Getting myself confused with the Sony A7 and lenses

[ColSebastianMoran]

I use and enjoy the Sony cameras for most of my work and find the AF adequate, especially for the body/lens combinations with Hybrid AF (contrast and phase detection).

For long tele, e.g. shooting birds, it's back to SLR. Otherwise I like the Sonys.

I think the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 is a superb lens. The Touit 32mm is a great normal on APSC cameras now that Hybrid AF is supported for this lens.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Complete BS! 🙄

I agree that without context that may be a BS comment , but so is your comment 🙄 It is BS, compared to a D4s 😉

 

[jsrockit]

Af on original a7r was slower than expected, but I have been told has been fixed in a7rii.

Honestly, I used the A7r and it was fine... and anyone who knows me can tell you that I rely on fast AF.

 

[jsrockit]

I agree that without context that may be a BS comment , but so is your comment 🙄 It is BS, compared to a D4s 😉

Well, of course... but compared to other mirrorless cameras, it is a tiny bit slower than the best of the best.

 

[Austerby]

I have M-mount and Nikon F lenses mostly so will be using lens adapters.

I do have a new and rather lively young hound who I really do need AF for to capture in her prime, so will maybe look at the Batis 25mm.

 

[bwana4swahili]

Hope you don't mind but I'll just add a <<few notes>> to your post.

I use the Sony A7R, A7S and A7 II

A7 is the original. <<24 MPixel, no IBIS (in body image stabilization)>>

A7R is without anti aliasing - landscape camera. <<36 MPixel, no IBIS, no electronic 1st shutter or silent mode shooting>>

A7S is the video version <<12 MPixel, 4K video but no in-camera recording, great camera for low light photography, no IBIS, both electronic 1st shutter and silent mode shooting>>

A7II has in body stabilization and a few changes <<same 24 MPixel sensor, still worse image quality than either A7R or A7R but IBIS does help, electronic 1st shutter and silent mode shooting>>

A7RII is still the landscape but adds the 4k like in the A7s. Claims of better AF. <<42.4 MPixel, IBIS, new BSI sensor for improved image quality and higher ISO performance, claims of faster AF with 3rd party lenses still unconfirmed but looks good...>>

All AF is bad in these cameras. <<AF is actually pretty good on all the A7 series cameras when using Sony FE lenses, at least for my usage; wildlife, landscape, portraits, general shooting. AF is mostly unusable with adapted 3rd party lenses>>

FE is a7 sony/zeiss pertnership series full frame glass. <<"FE" is simply "full frame E-mount"; no different than normal Sony E-mount but is used to specify full frame E-mount lenses>>

Loxia is MF, full frame, Zeiss glass for A7 series, no sony involvement in lens design.

Touit is apsc zeiss.

Batis is AF zeiss, FullFrame, for A7 series.

Adapters are available for most mounts to use on the a7 series. I use leica M, pentax screw mount and canon EF. You can pretty much adapt anything to it.
<<I adapter Canon EF & FD, Pentax, Minolta, Sigma, Tamron, M42 and T2 lenses to Sony A7 series bodies. Image quality is great! Manual focus is faster than autofocus with adapted 3rd party lenses. Hopefully this will change with the A7R II!?>>

Adapting some Nikon lenses to A7 series bodies has been a problem; however, rumors exist of (automatic) adapters being developed. Nikon's use of a mechanical interface on their lenses has posed a problem with adapting them to other mounts.

High quality Sony/Zeiss lenses are expensive! I use the A7 kit lens (28-70mm), 24-240mm and 70-200mm, f/4. The 28-70 is a reasonable general purpose lens. I find the 24-240 actually better than the 70-200. The 70-200 is soft on the edges/corners and is quite terrible for astrophotography (serious star stretch on edges and in corners!); not nearly as good as an adapted Canon 70-200 f/2.8!

bwa

 

[uhoh7]

Hope you don't mind but I'll just add a <<few notes>> to your post.

I use the Sony A7R, A7S and A7 II


Adapting some Nikon lenses to A7 series bodies has been a problem; however, rumors exist of (automatic) adapters being developed. Nikon's use of a mechanical interface on their lenses has posed a problem with adapting them to other mounts.

High quality Sony/Zeiss lenses are expensive! I use the A7 kit lens (28-70mm), 24-240mm and 70-200mm, f/4. The 28-70 is a reasonable general purpose lens. I find the 24-240 actually better than the 70-200. The 70-200 is soft on the edges/corners and is quite terrible for astrophotography (serious star stretch on edges and in corners!); not nearly as good as an adapted Canon 70-200 f/2.8!

bwa

I almost wonder if you have a decentered 70-200 f/4, as that lens was supposed to be pretty good.

The 24-240 is an unexpected hero I guess, as other reports also say it's not bad, and one guys claimed it beat his 24-70 at around 40mm.

 

[sevo]

All AF is bad in these cameras. <<AF is actually pretty good on all the A7 series cameras when using Sony FE lenses, at least for my usage; wildlife, landscape, portraits, general shooting. AF is mostly unusable with adapted 3rd party lenses>>

AF with the Techart Contax G adapter may suffer (probably from vignetting of the PD pixels) if the lenses are stopped down significantly - the wide angles are worst affected, the 28mm starts focus hunting or misfocusing from f/5.6, the 21mm is better used manual. Wide open the 28mm and up are not much slower or less accurate than on the Contax G1, and the longer the lens, the less vulnerable it is to the effect - the 90mm indeed does fare better than on the G1 up to f/8 or 11.

AF with Canon EF lenses seems to have issues with power constraints, and perhaps undocumented communication between Canon lenses and bodies - it is slow, prone to misfocus and reportedly does work better only with some third-party lenses.

There are no other AF capable mounts so far - but predictably those that have no auto aperture will run into the same issues as the Contax G adapter.

 

[bwana4swahili]

I almost wonder if you have a decentered 70-200 f/4, as that lens was supposed to be pretty good.

The 24-240 is an unexpected hero I guess, as other reports also say it's not bad, and one guys claimed it beat his 24-70 at around 40mm.

Is there an easy way to check for "decentering"?

bwa

 

[YYV_146]

Is there an easy way to check for "decentering"?

bwa

Find a flat surface and shoot with the camera centered, then checking for the resolution of each corner.

I agree that the lens may have something wrong. I don't currently own a copy, but my impression is that it is quite likely the sharpest 70-200mm zoom currently available, outperforming the older Canon design by a good margin and holds its own against the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II.

 

[goo0h]

I'm wondering how the a7rII will do with legacy m-mount lenses with its newly redesigned sensor. By the looks of the sensor design, seems like it would do well, perhaps better than all the others. We'll just have to see.

 

[bwana4swahili]

Find a flat surface and shoot with the camera centered, then checking for the resolution of each corner.

I agree that the lens may have something wrong. I don't currently own a copy, but my impression is that it is quite likely the sharpest 70-200mm zoom currently available, outperforming the older Canon design by a good margin and holds its own against the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II.

I already know the resolution in the corners and on the edges is far worse than the center from attempting to shoot star fields with the lens. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 does a far superior job!

Is this something fixed by Sony support or am I just being too picky WRT to Sony's 70-200 lens?

Based on its present performance I would probably sell it and keep the 24-240 lens...

bwa