Invested in both A and E mount, need advice!

tantrix wrote: Maxxuman wrote: tantrix wrote: PS: Now I just got an idea that is the SAL50mm f/1.4 gets usable eye af etc with the la-ea3 I can sell the 55mm f1/.8, that I'm not that impressed with anyway, and use the SAL50mm f/1.4 on the a7r3 instead The SAL 50/1.4 is screw drive, so you won't get AF on the laea-3. Duh! I remember this now, haven't used it in a while

The Sony DT 50 F1.8 SAM works alright on the LA-EA3. The corners aren't great even on APS-C, but it does cover the A7II fairly well. The Canon EF 50 F1.8 STM is better than the SAM lens (and maybe the earlier Canon or Yongnuo 50 F1.8's would be too.) The Tamron SP 45 F1.8 USD focuses well on the LA-EA3.

Edited by QuietOC - 03 January 2019 at 21:33

addy landzaat wrote: I own the Canon 50/1.8 II and it is not that good. It is good stopped down, but the Sony 50/1.4 is much better in every aspect in my experience. The STM version is the same optically as the II.

The optical advantage of the STM version seems to be manufacturing tolerance and consistency. All of the Canon primes I've tried so far have been sharp wide-open. That hasn't been my experience with Sony and Minolta lenses.

Here is Lens Rentals on the EF 50 F1.8 STM and FE 50 F1.8. I must have gotten a rather bad FE. I suspect many lens problems run in batches. FWIW: I have three copies of the Minolta/Sony 50 F1.4 myself and there is a lot of variation in the two copies DXOMark tested.

Here's the top right corners of some lenses at F2.


Edited by QuietOC - 04 January 2019 at 04:23

@quietoc: I have a Minolta AF 50/1.4 and a Sony 50/1.4, they behave identically in my use. Dxo mark gives them the same score also. At f/10 the Sony/Minolta 50/1.4 is crazy sharp and at f/2 it is sharp with great bokeh IMHO.

@photosopher: the combination of a DSLR like the A99m2 for serious work and the A6x00 when you want to go small is really nice indeed

I've found that lenses are a bad investment money wise, so at time I've taken the loss. Now I mostly buy secondhand lenses via ebay. Mostly Good/OK, once or twice not so good expereince.

Selling your lens(es) via Ebay.co.uk auction is a possible option. You can put a minimal amount of money you ask for the lens, and see what happens. If you put it up for 150$ less as the cheapest "next-option" (now some 900$).

Or you could buy the sony LA-AE4 adapter and be happy with the 1.8/135 (without eye-AF). Save money for some time (not think about the new Sigma) and wait for Sony to come out with their 135mm f/1.8. Trade in the old one for new one and walk away laughing

addy landzaat wrote: Miranda F wrote: I'm not a wedding pro but I think the gear you have is ill-suited for the job. Every wedding pro I've ever met used a zoom for his/her standard lens. You don't have a suitable one in either system. Primes are absolutely fine for a second wedding shooter where you can pick some nice shots, but to cover all the list stuff you surely need a zoom. There are prime only wedding photographers here on Dyxum that are prime only. I think immediately of Richard Harris, but there are others. You do not need a zoom to do a wedding.

Hello!

I also concur with Addy that "wedding pros" don't just use zooms.

Firstly what is and isn't a "wedding pro" is quite an open concept. If someone is paid any amount of money for an event, they're considered "the pro" to most.

That doesn't say anything about their experience or skill level.

So if you happen across a wedding and see someone slinging big lenses around for a few hours, they could be someone high skilled with ten years experience, or they could be someone low skilled with 1 years experience. Or a combination.

Or you could have - and this DOES still happen in the UK, as bizarre as it sounds - a "package" photographer. Where your venue package comes included with a photographer. This is obviously an ultra affordable option and you are getting what you pay for... They may shoot a lot, maybe over a hundred weddings a year (at big, high capacity venues), again they're generally using pretty standard zoom solutions.

My point is there is a very wide selection of "pros" out there and the bottom end is almost exclusively using zooms. (especially the ones using these "lists" you mention)

A lot of middle and higher end people use zooms as well (I use a 16-35 on occasion). But these people are likely to use primes as well in part - I guess you could say they're the people more likely to have a developed or highly developed "style" of sorts. So are less interested in the industrial efficiency of zooms for 100% of everything.

But what we compare others as using really doesn't equate to much in how we choose to shoot ourselves. It can make sense to look at others and see what they do but really it doesn't matter at all.

Be aware of your choices and give yourself flexibility of coverage, but don't spend much time on it as it's really not important.

If you don't need cash, your prefered option could be to keep the 135/1.8 and use it with an adapter on the E-bodies.
Unfortunately, you just kept it too long and what you still get for it now does not reflect the quality of this piece of glass.

At the same time, I must say I am not so fond of working with adapters. I prefer native E-mount lenses a lot more. Adapters take away most of the size benefit of E-mount. So personally, I would probably sell it or trade it in when buying some your next piece of E-mount glass .