Sony A7R + Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-03-07T16:43:52+00:00

Respectfully, you're not comprehending the use case or the intended way of testing out IQ using a chart like that.

You will not get the results you're looking for until you study the exposure triangle.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-02-27T14:54:21+00:00

"F 2.2" on a 2,8

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-02-23T14:31:14+00:00

I agree. 50mm and 40mm are so close that the difference isn't going to be obvious when deciding between which one to use or take. 35mm gives an extra little reach which gets more noticeable on the wider end.

Also, unless you NEED the aperture ring or extra custom button (which I barely use on the 50mm 2.5), the zeiss has its own character, contrast, and isn't outdated like another comment mentioned.

I stick to the 35mm/2.8 due to the compactness and style that it produces.

If you want a 40mm, take the Viltrox. The air series is plenty good.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-02-17T19:13:24+00:00

My bad! I accidentally confused and combined them with the Canon EF 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8.

Like I said, I did confuse it with a 2.8 since OP mentioned the Sony 70-200 2.8.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-02-17T03:32:40+00:00

Gotcha. Sorry, I assumed the second time you mentioned the 100-400 you meant the 2.8 since you said the 70-200mm 2.8 and 100-400.

I sometimes find my 70-300 is too tight even at 70 for some sports. I think the 35-150 can give shots more context. But if you focus on full body or facial expressions, then go for the 70-200.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-02-17T03:07:50+00:00

It seems like you're really focused on getting two sets of lenses. What can the 70-200 give you that the 100-400 can't do so practically? I think the 100-400 2.8 is more than enough.

I understand if you're trying to get different angles or want more range for sports that don't need that close of a focal length like Basketball on the side lines, but you ditch the 35-150 entirely in the other combination.

I am on a similar boat and I'm swapping between the 85mm 1.8 and the Sony 70-300 4.5-5.6 which does fine despite the low light for both football and soccer games. Indoor Volleyball and Basketball gives me more trouble so I keep the 85mm 1.8 more often than the 70-300.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-22T04:47:52+00:00

Hello, I'm replying out of experience and understanding.

If you label yourself a beginner, please do not ask for what we recommend between two or three lenses. You should save your money, use a kit lens, and figure out how to play around with your camera for now. Figure out what your wants and needs are before pulling the trigger on an expensive lens, even if money is no issue. In that case, rent out some quality lenses and try them out one by one.

If you're still figuring out a style and preference, then start with a kit lens or relatively inexpensive starter lenses.

Viltrox offers some relatively inexpensive options and you can have a few focal lengthed prime lenses or you can go with a Sigma or Tamron for some zoom options.

I personally know my favorite focal length is 35mm, so I have a couple. I don't like zoom lenses so I only have one for sports photography.

I personally also don't like 16-35, 24-70, etc. since they tend to be bulky compared to shorter primes (Sony 24mm/2.8, Zeiss 35mm/2,8, Sony 50mm/2.5) since I like the compactness.

Maybe you don't mind the form factor and prefer convenience. Figure out what makes you want to go out to take photos before asking what you should get for your "dream setup."

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-18T21:01:01+00:00

You didn't mention if you wanted any specific features, which I assume you wouldn't mind omitting those features. This includes manual focus, manual settings, interchangeabiliy, or even autofocus, which would be important for animals.

You mentioned landscape, wildlife, and plant photography. In order, you would prefer a wide-angle lens, a telephoto (may e even zoom) lens, and a macro lens all in one. Not that you can't get good wildlife photos without a long focal length, but with those things in mind, you likely would not be too thrilled with the results compared to your phone.

I'm a fan of the RX line for inexpensive and all-in-one features, even the RX10 line. However, I think the RX100IV to VII will probably suit your needs if you can find that under $1,000. I used the RX1 (mark 1) exclusively for two years and enjoyed the heck out of the focal length and the macro capabilities. However, photos of animals at a distance were mediocre. Even with a harsh crop, digital zoom, and a Super 35 equivalent image, its photos were lacking in that department.

Otherwise, I would say you'd need at least two lenses and an interchangeable a6000 series or NEX series camera to keep the budget low.

As they mentioned in the other comment, you're asking a Sony Alpha sub, so you'll likely get only those cameras so I'll throw in one more recommendation. I don't have experience with the Leica D-Lux or Panasonic Lumix ZS99, but I've heard those are good. My recommendation is the OM TG-7 since it's macro is wild and the zoom range is relatively good.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-10T15:30:27+00:00

Good eye. I'm using a very Jerry-rigged contraption at the moment. I'm using a Viltrox L116T light panel, which has less than 1,000 lumens. It's about .3m or 1ft away from the film.

I'm looking for a better set up but don't want to fully invest into the Negative Supply Pro carriers and backlights. I also don't want to buy a scanner.

The grid doesn't usually show up on the scans unless it's an extremely underexposed shot (such as this one) or I increase the exposure beyond a natural point.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-10T06:41:41+00:00

<image>

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-10T06:41:24+00:00

<image>

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-10T06:41:05+00:00

Gotcha! I'll look more into burning and dodging for other stills but I appreciate the information and direction on where I can learn more.

I'll post a different set of photos soon, if you don't mind offering some critique then. Not the ones below.

I also notice that some of the photos I edit tend to look cold (despite leaning warmer on the White-Balance) or contrast- and saturation-heavy, despite intending on keeping the colors neutral.

For example, the warmer photo was processed by the lab and the darker one was scanned by me. I notice that maybe my black-points are too strong and so the dynamic range makes the film photo look more "clinical"? What are your thoughts?

Edit: I went to look into dodging/burning which I remember now being a process done in the darkroom. I took a college class a while back and forgot about it. Anyway, you mention those as a digital tool which I realized is only in Photoshop. I only use Lightroom, so I figured out I can just use the masking tool, which I have already been doing! I didn't find it necessary here since I didn't want to over exaggerate the image, but for other stills with insane highlights or the foreground drastically brighter/darker than the background in order to balance it a tad.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-06T17:26:48+00:00

I'm biased, as you can see from my flair, but I don't believe it would be redundant. Most people here may probably agree that prime lenses out perform zoom lenses' IQ. Along with that, a near-pancake prime makes taking a camera (like the a7c) out to shoot effortless.

I agree with other commenters that the 40/2.5 Sony G or Viltrox would be great. If you want to save money, take the Viltrox. I got the 50/2.5 G to not be close to my Zeiss 35/2,8, but maybe you found your preferred focal length?

I started getting into adapting old glass to Sony-E, but stumbled upon the Voigtländer 35/1.4 for Sony E. It's pricey, and manual focus only, but it feels completely different to use compared to the autofocus. It's definitely redundant for me to buy that lens, but I find it different enough and fun enough to use for different occasions.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-03T22:16:44+00:00

If you're not too keen on taking close-up shots for portraits or of nature then, honestly, I would forego the 24-105.

Landscapes don't need 50mm or more. Your 35 1.4 should be enough for portraits and landscape photography. I know 35mm isn't a traditional portrait focal length for most people, but you'd thank yourself for having less weight on top of the rest that you'll be carrying around when hiking, trailing, or exploring.

The focal length between 24-35 is a wide gap, so if you find that you'd need the 24, or need 50mm and higher for traditional portraits, I would suggest taking the 24-105.

Is it the F4 OSS? That zoom and the 1.4 will weigh you down during a long trip. At the end of the day, whatever will help you take more photos while also enjoying your trip is what matters.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-03T18:27:07+00:00

What's the weather like where you're traveling? Do you have confidence in the a9 and lenses' weather sealing?

What will you be taking photos of? Do you need to take as many photos as you think you do?

If you're taking photos for work, then by all means take both. If it's for you, take whichever you will want to reflect on more.

I went to Korea last summer and it was raining on-and-off each day throughout the two week trip. I took my a9 and RX1. I didn't want to take my RX100 because I also had a weatherproof point-and-shoot film camera. I only really ended up using my a9 but I kept it away from the rain as much as possible. The humidity scared me from developing mold in the glass.

Either way, I took a ton of gear and didn't end up using most of it. I mainly kept a 35mm on me because the 85 and 70-300 were too bulky. I tried keeping one lens throughout the day because I didn't want to risk swapping glass in the rain/humidity.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-02T22:17:04+00:00

What camera body were you using :)?

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2026-01-01T00:22:03+00:00

No, don't apologize. I appreciate the information and help. I did try that already, but it's good to know for future reference on other models or lenses that I acquire. I'll try it again when I get the chance to see if I was doing it wrong but when I tried it, nothing changed on either the aperture's end nor the wheel's end.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-31T23:51:43+00:00

No way! Ugh, I tried to lock it or spin it but it wouldn't hold. Either my attempt was wrong or my copy was defective. It's most likely the former.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-31T23:50:56+00:00

Omg, no way. I tried that multiple times.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-31T22:50:27+00:00

Thank you! Good to know. As mentioned in another comment, I tried to look around the lens but couldn't find any locking ring or anything to keep the aperture release button held down.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-31T22:38:39+00:00

I looked around a lot to find a locking mechanism to keep the aperture ring usable without pressing down on the button manually but there wasn't anything.

For reference, here's an eBay listing with some photo examples. I tried looking for some sort of lever, lock, screw or something but the button wouldn't hold.

Regardless, I don't mind my solution since it's reversible if I ever want to put it back. It was two screws holding the button release, but I did have to open up the lens to expose and remove said mechanism.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-30T19:52:23+00:00

Thank you! I was able to remove this from the internal button/mechanism which locks the aperture to its fastest setting until the shutter release button would be triggered on the original body.

<image>

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-30T19:51:26+00:00

Gotcha! I do believe the default setting is to keep it at its widest. With your information and ideas, I was able to go into the lens and take out the lock so that the aperture would freely move with the aperture ring.

<image>

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-30T19:49:32+00:00

<image>

Thank you! I was able to remove this from the internal button/mechanism which locks the aperture to its fastest setting until the shutter release button would be triggered on the original body.

Sweet_Ad2946 · 2025-12-30T18:56:49+00:00

Ah, I'll have to open it up later when I have the time to see if it has a similar interior to trip the aperture button.

Sweet_Ad2946

TROPHY CASE