We’ve both use the same camera body but your lens collection tends to the telephoto side compared to mine. I was left totally without anything longer that 105 mm when I moved to the A7IV and found that my old A mount 70-300 would become pure manual focus, even with the latest Sony adapter.
I grew up with manual focus but, back them, cameras had a split image focusing system to tell you when you were in focus. That consisted of twisting the focus ring while looking through the viewfinder until the upper and lower parts of the image perfectly aligned. Looking thorough the old Sony lens in the new body gave me no focusing information at all. So, bleah to that.
I thought about getting a new e mount version of the same lens but I thought $1300 a bit much for as little as I use long telephoto. But, I concluded, paying 40% of that figure for the Tamron version, which had good ratings, to be an acceptable bet.
Below is a shot of a female Cardinal that I photoed in my yard this AM at a range of around 70 feet. Even at 300 mm, this is a big crop.
Quick aside: The split image focus system is a spinoff originally derived from the Dreadnought era Naval gunnery optical rangefinders that prevailed in all the worlds navys in the until the advent of radar ranging during WWII.
Yeah, Sony’s lens prices are absurd. You nailed the focus. Looks like it gives you the reach. Congrats.
Thanks! The latest cameras make it easy to get the focus.
You’re right about Sony lens cost though. Although Sony does make amends by opening their system to 2nd party lens makers. There are a wide variety of 2nd party lenses available for a fraction of Sony price in pretty much every niche. No other camera brand does that.
I know. The Canon shooters are forever griping about the lack of off-brand options.
And some of those other manufacturers produce lenses that are better in many respects than the Sony lenses. Sigma just came out with a 14mm f1.4 that was reviewed as sharper than the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM.