[Klaus]

Note: your answer is not tracked at all.

 

This is also meant for the PZ review planning.

[davidmanze]

  I'd retry re- stirring the soup again Klaus,

 

 

Come on PZ members votes needed here!

[JJ_SO]

do you count more than 23 people who are dropping by regularly?

 



 

Maybe a link in the Sony test section would help more than here in the forum?

[Klaus]

The forum has many readers but few actors.

[obican]

I have three E-mount native lenses, namely:

 

-55/1.8 Zony

-16-35/4 Zony

-25/2 Zeiss 

 

I'm thinking of giving a chance to Sony 85/1.8 as well. Not exactly my favorite focal length but still, I might give it a chance if I find one used for a good price. Will also probably buy the newly released 12-24/4. 

 

Here are the lenses I'd love to have but they are outside my budget range at the moment:

 

-90/2.8 Macro Sony

-135/2.8 Zeiss

-85/1.8 Zeiss

-100/2.8 STF Sony

-100-400 Sony 

-18/2.8 Zeiss

 

Yes, 12-24 is within my budget while these others are not, even though most of them are cheaper. Why? Because 12-24/4 has no real cheap alternatives while the rest do have them.

 

I'm also using these lenses as those cheap alternatives at the moment:

 

-Minolta 100/2.8 Macro (Paid 70$ for it and it's absolutely adequate, except for the AF performance due to the horrible LA-EA4 adapter)

-Minolta 200/2.8 APO G HS (Has no native alternative now anyway. Brutal performance)

-Minolta 70-210/4 Beercan (The native solution is barely any better, except for CA. FE lens is also heavier and larger and about 20 times more expensive)

 

Also had (still have) the following Minolta/Sony A-Mount lenses that I still use time to time, but they are mostly on my Minolta film bodies these days:

 

-Sony 50/1.4

-Minolta 24/2.8

-Sony 85/2.8

-Minolta 135/2.8

 

What's the items in bold, you may ask. Those are the lenses I bought after reading their reviews on your site. You had no review for the 85/2.8 on FF but APS-C performance was good enough and the price was really really low so I bought it anyway.

 

And lastly, here are the lenses I'm not interested in at all (but many others will be interested in them). Not due to their price range, but due to their characteristics/specs/performance.

 

-Any f/1.4 prime

-Any non-ultra wide and non-tele zoom

-Seriously, all standard zooms

-Any Loxia

-Captain Slow, because it's a shitshow (Not the guy, the lens. I love the guy)

 

Affordability is really a hit or miss on Sony for me. For some lenses, I'm absolutely happy with both the performance and the price asked for, namely the 55/1.8, 16-35/4, hopefully the 12-24/4 and a few others. Some old Minolta lenses are also crazy cheap and crazy good for what they do but actual performance while using them (mostly AF related) can put off a lot of people. 

 

Then there are the wtf-were-they-thinking lenses. Almost any Batis (got mine for very cheap), most early Zeiss and G series zooms, the dreadful Captain Slow (would be overpriced at 150$ really). And then there is the GM series and other very large primes that don't really make much sense for me and what I do. 

 

So here you go, a detailed rundown from my perspective.