So thinking about photography as a hobby going forward in regard of the ever increasing cost

[spudhead]

I'll be interested to see if Sigma can produce the goods on those lengths, with a sensible price tag. A 400/4 would be tempting at around 2-3k, if they can get it to focus as quickly as the Sony OM. Optically I've never had a bad Sigma. Tamron hold patents to make similar, but have never done so yet. As I've mentioned before, no one has come up with anything like the Nikon PF lenses, and that would be a killer lens on any Sony.

I think a 400 f4 at 2-3 k is hoping Kev

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I think a 400 f4 at 2-3 k is hoping Kev

Hey, we can dream

 

[Clix Pix]

Clearly I am an outlier here, but I have always held firm to the belief that when I buy a particular brand of camera that I will also buy the lenses which are specifically designed and engineered to work flawlessly with the chosen camera body. Sure, buying a third-party lens is going to be cheaper.....and my hunch is that nine times out of ten the resulting images are not as good as they would have been with a Sony lens. I'd rather spend the extra money and get quality images.

This whole thing of using adapters and whatnot to try and fashion some sort of Rube Goldberg scenario out of a camera body suddenly faced with a foreign lens or other add-ons never meant for it in the first place really fascinates me. The latest trend I'm seeing mention of now is people who buy a digital medium format camera and then promptly use adapters to stick another camera brand's digital FF 35mm lens on it. Now where is the sense in that??

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Clearly I am an outlier here, but I have always held firm to the belief that when I buy a particular brand of camera that I will also buy the lenses which are specifically designed and engineered to work flawlessly with the chosen camera body. Sure, buying a third-party lens is going to be cheaper.....and my hunch is that nine times out of ten the resulting images are not as good as they would have been with a Sony lens. I'd rather spend the extra money and get quality images.

This whole thing of using adapters and whatnot to try and fashion some sort of Rube Goldberg scenario out of a camera body suddenly faced with a foreign lens or other add-ons never meant for it in the first place really fascinates me. The latest trend I'm seeing mention of now is people who buy a digital medium format camera and then promptly use adapters to stick another camera brand's digital FF 35mm lens on it. Now where is the sense in that??

That is always going to be the best way, but also the most costly of course. IQ on the new Tamron and Sigmas is just as good, it's the AF speed and FPS where they get limited, and I have had some Sigmas on my old kit that hunt a bit. Not so with Tamron, and given that they used to make Sonys lenses, I would expect not. The Tamron 70-200 2,8 on my Nikon was way better than the Nikon OM, so there are definitely some exceptions.

 

[spudhead]

Add to it that Sony owns a major part of Tamron. Focus speed isn't always an issue either. Give the Tamron 17-28/2.8 a try. The IQ exceeds that of the Sony 16-35/4, the truth is out there.

There are entire forums dedicated to using adapted lenses on cameras. Some people really enjoy it. Other than a novelty and a bit of fun now and then, my adapted lenses are limited to A-Mount. Some people enjoy using very old glass and rarely even purchase a native lens. Not my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with it either. I'm pretty sure the cameras don't mind, not sure why anyone would.

Well images speak volumes and there are thousands of people getting great results from adapted glass, across many brands, and great images from third party glass

 

[AlphaWorld]

It's not always the best way, not by a long shot. Anyone who believes a lens is better simply because it says 'Sony' on it is ill-informed.

Add to it that Sony owns over 12% of Tamron, they're the second largest shareholder. That's not by accident.

Focus speed isn't always an issue either. Give the Tamron 17-28/2.8 a try. The IQ exceeds that of the Sony 16-35/4, the truth is out there for anyone interested in investing a bit of time.

There are entire forums dedicated to using adapted lenses on cameras. Some people really enjoy it. Other than a novelty and a bit of fun now and then, my adapted lenses are limited to A-Mount. Some people enjoy using very old glass and rarely even purchase a native lens. Not my cup of tea, but there's nothing wrong with it either. I'm pretty sure the cameras don't mind, not sure why anyone would.

The Sony label does not guarantee that a lens is good. For that matter, nor does the Zeiss label., let alone Cosina/Voigtlander, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang (I hate it getting auto-corrupted to Samsung!), ….

The G label on a red background, though, that makes a difference. The GM lenses are designed with fewer compromises, and use new technologies, and you don’t get those in a lens that is half the price.

You can save a lot of money by opting for third party lenses, or by adapting older lenses. You can get superb images using third party or adapted lenses. I am sure it can provide a feeling of achievement at getting a fine image after overcoming any inconvenience associated. It’s like capturing a perfect shot of a bird in flight with a manual focus lens - that takes skill!

I use a couple of manual focus lenses, and sometimes it can be good. But sometimes I want to concentrate on the image I’m trying to capture, rather than the process of capturing it. I can afford GM lenses (well, some of them!), and the high-end bodies, and I use them.

I guess what I am trying to say is: “Let’s not insist that there is only virtue in doing things the hard way.” If we get a great image, it’s good, whether we did it using the latest high tech, or using a lens older than ourselves.

 

[pointreyes]

Clearly I am an outlier here, but I have always held firm to the belief that when I buy a particular brand of camera that I will also buy the lenses which are specifically designed and engineered to work flawlessly with the chosen camera body. Sure, buying a third-party lens is going to be cheaper.....and my hunch is that nine times out of ten the resulting images are not as good as they would have been with a Sony lens. I'd rather spend the extra money and get quality images.

This whole thing of using adapters and whatnot to try and fashion some sort of Rube Goldberg scenario out of a camera body suddenly faced with a foreign lens or other add-ons never meant for it in the first place really fascinates me. The latest trend I'm seeing mention of now is people who buy a digital medium format camera and then promptly use adapters to stick another camera brand's digital FF 35mm lens on it. Now where is the sense in that??

Well, I have AF (including eye AF) with lenses that don't have AF motors. One of my favorites is the Nikon 35 AF-D, a lens that you cannot get AF with on a Nikon Z camera even with a FTZ adapter but I can on my Sony cameras. Much nicer than purchasing a Nikon DSLR that supports AF-D lenses. And for my Olympus Zuiko, I would have to use a film camera and not have AF. And then there are those Russian lenses (quite a sight to see with the Industar 50 on the adapter but I love it). I would require a M42 mount film camera for those lenses and again no AF like I have now.

For third-party lenses, there is not a single Sony zoom lens that can match the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 for infrared.

But of course, I am an outlier for different styles of photography.

 

[Clix Pix]

I can better understand why someone would buy a given brand of FF 35mm camera and then put another manufacturer's 35mm FF lens on it (with an adapter if needed)..... I'm still trying to figure out why someone would buy a medium format camera and then stick another company's 35mm lens on it?!

 

[Clix Pix]

Well, I have AF (including eye AF) with lenses that don't have AF motors. One of my favorites is the Nikon 35 AF-D, a lens that you cannot get AF with on a Nikon Z camera even with a FTZ adapter but I can on my Sony cameras. Much nicer than purchasing a Nikon DSLR that supports AF-D lenses. And for my Olympus Zuiko, I would have to use a film camera and not have AF. And then there are those Russian lenses (quite a sight to see with the Industar 50 on the adapter but I love it). I would require a M42 mount film camera for those lenses and again no AF like I have now.

For third-party lenses, there is not a single Sony zoom lens that can match the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 for infrared.

But of course, I am an outlier for different styles of photography.

It's been years since I've shot infrared; at one point I had one of my Nikon cameras converted to an IR camera and it was an interesting and fun experience but also a bit too much of a novelty and I rarely used the converted camera beyond the first several times.

As for Tamron's 17-28 or 28-200, no need for either since I've got the excellent 12-24 GM and the 24-70 GM II plus my beloved 100-400 GM.

 

[AlphaWorld]

No one is insisting that or anything else. The point is exactly the opposite. Insisting that using anything but Sony lenses (or for that matter the red badge) because they're unilaterally superior to everything else is just as ridiculous.

My commentary was not aimed at anyone on this site (sanity prevails here!), but more at the sort of thing we see elsewhere - you encounter some, shall we say "fervid", fans who say things like "You have to be mad to buy GM lenses when you can get better lens for far less" (followed by espousal of their particular favourite brand).

I enjoy reading about your work adapting A mount lenses to modern Sony bodies. And I enjoy using Sony's 70-200 GM II where their continuing work on aspheric elements allowed them to combine an aspheric surface with a key element in the quest to reduce the weight of the lens.

I think Canon will come to regret their decision to make RF a closed system.

 

[Landshark99]

For me the GM and some G lenses are the best solution for what I shoot, I do not want to deal with adapters, I like that the camera brand lenese were designed to work with their cameras. Also having been both a Nikon and Canon and now Sony professional service member, service is excellent. The independents do not offer anything like that, everything comes with a cost. Now I am only saying this is what works for me, if one prefers to adapt other lenses or use the independents do what works for you and enjoy the hobby

 

[Gaz]

Fantastic write up from years of experience. I can relate in regards to cars/bikes and audio but instead of wine I collect whisky. The money I've spent on camera equipment doesn't even hold a candle to any of these...

I do love quality sound which I can justify the cost, sort of. But whisky, I constantly question my sanity... ️

Someone did a review of my credit card for my whisky purchases during COVID. I ought to have purchased camera gear, or even cars! Nothing to show for it now.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Funny thing: on Nikon (using a D810) I tried several Nikon lenses, and did not like them. I ended up using nothing but Sigma Art lenses on that body (50, 85, 135). Before that I had Canon, several L lenses, and two or three Sigmas (from before their Global Vision range)

On Sony I am mostly using Sony lenses (some GM, some G, two neither), with a couple of Voigtlander APO Lanthar lenses.

I think I keep an open mind, but I have a level of predisposition towards Sony GM range because the stated goals seem to match my desires. I really like their sharpness and speed.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Someone did a review of my credit card for my whisky purchases during COVID. I ought to have purchased camera gear, or even cars! Nothing to show for it now.

Joys of the scamdemic hey...