Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will you buy a camera or equipment today?

Jl006p wrote: "The last lens I want is the Sony f2.8 12-24mm."

Sony's 12-24mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and worth every penny. I mulled it over for a long time, hesitating to put the money into it since I hadn't done much wide-angle shooting (and still don't, actually), but needed something wider-angle than the 35mm f/1.8 which I had purchased early on. I weighed the pros and cons of each of the offerings and choices, prime over zoom, etc., etc.,within Sony's lineup and finally kept coming back to that 12-24mm, which was so alluring. I finally did buy it and I am very, very happy with this lens. Actually, it's the lens which shot that "group portrait" a few posts above.

It shows very little distortion, is razor-sharp, is well-balanced on the camera when holding and using it, and is very responsive and fast when focusing. Versatile in its range from 12mm-24mm. Great for real estate, for architectural photography, for landscape scenes, for street scenes, experimenting with something creative, etc. Expensive, yes, but IMHO very much worth it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jl006p
Clix Pix said:
Jl006p wrote: "The last lens I want is the Sony f2.8 12-24mm."

Sony's 12-24mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and worth every penny. I mulled it over for a long time, hesitating to put the money into it since I hadn't done much wide-angle shooting (and still don't, actually), but needed something wider-angle than the 35mm f/1.8 which I had purchased early on. I weighed the pros and cons of each of the offerings and choices, prime over zoom, etc., etc.,within Sony's lineup and finally kept coming back to that 12-24mm, which was so alluring. I finally did buy it and I am very, very happy with this lens. Actually, it's the lens which shot that "group portrait" a few posts above.

It shows very little distortion, is razor-sharp, is well-balanced on the camera when holding and using it, and is very responsive and fast when focusing. Versatile in its range from 12mm-24mm. Great for real estate, for architectural photography, for landscape scenes, for street scenes, experimenting with something creative, etc. Expensive, yes, but IMHO very much worth it!
Click to expand...
If I could get consistent business with it I would charge it to the game and get it. I have done a few real estate shoots in the past and bathroom shots are very difficult without a wide enough lens.

I might just rent it down the road and see if I like it.

Was in the city today testing out the new glass.

I like it.
JAL06196.jpg

JAL06087.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix, tizeye, Grey Beard and 1 other person
Jl006p said:
If I could get consistent business with it I would charge it to the game and get it. I have done a few real estate shoots in the past and bathroom shots are very difficult without a wide enough lens.

I might just rent it down the road and see if I like it.

Was in the city today testing out the new glass.

I like it.
Click to expand...
While I had enough shoots to justify, never felt the need to upgrade my ultra-wide angle (UWA) lens. I have the 16-35 f4 since fore either of the f2.8 UWA lens existed. For real estate shoots it typically don't do HDR but off camera lighting and manually set to expose for windows around f9-f11 at ISO 650, raising the light in the room with flash, so no requirement for f2.8 16-35 or 12-24. I used the 16-35 so much, it became my walkaround lens, selling my 24-70, relying on the 55 and 85 primes if don't want to carry the 70-200.

The other thing that kept me from jumping to the 12-24, besides rarely having the need for the 12-15mm range, is that UWA lens, in general, are more difficult to master controlling distortion - level for horizonals and verticals is more critical, and the stretch distortion on the sides. People usually have no adjustment issues switching from a normal to telephoto lens - just slap it on - and the telephoto compression/blur may be desirable, the UWA lens has the opposite effect making space look deeper, although even at f2.8 the depth of field ranging from 3' to infinity is nice in real estate and even landscape photos. I do use a level on tripod to get horizonal and vertical correct in camera, plus control side distortion by showing portions of known objects (half a refrigerator, sofa, table etc) as people know what it looks like where the full item would be stretched 3 times as wide as seen in any store.

Master the lens - 12-24 or 16-35 - and the rewards are there.
 
jwolf6589 said:
Will you take advantage of the deals today? Maybe buy a new camera, SD card, or what not today? If so share this and the deals. I am working and will not but it’s okay. I have what I need and do not need anything more at this time.
Click to expand...
I learned my lesson long ago.

Best camera you can ever own is the one with you always.

Unless you make a living as a photographer that camera aint no camera selling for >$50 or even >$5,000

It's the iPhone and at $48.80/month for 24 months then its a no brainer to buy
 
Last edited:
tizeye said:
While I had enough shoots to justify, never felt the need to upgrade my ultra-wide angle (UWA) lens. I have the 16-35 f4 since fore either of the f2.8 UWA lens existed. For real estate shoots it typically don't do HDR but off camera lighting and manually set to expose for windows around f9-f11 at ISO 650, raising the light in the room with flash, so no requirement for f2.8 16-35 or 12-24. I used the 16-35 so much, it became my walkaround lens, selling my 24-70, relying on the 55 and 85 primes if don't want to carry the 70-200.

The other thing that kept me from jumping to the 12-24, besides rarely having the need for the 12-15mm range, is that UWA lens, in general, are more difficult to master controlling distortion - level for horizonals and verticals is more critical, and the stretch distortion on the sides. People usually have no adjustment issues switching from a normal to telephoto lens - just slap it on - and the telephoto compression/blur may be desirable, the UWA lens has the opposite effect making space look deeper, although even at f2.8 the depth of field ranging from 3' to infinity is nice in real estate and even landscape photos. I do use a level on tripod to get horizonal and vertical correct in camera, plus control side distortion by showing portions of known objects (half a refrigerator, sofa, table etc) as people know what it looks like where the full item would be stretched 3 times as wide as seen in any store.

Master the lens - 12-24 or 16-35 - and the rewards are there.
Click to expand...

That was one thing I noticed was mentioned frequently in reviews of the 12-24mm f/2.8, that compared to most other ultrawide lenses there was much less distortion than would be expected. No idea how Sony managed to work that magic! Since I was starting from scratch at the wide-angle end of things anyway, figured I'd go for that lens rather than one of the others Sony offers.
 
Adarna said:
I learned my lesson long ago.

Best camera you can ever own is the one with you always.

That camera aint no camera selling for >$50 or even >$5,000

It's the iPhone and at $48.80/month for 24 months then its a no brainer to buy
Click to expand...
That may work for you, but not for all of us. ?
 
Adarna said:
Check your utility. Will you a R3, R5 or A9 everywhere and anytime? Odds are it may just sit in a dry cabinet and be used 1x a year.
Click to expand...
I shoot with a Z6, Z6ii, and F100 5-7x week. Yes, I will carry one with me when I need to. Do I take it to the grocery store or mall? Not usually, but pretty much everywhere else. Sometimes digital and film both.

There are others on this board who are similar. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulreaver99, Apple fanboy and Adarna
Adarna said:
Check your utility. Will you a R3, R5 or A9 everywhere and anytime? Odds are it may just sit in a dry cabinet and be used 1x a year.
Click to expand...
M8 almost never leaves my side. It might be with more often than my phone.
 
Adarna said:
Check your utility. Will you a R3, R5 or A9 everywhere and anytime? Odds are it may just sit in a dry cabinet and be used 1x a year.
Click to expand...
Of course many of us don’t shoot every time we are out. If I’m doing photography I take my equipment and do that. I don’t use my iPhone for photography very often. I don’t enjoy the experience.
 
Apple fanboy said:
Of course many of us don’t shoot every time we are out. If I’m doing photography I take my equipment and do that. I don’t use my iPhone for photography very often. I don’t enjoy the experience.
Click to expand...
Same here. If I am going on a trip or going somewhere in Denver to shoot then I bring Mr. Powershot with me. I don’t normally shoot on my iPhone 12 unless I am at work.
 
Sometimes when I'm out-and-about I'll see something interesting and since all I have with me is the iPhone I will take a snapshot or two of whatever the subject is. At home sometimes I do the same thing or I occasionally use the iPhone for a preliminary test shot or two prior to getting out the gear to set up a shooting session.
 
iPhone 13 Pro Max isn't a slouch. It can take some sharp photos when in a pinch. I went for a walk today and didn't bring my camera.

f2.8 77mm with the Telephoto lens on the iPhone.
tempImage63p54c.jpg



Also the video camera on the iPhone is top notch, especially for HDR. Even MKBHD admits he sometimes sneaks in iPhone footage on his videos.

IMG_0940.JPG
 
I don’t actually think I need anything else right now for my photography ??‍♂️

Never thought I’d ever type something like that! ?
 
I just sell all my Fuji gear and bought the Canon R5 , rf 14-35 , rf 24-70 and the NiSi 100 mm System.

I‘m in love with my R5 :)

Greetings from Vienna
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back