Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mattpallante on March 18, 2010, 12:10:56 pm

Title: prime lenses
Post by: mattpallante on March 18, 2010, 12:10:56 pm

Does anyone have experience/opinion on the Sony SAL 35mm f1.4? This would be used on my Sony 900, primarily landscape. And what are your other favorite primes for this camera/application? Thanks for any ideas, Matt.

Title: prime lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 18, 2010, 04:19:07 pm

Hi,

From the tests I have seen I wouldn't buy the Sony SAL 35/1.4G.

Here is a small write up on my lenses:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...e-sony-apha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/2-about-the-sony-apha-900)

Here are some test/sample pictures: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test (http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_test) (click original for full size)

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: mattpallante

Does anyone have experience/opinion on the Sony SAL 35mm f1.4? This would be used on my Sony 900, primarily landscape. And what are your other favorite primes for this camera/application? Thanks for any ideas, Matt.

Title: prime lenses
Post by: mattpallante on March 19, 2010, 05:48:07 am

Guys, thanks for your replies. I appreciate the comments on the charecteristics of the lenses, and their suitibility for different types of work. Very insightful!

Matt

Title: prime lenses
Post by: JimU on March 24, 2010, 09:14:55 pm

I've got the 35 G RS & a900 as well
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2928531176_1b6c5e2679.jpg)

While I do agree that I would probably never think of it for landscapes because this is a low-light specialty lens which excels at environmental portraits due to its thin DOF and fluid colors, it is my only 35mm lens and when I did use it for landscapes I was impressed.

This lens has a reputation as being soft, but in reality while it may have low contrast wide open, stopped down to f/5.6 has amazing corner-to-corner resolution that beats the 16-35/2.8 za.  i agree the minolta 35/2 would be a better value for landscape.

this site offers some interesting test results:  http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/16...s-test-at-f35mm (http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/166-a900-lens-test-at-f35mm)

I'm quite shocked that anyone would favour the 135stf over the 135za for landscapes.  while i have used both, i'd rather have the 135stf for portraits but the 135za's contrast & resolution is insane.

Title: prime lenses
Post by: mattpallante on March 25, 2010, 04:40:42 pm

Quote from: JimU

I've got the 35 G RS & a900 as well
 I have the cz 24-70, the Sony 70-300, and a sigma 105 macro. I decided to skip the primes for now and am picking up a sigma 12-24 and the sony 500mm. Matt

Title: prime lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 25, 2010, 10:00:14 pm

Hi,

I would be a bit careful with the Sigma 12-24. I have some decent pictures taken with that lens but corners are quite bad regarding sharpness. Test your lens ASAP and send it back if it's not to your satisfaction.

I have put some high res images taken with that lens here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/1224Demo/ (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/1224Demo/)

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: mattpallante

Jim, thanks for the reply. I had received a bonus at work, and needed to spend some money on photo gear before I got rational.  I have the cz 24-70, the Sony 70-300, and a sigma 105 macro. I decided to skip the primes for now and am picking up a sigma 12-24 and the sony 500mm. Matt

Title: prime lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 25, 2010, 10:23:29 pm

Thanks for the link, most useful!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: JimU

I've got the 35 G RS & a900 as well
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2928531176_1b6c5e2679.jpg)

While I do agree that I would probably never think of it for landscapes because this is a low-light specialty lens which excels at environmental portraits due to its thin DOF and fluid colors, it is my only 35mm lens and when I did use it for landscapes I was impressed.

This lens has a reputation as being soft, but in reality while it may have low contrast wide open, stopped down to f/5.6 has amazing corner-to-corner resolution that beats the 16-35/2.8 za.  i agree the minolta 35/2 would be a better value for landscape.

this site offers some interesting test results:  http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/16...s-test-at-f35mm (http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/166-a900-lens-test-at-f35mm)

I'm quite shocked that anyone would favour the 135stf over the 135za for landscapes.  while i have used both, i'd rather have the 135stf for portraits but the 135za's contrast & resolution is insane.

Title: prime lenses
Post by: ihernandez on March 28, 2010, 06:52:02 pm

I have the 35G and I love it but it's not what I call a landscape lens... of course you can use it on this way but it's not designed to work superb on it.

On this link you have few portraits with this lens and few other photos (not portraits): 35G Examples (http://picasaweb.google.com/isaac.hernandez.luna/35G#)

Isaac.

Title: prime lenses
Post by: KevinA on March 30, 2010, 04:42:26 am

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

Hi,

I would be a bit careful with the Sigma 12-24. I have some decent pictures taken with that lens but corners are quite bad regarding sharpness. Test your lens ASAP and send it back if it's not to your satisfaction.

I have put some high res images taken with that lens here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/1224Demo/ (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/1224Demo/)

Best regards
Erik

I have two Sigma lenses including the 12 - 24, I don't have a desire to add another one. These two lenses share the same look, everything looks over exposed but the shadows are still on the dense side and could do with more exposure, add a yellow cast to that, the sum is I leave them in the cupboard.

Kevin.