G Lenses, but I can tell you that the 1k I spent on the 55 mm (which is crazy expensive for a nifty fifty) was worth it. Their glass is pretty frickin lovely.

But nothing is replacing my 645D (except for maybe a Z or later model whenever I get around to it - I don't really need more than D offers for now and probably a few years).
I use the Sony and my Pentax side by side on jobs and find them great, complementary cameras that allow you to pivot and shoot differently depending on the circumstance.

All that said, the only brand of digi that I have used that has just been problem free continuously for years has been Nikon. I just don't really like shooting with them. I've had Sony, Fuji, Pentax and Olympus. All have been buggy at some time or another. But my faves are the Sony and Pentax. Fuji could be good, it so could be, but it's not there.

[Winder]

Contax G Lenses, but I can tell you that the 1k I spent on the 55 mm (which is crazy expensive for a nifty fifty) was worth it. Their glass is pretty frickin lovely.

The Contax 45mm F/2 is a sweet little lens on the A7.

The 55mm F/1.8 is also a jewel of a lens. It is the perfect blend of size, speed, & image quality.

If Fuji produces a medium format mirrorless I will be very tempted to move over. The X-T1 is close to being a great little camera.

[petrakka]

The Contax 45mm F/2 is a sweet little lens on the A7.

The 55mm F/1.8 is also a jewel of a lens. It is the perfect blend of size, speed, & image quality.

If Fuji produces a medium format mirrorless I will be very tempted to move over. The X-T1 is close to being a great little camera.

I think that I'll probably stick w/ Pentax for MF.
I was with Fuji for awhile and besides their sensor tech, which I don't love how it looks, it's just a little behind in general in the way it operates. I would be tempted, but I usually liked Pentax's MF film bodies over Fuji's - but who knows, it will be interesting.

All the Contax lenses are sweet on the A7RII though yeah. I like the 55mm focal length a bit more than the 45, but it's quite nice. I use the 90 the most actually.

The techart III adapter for Contax G + Sony's Phase detection is a pretty great (if noisy) AF system. I have to say that these lenses are faster and more accurate on the Sony than they are on my G2. The 90 2.8 is fantastic, a small 2.8 AF lens at that focal length, there's nothing else out there that competes right now in terms of size. It's a great little shoulder bag kit that really packs completely professional results. The functionality obviously isn't as complete as with the native lenses, but it's pretty dang good, definitely breathes tons of relevance into 20 yr old lenses.

[philbaum]

Lots of bashing here, but their glass is really good stuff.

Sony is doing killer stuff in general - it's new, there will be quirks (as there def are with Pentax digital...), but their cameras are pretty revolutionary depending on the sort of work you do.
I love my A7RII - it works beautifully with my old Contax G Lenses, but I can tell you that the 1k I spent on the 55 mm (which is crazy expensive for a nifty fifty) was worth it. Their glass is pretty frickin lovely.

But nothing is replacing my 645D (except for maybe a Z or later model whenever I get around to it - I don't really need more than D offers for now and probably a few years).
I use the Sony and my Pentax side by side on jobs and find them great, complementary cameras that allow you to pivot and shoot differently depending on the circumstance.

All that said, the only brand of digi that I have used that has just been problem free continuously for years has been Nikon. I just don't really like shooting with them. I've had Sony, Fuji, Pentax and Olympus. All have been buggy at some time or another. But my faves are the Sony and Pentax. Fuji could be good, it so could be, but it's not there.

I think the Pentax and Sony cams complement each other as well. I'm doing the featured artist show for our gallery in March using about 14 pics, most enlarged to 20"x30", about 25% are Pentax K3, the rest are Sony FF. The low light capability of FF combined with IBIS has given me a series of pics that are very striking. My only Sony lenses, in order of usage are:

55 f1.8
28 f2
70-200 f4

I don't have any problems with any of these lenses - they're fun to shoot with and the resolution is quite nice. If its going to be a walk around day in downtown Seattle - i ditch the 70-200 and go for a Pentax 100 or 135 manual lens.

[Winder]

'We want to make lenses that can be used forever': Sony engineer discusses G Master lenses: Digital Photography Review

[pinholecam]

The lenses make me think about the docu movie "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"

Mass market seems to 'want' "Sharper, faster" but its also getting Bigger and heavier.

To me, there is a certain joy to going out a whole day with a competent set of lenses (not bad axx perfect, but competent).
WA, normal, short-tele in the bag, able to cover most things that I encounter while not beating me up for carrying them the whole day 6am-9pm for a week.

So to me, where such offerings like Sigma Art and Master G are going, does not interest me at all.

[Digitalis]

Sony wants lenses that can last forever? then they should never have used Ultrasonic focusing motors in them, I have had a number of them burn out on me over the years to know that.

[drypenn]

'We want to make lenses that can be used forever': Sony engineer discusses G Master lenses: Digital Photography Review

I just want Sony to make mounts that can be used forever.