|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 8th, 2012, 04:19 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 144
|
Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
Hi
I got the LAEA2 adapter. Now i have two choices of lens and need some advice 1) Sony 16-50mm F2.8 2) Sony Zeiss 24mm F2 I could get a deal the different for Zeiss is only $100-$150 more than the 16-50mm Do we really need that zoom range when video shooting? i heard some people saying that the 16-50mm is as sharp as a zeiss lens, is that true? however it's just a kit lens for A77 My usage are wedding, events, commercial, documentary Lenses i have now: e 16mm f2.8, e 50mm f1.8, fd 35mm f2.8, voigtlander 35mm f1.4, fd canon 35-105mm |
|
|
|
May 8th, 2012, 10:15 AM
|
#2 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Peterhead, Scotland
Posts: 35
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
Although only used the 16-50 a few times, I can tell you it's a cracking lens and covers a good range.
If you went for that, you could sell on your sony 16mm and canon fd 35mm since the Sony covers both focal lengths & at the same maximum aperture of f2.8 (but have heard the LAEA2 adaptor loses some light v the LAEA1). |
|
|
|
|
May 8th, 2012, 10:48 AM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 144
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
The 16mm is still worth to keep, since it's light weight, i like to use it when I handheld my glidecam 2000
And it will also give f2.8 with autofocus compare to autofocus at f3.5 with laea2 Fd 35mm is only $40, it doesn't really hurt my pocket Instead, I'd want to sell to Voigtlander, it cost $650 And i think I will leave the 1650 on camera most of the time Besides, do you find 1650 need lens support on fs100? It seems heavy with the laea2 |
|
|
|
|
May 9th, 2012, 10:33 AM
|
#4 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Peterhead, Scotland
Posts: 35
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
With the LAEA1 adaptor and the 16-50mm you can get away without a lens support, although have personally found shooting handheld with it awkward so I do use a monopod sometimes (although same applies to the FS100 with any lens, for me).
|
|
|
|
|
May 9th, 2012, 01:45 PM
|
#5 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 144
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
I will use it with manfrotto 561 monopod most of the time. It helps alot when using lens without IS.
Will you take this 1650 lens off when not using it? I use laea2, I think it's heavier than laea1. |
|
|
|
|
May 14th, 2012, 12:42 PM
|
#6 |
|
Major Player
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
Just to change the thread a little, does anyone have an opinion of the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
It's a quarter of the price of the Nikon 17-55 for example.
__________________
FCPX/LS300/EX1/FS100/GoPro/Vinten/HotHead/Jib/Track/Dedos/Lightstorm/Coollights |
|
|
|
|
May 14th, 2012, 02:34 PM
|
#7 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 144
|
Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
I watch some reviews, it's not really sharp... I think sigma will have better quality than tamron
If you get a used Nikon, it's about $900. I choose Sony 16-50 2.8, brand new is still $900 It's a sharper lens compare to the two I mention above. With laea2 adapter, u can have autofocus (stay at f3.5) and parfocus, iris control, and not so heavy. Do u really the zoom? I feel that I should get Zeiss 24mm f1.8 instead. If you are really on a budget, not bad for tamron. But I will get a better lens for this range because it's gonna be a 'always on to go' lens |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
