I'm surprised nobody is commenting on how handsome the Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8 is. Everybody who has touched it has fallen in love with its cold hard steel shell.

AlphaBeta: 133x = 133 x 150 kilobytes per second, or 20 megabytes per second. The 150kbps is from the CD speed days where a 1x CD-ROM drive reads at 150kbps.

ianho: Sure man!

Some people have commented on "what happened to your camera?" like it looked battered. I guess battered looks good. And I'm still using the Sony strap so that gives it away LOL.

Got the tape off my friend who initially taped up his Nikon D700 covering the FX, D700 and Nikon logo. But now he just tapes the last 0 of D700 so it says D70.

goldfries: No, even with the A900 untaped, I walked into Keat Camera quite soon after I got it, and nobody gave a second glance. Most people thought it was an A700. Only psp_BOY damn power can spot the prism and square LCD screen. That said, the prism is not obvious from most angles.

dropski: You might like the 200-500mm better; it's brighter and doesn't have donut bokeh.

msiddiq: Whoa fuzzy blast of macro!

Thanks everybody for the wishes!

cjlai: Use a darker aperture maybe F22 or more. You have a few lenses - I'm sure a lot of them will be sharper with the Raynox than the kit lens. The beercan responds well to the Raynox I think.

Also, use a flash since you'll be at F22.

SpOOkY: The close-up filter as well as anything else will merely enhance and exaggerate the softness of the Minolta 50mm F1.7 wide open.

SHOfrE3zE: It's the white balance.

goldfries: Eh, the 18-250mm is F3.5-6.3.

kev da man: The A700 replacement is due April of 2009 as it will be 18 months old then. The A200 replacement, July 2009 or so.

daruma: I shoot concerts with the FM500H on the A700 and A900. The battery definitely goes over 1000 shots - it also depends on your pattern of usage.

achew: Cute bottle!

cjlai: Space the pictures out and put numbers on them for easy referencing.

achew: Cool, never seen heart-broken bokeh before!

xwteoh: Under RM200 for the A300 screen. Takes about 2 weeks; send straight to Sony Service Center in Midvalley Northpoint during working hours.

acc10: A +10 means your MAXIMUM focusing distance changes from infinity to 1000mm/+10 = 100mm = 10cm. A +4 means it changes from infinity to 1000mm/+4 = 250mm = 25cm.

It's easier to shoot insects with a long tele and a +4 because you get to shoot it from further away. But maybe leaves will benefit from a wide-angle lens with a +10.

SpOOkY: Use M mode and ensure that the ambient light is balanced to the middle. When you shoot at a darker aperture, the shutter speed needs to be slower to let in the same amount of ambient light.

tyc03: The A700 is a very good buy.

ewin: NIIICE!

vandechrome: Nice illustration!

Ahmike: This one is compatible with the DEMB diffuser?

shootkk: Great explanation, very comprehensive!

Here are more shots from the Sony Alpha 900 + Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm F1.8 ZA!


Yes, 1:1.33x. This is with the APS-C mode of the A900. 405mm F8 1/400s ISO1600 in APS-C mode.


405mm F6.3 1/400s ISO1600 in APS-C mode. I focused first, got approximate focus, snapped 2 shots in case the bird would fly to another branch, then half-pressed again to refocus accurately. Focusing through 2 teleconverters made the lens a lot slower to focus and inaccurate.

I'm happy though that the Zeiss survives 2 teleconverters - it loses its shark bite and a smudge of contrast, and becomes a regular lens. But this still beats my Tamron 200-400mm F5.6 flat!


405mm F5 1/400s ISO200, 100% crop.


405mm F3.5 1/200s ISO500. Great shot, yes? Well, much greater if the white butterfly with red yellow and black spots was still on it. The teleconverters really kill the insane focusing speed of the Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8.


That's just prime. Left to right: Peleng 8mm F3.5 M42-mount circular fisheye, Vivitar 24mm F2.0 DIY tilt-shift, Minolta 28mm F2.8 Crossed-XX, Minolta 50mm F1.4 Original, Sony Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8


And a top view, this time with the 2 teleconverters.


So how about some daytime separation? 135mm F1.8 without teleconverters. Superb!


thisiskj does a Barack Obama smile. Shot at F1.8.


eddyhan at F1.8 1/13s ISO1600. I was sitting in the rear left side of his car and he was in the driver seat (not driving when he looked back, fortunately.) The minimum focus distance of this lens continues to astound!

I'm afraid that achew already knows what a Zeiss can do. It's just up to him to avoid trying it...

I'm an Olympus! (Ironically, my first film SLR was an Olympus OM-2000...)

And more from the Sony Alpha 900 + Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm F1.8 ZA!


KJ and Rames' Domo-kun. Good match!


Aaa!


This, or rather a careful crop of this, is now Rames' profile picture. Note how nearby people are smudged into a blurry mess while the out-of-focus highlights pop out. That's a Zeiss for you.


F1.8 really helps on the street.


Shelley Leong holds amazingly still. 135mm F1.8 1/5s ISO6400, to be exact! I shot this handheld through some bars.


Oh, and I got myself an A900 Type-M user-serviceable focusing screen - it's a Super Spherical Acute Matte. The default Type-G is a Spherical Acute Matte. The product code for this is FDA-FM1AM and it is vital if you want to manually focus F1.4 lenses and see the true depth-of-field in the viewfinder.

One thing I really like is how simple the whole operation is - use the tweezers to disengage the screen's clip; the clip will then fold out like a tray, allowing the specially shaped tweezers to grab onto the existing screen. You then put it in the placeholder slot in the box, and take the replacement screen and install it, using the same tweezers to clip it back in. Finally, move the original screen from the placeholder slot, and let it sit in its place.


Alright, so here's one from the Minolta 28mm F2.8. 28mm F11 20s ISO200, white balance set to 6200K to give it that richness.

kev da man: Which ones look fake? They're all pretty untouched!

kev da man: I agree.

This is why I prefer the Minolta bokeh over the Carl Zeiss bokeh - I've tried a few Zeiss lenses (SAL1680Z, SAL85Z) and had the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm F2.4 in M42 - they tend to darken out-of-focus midtones and brighten out-of-focus highlights. It's too darn contrasty at times. That's why the lady is a lot darker than the light.

But to be sure, I'll make sure to bring my Minolta 70-210mm F4 'beercan' out to shoot the same shot - it's my reference for bokeh and balance, with just enough contrast.

SpOOkY: I personally like the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 "Macro" because you can be smack close to an object, like a digicam, and you can still focus!

tytons: Yes she is still in town.

Meanwhile, Michael Reichmann and Bill Caulfeild-Browne (two professional photographers and experts in their field) write about the A900:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...one-month.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...d-Opinion.shtml

SpOOkY: I've heard AF gear problems about the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8... haven't heard of problems on the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5. Yes it's good enough for closeups... if you use a 100mm F2.8 Macro also you cannot get as close to the subject as the 17-70mm can. It's a great lens for still life and flowers, but not insects lah.

AlphaBeta: No editing. I think it was AWB with Vivid 0 +1 +3 -2 -1. The Zeiss color is punchy.

kev da man: Sorry, the Minolta 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 "big beercan" is just as horribly slow. But at least it's optically on the other end of the spectrum (good and sharp like the beercan, unlike the weakish Sony/Minolta 75-300mm F4.5-5.6).

The AF champion I can think of is the Minolta 200mm F2.8G HS APO. Crazy insane fast focusing! I shot a horse about to jump and it could focus just as it reached the fence. The focus limiter is heaps useful - it's missing on the Minolta 80-200mm F2.8G HS APO.

My recommendations for sports-worthy lenses (but not motorsports, I would guess it's less demanding if you're panning on a predictable path) are the Carl Zeiss 135mm F1.8 or Sony 70-200mm F2.8G SSM. About the Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G SSM we'll have to confirm with Macdude as he has one and shoots motorsports also.

achew: You really, really should get a flash for wedding dinners. Unless you want to shoot tables in groups of 3 persons at a time. The background dark is because the shutter speed is too fast (1/60s) versus the ambient exposure (maybe 1/13s). So you should shoot with flash BUT with the shutter speed slower.

SpOOkY: Boeing Sg. Wang, the main shop, has the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5. If not there then look for it at Leos Trading, 1st floor, Ampang Park.

Radeon: Nope, Tokina hasn't made anything in A-mount for a while. They used to, though. At least Sigma has resumed production for A-mount!

That said, the range of the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 is far more usable... especially at the 24mm end.

kev da man: Big beercan speed versus SAL75300? That's a question better answered in that forum. I've seen a silver-bodied one but it was owned by a Chinese dude.

goldfries: I use M mode when flashing so I have full control over the balance between ambient and flash light. In P/A the camera always limits it to 1/60s, which may result in dark backgrounds often.

Another safe way, if there is enough light, is to use A mode, shoot wide open and use ISO1600.

If I'm not using flash it's A mode all the way.

calvin_gsc: Congratulations and welcome to the A-mount! This is indeed a surprise.

wilson88: I think the lens fixing has to go down to Singapore.

Other stuff body-related can be replaced rather quickly.

dingenius: Use your 18-70mm, set to manual focus, turn the focus ring to as close as possible, then try to shoot a ruler. Move back and forth until the ruler is in focus and shoot it using flash.

The width of the image will be your sensor size * 4 (because the maximum magnification of the kit lens is 1:4).

For example, with your A300, it should get a ruler width of 94.4mm.

However, if I was to put a 1:1 macro lens, I should get an image 23.6mm x 15.8mm big, which is exactly the size of the A300 sensor.

If I use full-frame, then my sensor is 35.9mm x 24mm. This is bigger than 23.6mm x 15.8mm... which means using the same 1:1 macro lens, the full-frame will capture a wider area. Which is bad for macro.

hazril, I love your signature! A700 + CZ 85mm F1.4. Kinda like my A900 + CZ 135mm F1.8 in range.

Mr.Shiney: Yes, there are cheap flashes in Sony's hotshoe mount.

Got laaa Sigma Sunpak Vivitar banyak adaaa. But tak best sangat laaa either no wireless, no wireless TTL or no wireless manual.

MR.Shiney: Of course F42 got wireless TTL laaa don't tell me you jump ship because you couldn't figure that one out!

Only thing you need to set is the zoom head. Which no wireless system, Nikon CLS included can do - it won't transmit flash zoom to each flash I know.

DolphinDiver007: Congratulations!

SpOOkY: The 1.2x viewfinder magnifiers allow you to still see the entire viewfinder. The Sony 2.3x viewfinder magnifier (FDAM1AM) doesn't let you see the whole viewfinder.

Yes, card speed affects RAW writing speed.

ryzan76 uses flash when shooting macro with a darker aperture (F11-F22 is pretty normal when shooting macro.) Hence there is practically no ambient light.

AlphaBeta: Nolah the hole is not bad. I've had a Pentax O-ME53 viewfinder magnifier before. When you put it on the A300... the viewfinder becomes bigger than the A200's!

amd_hardcore, if you want both flashes to have different power levels, you need to make sure one of them supports manual power. Therefore 2 F36 flashes will be useless.

At least get a F42, F56 or F58. Some third-party flashes don't support either wireless TTL or wireless manual.

The 70-210mm F3.5-4.5 is supposedly as good as the beercan.

amd_hardcore: If you don't use wireless flash... why the heck would you want two flashes?

There is one reason to have 2 flashes without using wireless - as backup when shooting events as a job; if one dies or you have to change batteries, it is faster to swap flashes.

If you're shooting as a job, wouldn't you want to have flashes that work properly and reliably? The third-party flashes may have exposure problems. Refer here:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/06/12/f...he-alpha-dslrs/

You don't want to explain to your client that you were a cheapskate and that's why his/her face is underexposed or overexposed!