Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: would you ever buy a Sony?  (Read 33443 times)

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2011, 02:34:14 pm »

Yes,

The price!

Other than that, no difference.

Best regards
Erik


  FWIW, according to Joakim over on Fred Miranda, who works in the industry, Sony improved the power conditioning lines of the A850 over the A900, and that accounts for slightly better IQ. 

Logged

Scott O.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 315
    • Photography by Scott and Joyce
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2011, 07:54:46 pm »

Make your choice wisely...once you decide on a system, it will cost a fortune to replace glass if you change your mind at a later time.

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2011, 11:06:48 am »

  Zeiss isn't necessarily about sharpness, but rather a "look."  Some prefer it and see it as a reason to buy into the Sony system, while others don't.  Minolta was similar with their first incarnation of AF lenses up through the early nineties.  With those lenses, careful consideration was taken by Minolta to maintain similar color across the whole range. 
p.s. to answer an earlier poster, Zeiss Jena m42 lenses, ZS lenses and ZF lenses adapted through Leitax also work on Sony.


Yeah, but these four elements cannot be escaped with Sony, which is why I personally stuck with Canon:

1. There are nowhere near as many Zeiss lens options as Canon lens options. Not by a longshot. (This is especially true with macro and telephoto, but even w/ tilt-shifts, etc.);
2. Not all of the Zeiss lenses are as good as Canon's anyway (and most of the other 3rd party lenses suck by comparison);
3. On the few Zeiss lenses that really are spectacular (21 Distagon, etc.), I can still buy them and use them on my Canon, without limiting myself in other ways :)
4. Buying a Sony means that I have almost ZERO true advantages ... but a whole host of limitations and disadvantages.

Therefore, to me (at this point anyway) I would never want to commit myself to a "no real advantages but a ton of disadvantages" commitment, especially as a nature photographer. Maybe if I were a wedding photographer, with limited lens requirements, it wouldn't bother me ... but no way as a macro/telephoto photographer looking to build a whole system and wide range of specialized lens options.

Jack



.
Logged

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2011, 11:22:10 am »

  Zeiss isn't necessarily about sharpness, but rather a "look." 

You mean the 'look' of the lenses itself ?

Peter

--
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2011, 11:50:00 am »

You mean the 'look' of the lenses itself ?
Peter
--


No, with certain Zeiss lenses (e.g., the 21 mm Distagon), there is a kind of "3D look" to the image that other lenses simply can't match. Also, the contrast/color rendition of certain Zeiss lenses are superior to common lenses. But that is with Zeiss' best. Even when compared to the Nikkor 14-24, the 21mm Distagon rivals the sharpness, but equals or exceeds the contrast/color rendition, with a more 3-dimensional "look" to it ...

Not all of the Zeiss lenses are like this however.

Jack


.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14771
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2011, 12:21:06 pm »


No, with certain Zeiss lenses (e.g., the 21 mm Distagon), there is a kind of "3D look" to the image that other lenses simply can't match...

Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2011, 01:07:10 pm »

Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?

No, yet another "Slobodan is a prick" syndrome




.
Logged

Dennis Carbo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2011, 01:54:19 pm »

Yet another "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome?

Right....Im sure your Canon G10 is everybit as good as the Zeiss glass....I cant see any difference at all,  especially on Flicker Thumbnails !

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14771
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2011, 02:06:01 pm »

Right....Im sure your Canon G10 is everybit as good as the Zeiss glass....I cant see any difference at all,  especially on Flicker Thumbnails !

Fair enough... feel free to show me the difference in your own examples.

For the record, I have nothing against Zeiss. I owned (or still do) the following Zeiss glass: 18/4, 35/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro, 85/1.4, 180/2.8 for Contax; 50/4 CF FLE, 120/4 CF Macro and 180/4 CF for Hasselbad.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 02:33:19 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14771
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2011, 02:13:51 pm »

No, yet another "Slobodan is a prick" syndrome

Ah, John, my friend, moonlighting again as a shrink? Or just demonstrating your superior decorum skills?  ;)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 02:34:28 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2011, 02:40:52 pm »


Yeah, but these four elements cannot be escaped with Sony, which is why I personally stuck with Canon:

1. There are nowhere near as many Zeiss lens options as Canon lens options. Not by a longshot. (This is especially true with macro and telephoto, but even w/ tilt-shifts, etc.);
True
Quote
2. Not all of the Zeiss lenses are as good as Canon's anyway (and most of the other 3rd party lenses suck by comparison);
Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8
Quote
3. On the few Zeiss lenses that really are spectacular (21 Distagon, etc.), I can still buy them and use them on my Canon, without limiting myself in other ways :)
So it's not a disadvantage either
Quote
4. Buying a Sony means that I have almost ZERO true advantages ... but a whole host of limitations and disadvantages.
How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)
How about the highest colour fidelity 24 MP FF sensor

So you're right, as a system it's not as complete as Canon or Nikon, but as an individual camera for users who don't want or need the whole system it certainly has significant advantages that cannot be met by Canon or Nikon. Maybe they're not sufficient or important for you, and that's OK, but for some others they might be enough to swing their decision in that direction.


.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 02:43:42 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2011, 02:57:21 am »


Should I go buy this mysterious Sony, or should I stick to the well known Nikon D700?

I could have bought a D700.  I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead.  After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again.  For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2011, 05:42:18 am »

Hi,

No doubt the A850 has a resolution advantage over the D700.

- If you need the best camera go Nikon D3X.

- If you want to shoot low light go Nikon D700 or D3s

- If you want the best camera for least money the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 850/900 are good options.

Nothing wrong with Sony Alpha 900 (which I happen to have as my main camera). Lens selection is small compared with Canon. I wouldn't base my choice on a few excellent lenses, those lenses may not be what I need. For instance I don't think that I would put the 135/1.8 ZA to good use, and by the way, how do you focus that thing? Some lenses like the Sony SAL 300/2.8 APO G are incredibly expensive.

Best regards
Erik

I could have bought a D700.  I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead.  After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again.  For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2011, 01:43:57 pm »

No doubt the A850 has a resolution advantage over the D700.

With proper technique, yes.

Quote
- If you need the best camera go Nikon D3X.

Not necessarily, and that's not even taking value into consideration of what is "best."  Iliah Borg prefers the A900 to the D3x.  If you want the best 135mm option bar none, you would definitely choose Sony.  Also, the ZA 85/1.4 appears to soundly beat both Nikon and Canon's 85/1.4 lenses, and you get in-camera stabilization on all of Sony's lenses whereas none of Canon's or Nikon's mid-range or shorter primes or f/2.8 zooms have IS or VR.

Quote
- If you want to shoot low light go Nikon D700 or D3s.

Still, my A850 is no slouch at shooting in low light.  After I have downsized the files to 12 MP they hold up pretty well, and the extra detail also allows some extra latitude in applying NR.  Also, there is nothing wrong with the AF on the A850 as far as acquiring focus in lowlight is concerned.

Quote
- If you want the best camera for least money the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 850/900 are good options.

Nothing wrong with Sony Alpha 900 (which I happen to have as my main camera). Lens selection is small compared with Canon. I wouldn't base my choice on a few excellent lenses, those lenses may not be what I need.

It would be fairer to say you base your choice on what lenses you want or need and what lenses the system offers you.  The vast majority of D700 users will have a kit that consists of primes and zooms that can be easily duplicated by the Sony system.

Quote
For instance I don't think that I would put the 135/1.8 ZA to good use, and by the way, how do you focus that thing?

It is a big and expensive lens with a limited purpose, but if you are shooting portraits then it simply can't be beat.  As for focusing it, when I had one I didn't have any issues nailing focus with it.

Quote
Some lenses like the Sony SAL 300/2.8 APO G are incredibly expensive.

At $6300 the Sony 300/2.8 is the most expensive choice, but the $5800 Nikon choice is only $500 cheaper; clearly the better choice would be Canon's option which costs $4635.  Indeed, you could buy the Canon 300mm lens and a 7D for just $300 more than the Sony 300/2.8, so that might justify having two systems (ouch, neither of them would necessarily be Nikon, especially if cost is a primary consideration).  What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 01:45:45 pm by Tony Beach »
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2011, 08:51:40 am »

Pegelli said,
"True"

RESPONSE:
And since nature photography happens to be my bag, the Sony would have been a very poor choice for me (or anyone else).




Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."

RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss, better bokeh, and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss. So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens. But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:

What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon Super Telephotos (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, etc.)?

What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses (17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm)?

What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?

And what Zeiss lens can compare to the peerless Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Super Macro lens, that goes up to 5x magnification?

You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it. And, once again, on those rare and flashing isolated instances of Zeiss superiority, I can always put that Zeiss on the end of my Canon if I like




Pegelli said,
"So it's not a disadvantage either."

RESPONSE:
Yes it is a disadvantage. By going with Sony, I cut myself off from SO MANY superior lens choices that Canon offers ... only to get no real advantage whatsoever. So, in point of fact, that is a monumental disadvantage ... all so I can get no real lens exclusivity or positive advantage.




Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"

RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too? Canon's IS technology is better than Sony's and they already give it to you in their lenses, so there is no advantage to Sony here either. Further, Canon gives BY FAR more versatility in-camera (Live View, etc.) also, so really the Sony body is itself yet another disadvantage IMO.




Pegelli said,
"How about the highest colour fidelity 24 MP FF sensor."

RESPONSE:
That sounds good on paper, but in real life Canons put out fantastic photographs. Period. And, with the best and broadest lens selection, they give you BY FAR more ways in which to produce fantastic photographs. Period.

So, if, while pixel-peeping on a monitor, the Sony has a slight advantage in color rendition ... when you go back out into the real world, nobody is going to notice the difference in print, and there you are stuck with a VERY limited lens system compared to the Canon. Which is precisely why most pros would not choose a Sony system, and which is why this thread topic got started. At the end of the day, the Sony's very limited advantages are negligible, while its very broad and considerable DISadvantages are deal-breakers for most.




Pegelli said,
"So you're right, as a system it's not as complete as Canon or Nikon, but as an individual camera for users who don't want or need the whole system it certainly has significant advantages that cannot be met by Canon or Nikon. Maybe they're not sufficient or important for you, and that's OK, but for some others they might be enough to swing their decision in that direction."

RESPONSE:
Well, as I said in my original post, only a photographer with a very LIMITED need for equipment would opt for a Sony system ... whereas anyone looking to build a full system will immediately see the HUGE disadvantages to Sony and will not be swayed by the very minor and negligible "advantages" ...

Take care,

Jack


.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 08:56:33 am by John Koerner »
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2011, 12:07:26 pm »

Pegelli said,
"True"
Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."

RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens

No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens.  If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens.

Quote
with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss,

Not according to Photozone's testing, it's not even close.

Quote
better bokeh,

Nonsense, the Zeiss 135/1.8 has great bokeh.  I experienced it firsthand, I have to wonder what your experience with it is (none at all I expect).


Quote
and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss.

The camera has SSS, which is applied to all the lenses you use on it including the Zeiss 135/1.8.  Also, since the Zeiss is a full stop faster, it's more feasible to not use any stabilization with it.

Quote
So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens.

It's an apples to oranges comparison, but in the way you seem to intend the comparison you are deluding yourself.


Quote
But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:

What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?

The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle.

Quote
You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it.

If Canon meets your needs better, great; however, Sony has the lenses to meet perhaps 90% of photographer's needs, and to do it very well.  Also, I simply prefer my A850 to anything Canon has at this time (again, YMMV).

Quote
Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"

RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too?

Many of Canon's lenses do not have IS. Does the aforementioned 85/1.2 have IS?


Quote
Well, as I said in my original post, only a photographer with a very LIMITED need for equipment would opt for a Sony system ... whereas anyone looking to build a full system will immediately see the HUGE disadvantages to Sony and will not be swayed by the very minor and negligible "advantages" ...

Actually, the limited need is those that wouldn't be satisfied with a 300/2.8 or the coming 500/4.  Schneider is about to offer T/S lenses that will work on the Sony system, that will cover another limited need.  The vast majority of photographers shoot with classic primes and/or wide/mid-range/telephoto zooms, and Sony has all of those and they have image stabilization on all of those.

Unlike you though, I'm not a fanboy.  If you need something Sony doesn't have, choose another system.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14771
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2011, 01:08:52 pm »

No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens.  If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens...
You are referring to depth-of-field (DOF) and background blur, not exposure, I assume? You are basically saying that a 100/2.8 lens on a crop body has the same DOF and background blur like a 160/4.5 lens on a FF body?

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #57 on: February 07, 2011, 01:22:54 pm »

Thanks Tony, I think you covered most points I would have brought up, so won't repeat the.
Just a few additions:
Pegelli said,
"Find any Canon lens better than the CZ 135/1.8."
RESPONSE:
Well, like I said, "not all" of the Zeiss lenses are as good as the Canon's ... which implies that some of them are. Still, 135mm is a lens size I would never personally buy, not even from Canon. Hell, my own Canon 100mm f/2.8L macro at the end of my 7D is essentially a 160mm lens with as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss, better bokeh, and FAR superior Image Stabilization to the non-existent IS on the Zeiss. So I have already got as good or better in my macro lens. But now let's talk about depth of superior choices, which was my point:
The Canon 100/2.8L is on par with the Sony 100/2.8 and nowhere comparable to the Zeiss 135/1.8 All of these lenses can be used on APS-C or FF so what's your point ?

Quote
What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon Super Telephotos (300mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, etc.)?

What Zeiss lens can compare to any of the Canon TS-E Tilt-Shift lenses (17mm, 24mm, 45mm, 90mm)?

What Zeiss lens can compare to the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II portrait lens?

And what Zeiss lens can compare to the peerless Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Super Macro lens, that goes up to 5x magnification?
Why do they need to be Zeiss? the 300/2.8, 500/4 (to be released) and heritage Minolta 600/4 are excellent alternatives.
The Zeiss 85/1.4 is already mentioned
T/S you'd have to go 3rd party but there's good choices (also the Kiron T/S adapter)
For extreme macro look at the Minolta 1x-3x (granted, it's not 5x)


Quote
You see, Canon gives me far more depth of superior lens choices, rather than just an isolated (and debatable) instance of it. And, once again, on those rare and flashing isolated instances of Zeiss superiority, I can always put that Zeiss on the end of my Canon if I like
Don't think it's as extreme as you say, but if Canon is right for you I have no problem with that.




Quote
Pegelli said,
"So it's not a disadvantage either."

RESPONSE:
Yes it is a disadvantage. By going with Sony, I cut myself off from SO MANY superior lens choices that Canon offers ... only to get no real advantage whatsoever. So, in point of fact, that is a monumental disadvantage ... all so I can get no real lens exclusivity or positive advantage.
Any brand or mount will cut you off from SO MANY superior lens choices. Not worth loosing sleep over




Quote
Pegelli said,
"How about in body stabilisation, so all your lenses suddenly get stabilized (there is some very good 10-20 year old glass available from Minolta heritage)"

RESPONSE:
Most of the best Canon lenses already have IS so what point is there to have it in the body too? Canon's IS technology is better than Sony's and they already give it to you in their lenses, so there is no advantage to Sony here either. Further, Canon gives BY FAR more versatility in-camera (Live View, etc.) also, so really the Sony body is itself yet another disadvantage IMO.
Typical Canon fanboy FUD, and even if it were true I'd take all my lenses stabilized 3 stops any day over just a few lenses stabilized 4 stops.


I think Tony covered many other points much more eloquently than I could
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 01:26:15 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #58 on: February 07, 2011, 06:07:18 pm »

No, it's still a 100mm f/2.8 lens.  If you want it to be a 160mm lens, then you would also have to take a slower aperture in that conversion, so in that context it would be a "160/4.5" lens.

As I said, I have no specific need or desire for a 135mm lens, especially non-macro.




Not according to Photozone's testing, it's not even close.

The 100mm f/2.8L has outstanding resolution by any yardstick. Perhaps not as high on the Imatest as the Zeiss 135, but high enough to qualify as "excellent." Further, the 100mm f/2.8L bests the Zeiss in several areas: lack of barrel distortion, bokeh, speed of AF, weather sealing, as well as the best IS in the business, all for less money.

Meanwhile, though the Zeiss does produce outstanding results in some areas, Photozone still says, "Unfortunately there're no seals against dust and humidity - something which should be standard in this lens and price class ... as well as "the Zeiss lens does still rely on the rather outdated classic focusing system driven by the camera (via a slotted drive screw) ... As a consequence of the conventional AF system the lens produces a moderate degree of noise during operations ... the AF speed is fine but not great."



Nonsense, the Zeiss 135/1.8 has great bokeh.  I experienced it firsthand, I have to wonder what your experience with it is (none at all I expect).

Well, I wonder what experience you have with the bokeh on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L? Since you like to quote Photozone so much, here is what your own reference point states of the Canon: " the Canon lens does truly shine here (bokeh). Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far," as well as "The AF performance is ... vastly better than third party alternatives." So you're the one who's talking nonsense here.


The camera has SSS, which is applied to all the lenses you use on it including the Zeiss 135/1.8.  Also, since the Zeiss is a full stop faster, it's more feasible to not use any stabilization with it.

Good point.




It's an apples to oranges comparison, but in the way you seem to intend the comparison you are deluding yourself.

You're right in a sense about the apples to oranges, but I am not deluding myself in overall perspective. You are deluding yourself into trying to elevate a limited system to the same playing field as Canon over one lens. As I said in the beginning, if I were only doing wedding/portraits, then maybe ... but for someone looking to build a full system, the Sony doesn't make much sense.




The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle.

Speaking of self-delusion, Tony, this is flat-out balderdash you're spewing. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much peerless.

Once again, since you like Photozone so much, here is a direct refutation of your position by your own reference point: Of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Photozone says, "The rather long min. focus distance of 1m is a bit disappointing compared to other lenses in this class ... the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is still a tad better (with bokeh) especially with respect to the foreground blur ..."

Meanwhile, of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Photozone says, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is a lens where Canon "shows off" - it's ... a marvel within the lens lineup ... you're getting quite some glass for your bucks here ... The (bokeh) potential is more than extreme! If required this lens will smoothen even the most difficult back- and foregrounds ... Out-of-focus highlights are rendered perfectly and the blur is very smooth ... The center (resolution" performance is nothing short of breathtaking and the borders are only slightly weaker ... All-in-all an exceptional lens!"

So your own reference material rates the Canon 85mm better than the Zeiss, pretty much across the board.




If Canon meets your needs better, great; however, Sony has the lenses to meet perhaps 90% of photographer's needs, and to do it very well.  Also, I simply prefer my A850 to anything Canon has at this time (again, YMMV).

The Canon does meet my needs better, which is why I answered the topic question, "Would I ever buy a Sony?", with a resounding NO.




Many of Canon's lenses do not have IS. Does the aforementioned 85/1.2 have IS?

Neither does. But the Canon is faster, has better AF, better resolution, better bokeh, etc.




Actually, the limited need is those that wouldn't be satisfied with a 300/2.8 or the coming 500/4.  Schneider is about to offer T/S lenses that will work on the Sony system, that will cover another limited need.  The vast majority of photographers shoot with classic primes and/or wide/mid-range/telephoto zooms, and Sony has all of those and they have image stabilization on all of those.

The Canon offers better super-telephoto lenses, for less money, and has more of them to choose from. And, by all accounts, the Schneider cannot in any way compare to the Canon T/S lenses. Thus, in buying the Sony, you commit yourself to having less choices, in many cases inferior choices, and in virtually all cases you're stuck having to pay more money for them. So whatever short money you saved buying the Sony body ... costs you more in the end ... both in terms of versatility as well as overall lens prices.

And, again, if I want a Zeiss I can buy one too ... but meanwhile you can't buy the vast array of superior Canon lenses for your system.




Unlike you though, I'm not a fanboy.

You are a fanboy Tony. Take a peep through your pom-poms, look closely in the mirror, and realize you're just cheerleading another system: Sony.




If you need something Sony doesn't have, choose another system.

And I did, thank you.

Jack




.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2011, 06:30:59 pm »

Thanks Tony, I think you covered most points I would have brought up, so won't repeat the.

Hope you enjoyed my responses then.




Just a few additions: The Canon 100/2.8L is on par with the Sony 100/2.8 and nowhere comparable to the Zeiss 135/1.8 All of these lenses can be used on APS-C or FF so what's your point ?

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is superior to the Sony 100mm macro on pretty much every level, and is superior to the Zeiss 135 with regards to bokeh, AF speed, weather sealing, IS, etc. ... while retaining exceptional resolution in its own right. Even though the Canon 100mm lags a bit behind the 135 in resolution, meanwhile the Zeiss lags behind the Canon in multiple respects.




Why do they need to be Zeiss? the 300/2.8, 500/4 (to be released) and heritage Minolta 600/4 are excellent alternatives.

LOL, and how is the price/availability/quality of these compared to the Canon offerings ;)




The Zeiss 85/1.4 is already mentioned

And it too falls short of the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II




T/S you'd have to go 3rd party but there's good choices (also the Kiron T/S adapter)

Right. Go to 3rd party, pay more, and get a lousy lens by comparison to the Canon ... oh, and pay for an adapter too ... which is precisely my point. NO THANKS!

I would rather stay in-company, spend less, not have to buy an adapter, and get a better lens ... while retaining more options in my other lens choices as well.

So, tell me, where is my benefit by going with Sony? So far, you've only shown me unwanted prices/limitations that I have to live with.




For extreme macro look at the Minolta 1x-3x (granted, it's not 5x)

Exactly right again: it's not quite as good or versatile if the Canon offering.

And, once again, how is the price/availability of this comparatively second-rate Minolta lens item by comparison to the ubiquitous and unparalleled Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens?




Don't think it's as extreme as you say, but if Canon is right for you I have no problem with that.

Well, I am certainly glad you have no problem with me making my own choices

It is as extreme as I say, the disadvantages to going with Sony, which is why so few people looking to build a truly serious system opt for the Sony as of now.




Any brand or mount will cut you off from SO MANY superior lens choices. Not worth loosing sleep over

Not so. Canon offers the most lenses, and generally for the most economical prices. Especially within my interest range. If I were going to change systems, it would NOT be to Sony (or Pentax) or any other limited system ... it would be to Nikon. For precisely the reason they have more options, and can use the Zeiss lenses too. Nikon just doesn't have as many options as Canon, and they (like Zeiss) tend to be FAR more expensive also.




Typical Canon fanboy FUD, and even if it were true I'd take all my lenses stabilized 3 stops any day over just a few lenses stabilized 4 stops.

Why do you fellas (who take the losing argument) always like to resort to the word "fanboy," when you run out of rebuttal material to stand on?

Like Tony, take a look at your own pom-poms and realize you are likewise doing nothing but cheerleading your own preference "team" here. You just happen to be on the losing team. At least right now.




I think Tony covered many other points much more eloquently than I could

Tony used to cheerlead Nikon a few years back, now he is cheerleading Sony.

He did make some good points, but what you brand-blind cheerleaders can't see is do did I. Hell, even Tony straight-out admitted the Sony system sucks for anyone interested in a full gamut of nature photography options when he said, "What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time." So why are either one of you even arguing this point?

Maybe down the road Sony will be "the" full system to own, quality-wise and option-wise, but right now it certainly is not.

Jack



.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 06:43:44 pm by John Koerner »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up