for me , using ISO 400/800 on a700 with zeiss is acceptable. just dont shoot on the area thts too dark.
of coz frankly it totally cant compare with something using flash in low light....

braindead_fr3ak: 24-70/F2.8 or 85/F1.4 or 135 F1.8

confirm will perform in low light ...

Could have step a little on the left to allow the dock to be totally symmetrical. My 2 cents worth only though. Nice shot btw.

finejava :

24-70..not ideal range for a aps-c zoom.... effectively it would be 35-100?...not to mention its 5k ++ price....ahahha.... my percentage meter will NEVER reach 100% like that haha... and with regards to the others...erm... focusing on a zoom...not yet time to play with the danger-primes yet...

neo_lam.... any personal dissapointments against this lens?....i know the benefits...everywhere got... ahahah.... no worries..if really no light..then can flash mar... or tripod...its still better than the 1870 by LEAPS

yep, but cant change the fact now, thanks for the critics.

braindead_fr3ak: i'm using the 24-70 on my a700...it's just nice...for a walkabout lens...better than having 16-35

my 2 cents

..
O_O....
very nice walkabout lens...easy to upgrade to ff also good...but 2.5x the pricing....


very interesting..... u have many dangerous lenses...i shall not ask about the 85mm 1.4 ...... i shall not say a word....


problems would be the range as well as the "no wide shots" for zoom.... can u fit group shots in?

sure...just need to take couple of steps back...that will do the trick...

i see.. 5.4k vs 2.5k... ahhaha..great..... ill start with the 16-80..i think the 24-70 is out of my budget..but oh ssm..and oh f2.8...

how is the sharpness at f2.8 by the way?

java, so another words, u have nothing wider than the 24mm now?

lwliam: yeap...sold of everything that i got previously...widest i have now is 24mm

i would prefer having 16-35 as walkabout on an aps-c camera. perhaps because i prefer wider shots.

here i have the comparison chart...

if used on apsc... the 24-70.....will give u 38mm?!?? ....hardly wide actually..


Attached thumbnail(s)

previously before i had my 11-18, the widest is 28 mm... its starting to get pretty restrictive after a while... when i got my UWA, everythings just frees up... feels so much more relaxed

thats how i felt anyway

hmmm that is debatable lwliam....i actually dont really like distorted photos...i find them.......weird a bit ahahah...also fisheye is not to my taste...

if i can find the perfect focal range that begins JUST before distortion sets in....that would be my ideal wide!

so it depends on individual pref though...

given the choice(leave money out of the equation)..id gladly take the 24-70.... but funds dont allow....the f 2.8 and SSM would be PWNING!

braindead_fr3ak: this sharp...



lwliam, weixuan: i'm planning to upgrade to FF once the replacement for A900 comes out...so...just need to tahan till i get my FF...

24mm on FF should be comfortable enough...compare to aps-c

lwliam: previously i had my sigma 10-20, 16-80 and 18-250...base exif...all my shots are usually taken avgly at 30-60mm...so...24-70 will fit my style just fine...

This post has been edited by finejava: Jan 26 2010, 01:51 AM

i can see...ahahah from ur gears...u r just waiting to go FF...i on the other hand...prolly wont go..... i dont see the need...

how much did u purchase ur 24-70? and how do u find the focusing on the a700? fast ah...ahehehehheh

i know what u mean when u say distorted, but sometimes in tight conditions it really saves the day (and even with pronounced distortion) it gives more kick than just any regular joe's photos. but it of coz boils down to preference.

out of my 5 lenses, 4 of them are FFs too... i can still wait...

rm5800 + rm300 for my zeiss filter...

SSM on a700...SUPERBLY fast and quite...

24 on FF is like 16 on apsc... do sony have 14-24 like canon and nikon does with their trinity?