Jump to content

PHDX

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by PHDX

  1. Hi, I am shooting landscape and portraits, previously with the A7RII and since a few months with the A7RIV. First, I did use the 55mm for landscapes during years and it is definitely a good lens. I also used the 24 70 GM but it was too bulky and heavy and the IQ was very good but not outstanding. On top of that zoom lenses are quite convenient but they make you somewhat lazy since you can frame your picture without moving. Now I have the Sony 24 GM which is definitely a gem and the Sony 35 f1.8 which is quite good. Those two lenses are light, rather small, and very convenient to use. If you want the very best 35mm, take the Sigma 35 F1.2 but you have to accept its size and weight. I tried the Zeiss Loxia series but was not convinced, specifically by the 35mm which is not very sharp and probably not adapted for very high megapixels sensors. In terms of IQ, the Loxia 21mm is much better. The Loxia 50mm is also good, but for landscape I would shoose the new Voigtlander 50mm F2 which is supposed to be as good as the 65mm and 110mm macro: those Apo Lanthar Voigtlander series are absolutely top class in terms of IQ. Having said that, I like to go out of the logic box, drop the wide angle primes, and often shoot landscapes with my 100-400 GM, which proves to be excellent for some distant shots.
  2. Hi, I have done a quick test, comparing the two lenses mounted on the A7RIV. Comparing the 35mm with a 61MP picture and the 24mm with a 26MP picture may be misleading. The fact that you use the APSC crop mode for the 24mm has consequences : you loose some definition and then sharpness.The field curvature is of course not exactly the same. To get the same size when comparing the pictures you need to crop more for the 24mm picture. The 100% cropped 24mm (26MP) picture has the same size on your screen as the 67% cropped 35mm (61MP) picture. With this level of cropping there is no visible difference in IQ between the two pictures : they look pretty good. But if you crop further, the 35mm picture wins both in the center and in the corners. If you forget this test, and based on my own experience with the two lenses, both are quite good. They are small, light and very easy to use. But the 24mm, which is a real gem, is sharper than the 35mm when compared on an arms length basis. To get the very best 35mm, you need to choose the Sigma 35 F1.2, but at the cost of big size and weight. I am quite happy to keep the two Sony lenses in my bag.
  3. You are right, not only the GM lenses can be used with the A7RIV, and we see more and more good E mount lenses coming from other brands such as Sigma or Tamron. A few tests with my gear and some family/friends lenses with the A7RIV body : - I did own the 35 mm Zeiss Loxia and sold it back : too soft with 61MP. I have now the Sony 35 mm F1.8 and it works well. It is may be the best 35 mm prime choice for the RIV body. I tried the Sigma 35 F1.2 which is definitely a high quality lens, faster and a little sharper than the Sony F1.8 but much too big and heavy to carry in my bag. - My 24 GM f1.4 gives very good results . It is in my opinion one of the best GM lenses. - My 50 mm Zeiss Loxia is quite good. I did not expect that and it is a good surprise. I also tested my daughter's Sony 55 mm F1.8 : it is good but not as it is with her A7RII. Despite the large number of 50 mm lense choices available on the market, I am still waiting for a very good (not heavy and bulky) one to pair with the A7R IV. - The 110 mm Macro Voigtlander, which by the way is one of the sharpest lens (all along the aperture range) I ever owned, behave very well with the R IV. - The 135 GM behaves also very well. Paired with the R IV, it provides fabulous portrait pictures. - I do agrre with you for the 100-400 GM. I did not see any issue so far (without the 1.4 converter I also own) except that noise coming earlier with the 61MP sensor, you need good light conditions to shoot clean pictures. - My daughter's 24 105 Sony seems to behave well. The only drawback is distortion which can be corrected of course but at a price of lower IQ. - I also tried the 28 75 Tamron from one of my friends and it was surprisingly good : not perfect of course but usable if you are not too demandind for corners sharpness. For family or events pictures, it can be an unexpensive all around lens choice. Tamron seems to do a great job with good quality lenses at affordable prices ( not like the GM lenses). Philippe
  4. Hi,I did do it and in a nutshell here are my pros and cons : Pros : - IQ is outstanding and better than the A7RIII . Let's be clear : the A7RIII is quite a good camera, but the MKIV gives even more detailed pictures. It is really impressive. - The pixelshift is quite good and give outstanding results under good conditions. - Focus speed and accuracy is excellent and eye / face detection works extremely well. - The IBIS is excellent : I was fearing some issues with hand held shoots, but it works quite well. I am impressed. - The ergonomics are better on the A7RIV : I like very much the new grip, the new buttons, SD cards slot and the quality of the viewfinder. Cons : - Noise is coming earlier when increasing your ISO, which by the way is not a surprise : the pixels are smaller. Same thing for diffraction. The 61 MP sensor is also more sensitive to shake than the 42 MP one. But so far, I did not find all that as a real issue. - Linked to the comment above, you need to pair your 61 MP sensor with the very best lenses : it has a cost if you are not already equiped with a top class gear. - The use of SDXC class II cards is highly recommended if you want a good data transfer. And a good PC / laptop is welcome. I have no issue with mine using Capture One, but it is a high end gamer one chosen on purpose. - If you don't go beyond the A3 format printing or don't need to crop significantly, the 61 MP may be of little use. - If you sell your A7RIII and buy the A7RIV, it is not a cheap switch. All in all, do not be misleaded by the "cons" : I have absolutely no regrets for having done the switch. The A7RIV has such a great potential !
  5. Hi, I got my new A7RIV one week ago and here are my first impressions for still photography: 1/ Ergonomics : This new body get closer to a real professional one than its predecessors. Many comments have already been made on that, so I shall not dig in. I just can witness that the improvement is real in many aspects and it is a pleasure to use this new body. Some weaknesses such as the fuzzy menus are still there but fortunately you can customize your functions. 2/ The 61MP sensor : - Sharpness and level of details is outstanding ! The gain compared to the A7RIII is clearly visible. Having said that, compared to the A7RIII, with 45% more megapixels on the A7RIV you will get a size increase of the image (cropped at 100%) of "just" around 20%. I do often print on A2 or A1 formats papers (300 ppp) and I welcome this additional capacity. For some of you, it might be of no use and the A7RIII remains an excellent choice. A word on the pixelshift : I tried it with the 16 shots option. I was not so much impressed by this option with the A7RIII, but, with the A7RIV, it is crazy ! The picture is much bigger than the basic uncompressed raw one . At 100% crop, you can print a perfectly sharp and detailed 63 X 42 inches picture ! Of course, the use is limited to scenes where nothing moves. I shall use it, among others, when shooting in museums. Despite its extremely good performance, the A7RIV cannot be compared to a medium format camera and I do not like the Sony marketing on this. A medium format body has a bigger sensor which means (for the same pixels count) less diffraction, shallower DOF, etc..and all in all a better image quality. But there is a price for that : very expensive, bulky and heavy bodies and lenses, and a much less versatile system. - In order to get the best from this new 61 MP sensor, you need the very best lenses. I did test my own gear (made of mainly Sony GM lenses) and also some other gear of my friends. The 61 MP sensor does not forgive anything. With no surprise the GM lenses were fine. With other brands, the results are uneven : a good result for example with the Voigtlander 110mm Macro, less good results with the Zeiss Loxia series. Let's remember that with such a high megapixel sensor diffraction comes earlier when you stop down. (By the way, I think it is strange to see lens manufacturers (including Sony) still selling lenses with a 22 minimum aperture). - Noise : I found that the noise comes earlier than with the A7RIII when you increase your ISO setting (beyond 800 ISO). On my side I do not care since shooting mainly landscapes and portraits, I always try to stick to low ISOs. - In Body Image Stabilization : good surprise ! the performance is very good with this demanding 61MP sensor and you really can shoot hand held at relatively low shutter speeds. Having said that, the A7RIV seems more sensitive to shake than its predecessors (I did see that with my 100-400 GM when shooting at 400) - Autofocus and eye/face tracking: no need to say that this new A7RIV is excellent. I am very impressed. - Color rendition : For what I have seen so far the new sensor gives warmer colors than the A7RII and III 42MP one. As a matter of conclusion : If not perfect, this new A7RIV is clearly an excellent product with a lot of potential. The 61MP sensor requires to be more patient and focussed on what you do : this is a small price to pay for getting high level pictures.
  6. Hi, I also own the A7RIV since a week and tested my gear and also some friends gear with it : it seems clear that the 61MP sensor does not forgive any average or just good quality lenses. If you stick to the Sony GM lenses, you will not be disappointed. The Zeiss lenses seem OK with the A7RIV for the Batis series and less for the Loxia one. As a general purpose lens, the 24-70 GM is may be the best to fit with the A7RIV. On my side, I like the 24mm GM. Although not a GM lens, the new 35mm f1.8 is surprisingly good.
  7. Hi, I also got the A7RIV one week ago : I do shoot mainly portraits and landscape and for those use the uncompressed raw to get the very best (I very often print with A2 or A1 formats). For other purposes such as action, events, I shall use the compressed raw which is quite sufficient;
  8. Thanks a lot for your comment. I do agree with you. It is true to say that the Cloud version includes new services. The question is do we need them ? I am not really sure yet. One major argument in favor of the Cloud is the capacity to store your pictures in a safe environment (safer than your own local one) and also have the possibility to access to your data at anytime and from everywhere (provided that you have an internet connection). Fine but, to my knowledge (may be I am wrong), once a file is gone to the internet, there is no obvious way to make sure that it is stored just in one location and no one can find it even if you did delete it. Another issue is the safety of the clouds. I read a lot of articles on this subject and there seems to be no evidence or very clear answer. It happens to me from time to time to work without an internet connection (there are still many locations where internet is hardly accessible) and I am happy to do my post treatment with the soft on my PC. As far as the data storage is concerned, I use several hard disks kept in two different locations. I have started this process in 2001 and since that time never had any real issue. I do accept the very low probability that all my disks would fail at the same time : there is no zero risk. The only thing in my opinion to be concious of is that technology is moving ahead and you need to renew your disks from time to time. As a matter of example, I still use a 1To SATA disk which was bought in 2007 and also new SSD disks bought recently.The transfer rates are obviously not the same, and I don't use them the same way. So what ?
  9. good job mack 100 ! I must confess that using Capture One now since 2017, I have no interest in coming back to LR6, although it is a good toolbox. Capture one makes me quite happy for my two main uses : portrait and landscape. For those who want to do more than purely photography, like some mix of photos and Drawings, the Adobe products are still quite attractive; but I just try to do good pictures and improve within the time : to this respect, Capture One is perfect for me.
  10. Hi, I have the 100-400 GM in my gear (among others) and find it quite a good lens. Its obvious use, as you mention it, is wildlife (or sports) photography. But I use it mainly for landscape (for the reach and compression) and also occasionally for outdoor portraits (moving subjects). It does a very decent job even if its widest aperture is 4.5 at 100mm and 5 at 135 mm which are usual focal lengths for portraits. At longer focal lengths, you can even increase the separation from the background and I like to shoot wide open (F5.6) at 300mm which is even sharper than 200mm on this lens. The focus on the eyes works extremely well (and this might be even better with the new A7RIII /A7III firmware release!). Of course, I prefer to use my 85 GM for portraits and more specifically for sudio work, but the 100-400 gives very decent results. It gives also very nice results for close photography of rather small objects like flowers, my favorite focal length in this case being 200mm. Since you own already the 24-105, you will have a significant overlap with the 70-200 GM : to my knowledge (I tested it) the 24-105 delivers quite a good performance in the range 70-105. So, except if you need to shoot indoors (with no flash or additional lights) where the 2.8 aperture will be a great advantage, , the 100-400 would be in my opinion an excellent complement to your 24-105.
  11. I also came from the Canon world and had the 5D MKII paired with the 24 105 which was great 10 years ago. Since that time a lot of improvements have been done and recent lenses are better. When I joined Sony, there was very little choice in term of lenses : I got the 24-70 Zeiss and the 55 f1.8. When the 55 was (and is still) impressive, the 24-70 was not at all. It was too soft at all focal lengths, 24 and 70 being really not good. I sold it back. I recently bought the 24-105 G as a Christmas gift for ma daughter and tested it : it is far better than the Zeiss 24-70. In terms of IQ, it is not far from the GM zooms (I own several), and the sharpness at 70 and 105 still remain quite good, which is a real performance. All what you have read in the reviews is true. It's not a perfect lens of course and distorsion is big at 24, but it can be easily corrected in post. So, in my opinion, you should not hesitate to swap !
  12. And a small magicien (8 cm eight) holding a burning incense stick. Picture taken at F8, ISO 100, 3.2s
  13. Here is a picture of my son with the 110mm at F2.5, ISO 160, 1/125
  14. I was looking for a macro lens I could also use for other purposes (portrait and landscape short telephoto). The obvious choice could have been the excellent Sony 90 Macro, but I wanted to get out of the Sony lineup and also come back to my old times when autofocus was not a must. At the same time, I also wanted to get a lens with a modern design which could efficiently use the potential of my A7R III sensor. I found the Voigtlander 110 mm 2.5 which is a brand new one produced by Cosina in Japan. I had read very nice comments on the Voigtlander 65 mm macro but the focal length was too short in my opinion, and it had only a 1:2 magnification ratio. Then came the 110mm and I bought it. The lens : this lens has a somewhat unusual look, with different diameters in the front, rear, and middle. It is rather compact when not extended for macro. It is heavy, just 50g less than the big Sony 85 GM (820g), but as soon as you get it in your hands, you feel good and know it is a real solid and well built lens. You have to screw the good metal hood on the lens which is also unusual : you may like or not like that. On my side, I got used of this very quickly. The focus ring is wide and smooth enough to be capable to fine tune and find the right focus distance, with the help of the focus peaking: it is a real pleasure to use it. To this respect, my manual focus experience with the 90 macro was less good. Of course, there is no autofocus and this lead you to be more cautious, patient, and requires a little experience before being easy with that. In some circumstancies, when your subject is moving, you may miss the autofocus (although I rarely used it for macro) or the eye AF for portraits. I have compared it with the 85 GM, doing some shootings with both lenses and I was impressed by the 110mm even if I felt more secure on the result with the 85 GM. The aperture ring, closer to the camera body, is relatively narrow and not always easy to move without touching the focus ring : you need to pay little attention for that. But the real strength of this lens is its sharpness : it is the best FE lens I have used, on par with or even better than the 90 Macro and the 55 F1.8. It is really outstanding. Not only the center of the frame is very sharp, but the corners too ! And it is true from the wider aperture f 2.5 to f8. At f11 the diffraction is visible although it is quite usable. So do not hesitate to shoot wide open unless you need more DOF. I have also compared the 110 mm to the 100-400 GM (at 110 of course) for landscape and it seems to me that the 110 is a little sharper : this is quite a performance knowing that the 100-400 is an excellent lens as fas sharpness is concerned. Some people will think that the 110 is too sharp for portraits : I myself never consider a high sharpness as a drawback, and wide open this lens gives you a very short DOF which helps to blurr anything you want. On top of that, I am a Capture One user and I can do a lot in post if ever I really need to reduce the sharpness. You might think that a 2.5 aperture is not enough to get a nice bokeh but quite frankly what I saw with the 110 mm was really good and you get a smooth transition for the background. I did some comparison with the 85 GM at f2 and the result was fairly similar. I did not either notice any cat eyes with the 110 mm but to be honest the 85 GM seems to me a little better : however this is not something which has worried me. So, in a nutshell, if you are not afraid by manual focussing and you want an extremely well built lens with an outsatnding sharpness, do not hesitate. And by the way, it costs half the price of the 85 GM and almost the same as the 90 Macro.
  15. I own several GM lenses and tried the 24 105 which I bought recently for my daughter. I compared it at 24, 35, 55 and 100 focal lengths with my gear. In a nutshell, the 24 105 is excellent for what it is and you need to crop beyond 100% to see it is a little behind the 16-35 GM at 24 and 35, the 55 1.8 at 55 or the 100-400 GM at 100. You can see a difference, more specifically in corners, but in most cases it should not be an issue. I must also say that in some cases like when I was in the desert in Saudia Arabia with a windy weather, avoiding to change your lens would have been very welcome ! For my own main use at F8-F11 for landscape, it could be an option provided that I would also add in my bag a prime like the Zeiss Batis 18mm.
  16. Hi guys, I wanted to share with you my growing experience with the Sony 100-400 GM : When you buy such a lens, you are supposed to target a specific use such as sport or wildlife photography. And yes this is true, the first reflex may be to carry this heavy lens only for those purposes. Let's say immediately that the weight is a relative criteria : in fact for such a focal length zoom, it's not very heavy and quite frankly not difficult to hold. The price is much more an issue for most of us, but what a lens ! Paired with my A7RIII, it is fast and accurate (it might be even better with the A9 I guess), the autofocus works quite well and the sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures is very good, if not outstanding. The build quality is excellent and the focus hold buttons (there are three !) very useful (eye AF). Now what can you do with it ?. As already mentioned, sports and wildlife. Here are two basic examples : my son in action (ISO 1600, 1/1000, F5.6, 189 mm), it was a late afternoon with not a lot of light and I had to shoot at rather high ISO. Nothing is perfect and the 100-400 is not a F2.8 lens. This is the compromise you have to accept. But the picture is quite OK. The second picture is a classical one (ISO 400, 1/1000, F7.1, 400 mm) : it was hand held and the the stabilization worked well. To be honest, 400 mm was not enough and I had to crop a lot in post. Since that time, I bought the 1.4 teleconverter which works quite well and give the extra reach I was missing, the image quality reamining excellent. But you know what ? I did not buy this lens for the above pictures. I got it because I needed something to get closer to my subject in landscape photography ! There are many occasions when you cannot be close to the subject, and if you can be, it will not provide you the same view at all. In addition the compression can be very interesting for landscapes. So may be you will find this awkward but this zoom comes with me in my bag with my other landscape zoom, the 16-35 GM. Here are two simple examples of lanscape pictures with the 100-400 : for the first one (ISO 100, 1/200, F8, 400 mm), I was on the other side of the lake in the mountain. The only other alternative would have been to be in an helicopter and then shoot with a shorter focal length ! The second one (ISO 100, 1/160, F8, 218 mm) could not be taken being close to this Vauban castle in the Alps. Let's say also, that all those pictures were taken hand held. If you are really curious about landscape photography with such a lens, read the excellent Sony 100-400 GM review made by Albert Dros (www.albertdros.com): I am just an amateur and he is a real Professional. But you can do even more with the 100-400 GM : I tried some close pictures of flowers in my garden and it's not bad at all. May be, it's not as good as with the excellent 90 F2.8 Macro G lens, but I was very positively surprised by what I got. Here are two examples : the pictures of the first flower (ISO 100, 1/400, F8, 198 mm) and the second one (ISO 200, 1/200, F16, 221mm) have been taken on a sturdy tripod. The weather was a little windy and then the flowers did constantly move. However, as you can see, the pictures are reasonably sharp. Let's say also, that you need to close your aperture down since the depth of field is very narrow. The blurred backround was also a nice surprise knowing that with the help of Capture One, you can do a lot in post ! For this second picture, you may see a small insect in the top center of the rose. I did crop at 400 % and here is the result : Personnaly, I am quite impressed by the quality of the 100-400 ! Last but not the least : when I want to do a shooting for portrait photography, I use my 85 F1.4 GM which is one of the best portrait lenses I know. However, you can also get out of the logic box and use the 100-400 GM : I did some portraits hand held which are quite interesting and the sharpness was really good. Shooting at 100mm F4.5 brings enough blurred backround and the colors are awsome. So, in a nutshell, this 100-400 GM is a superb lens from which you can get many good surprises provided you are ready to keep open minded and carry it !
  17. I was walking around and found this old oak tree which was about to be chopped down, with one high branch which had already been cut. Since the inside was eaten by insects, it has created holes with as a result a screaming face, as if this old tree expressed its fear to disappear... With my A7RIII, 100-400 GM at 253mm, 1/1000s, F5.6, ISO 640. #sonyalpharumors
  18. Hi all, Following a previous conversation, I did leave the Adobe world (and more specifically Lightroom) to join Capture One. I shall not come back on the reasons which made me leave Lightroom after many years of use. They have been already shared by myself, among many others. I just wanted to share with you my first impressions on Capture One : It definitely took little time to adapt to this new environment but not with significant difficulties : 1 / Lightroom is certainly more advanced and powerful for the management of catalogs but at the end I found my ways with Capture one. It was a good occasion to review my own organization without changing the basics : keep my raw pictures database organized with the simple time criteria. I must confess that the migration of my Lightroom catalogs has not been very easy and i had in some cases to reshape things (not all parameters are transferred)but it was worth the journey. 2/ Pictures Color treatment : this is in my opinion quite a strong point in Capture One and since I do mostly portraits and landscape pictures, it is definitively a powerful tool. The way you can refine colors in capture One is just excellent. You need to get used to it and choose the advanced menu to get the best of it but once you understanfd how it works, what a pleasure ! I like verymuch the possibility to transfer a color change into a mask and then refine the picture where you want to have the right impact. Lightroom does not give you that, but, of course you can use Photoshop to use masks. 3/ You can find in Capture One all what you need for your pictures, like in Lightroom,and sometimes more, but you have to test each piece since the algorithms are not the same and then the result may differ : to take a very simple case, the color saturation button does not give the same impact as in Lightroom : just a question of adaptation. To this respect, I strongly recommend to watch the available tutorials or webminars dedicated to Capture One : not only you will understand quickly how to use it but also understand what's behind each functionality. 4/ About the price : I did leave the Canon world a few years ago (after having owned a 5D MKII that I loved) for joining the Sony world which I like verymuch (such a big progress in a few years !) and then I have bought the Sony version of capture One 10 for 50 Euros. Not such a big expense, knowing that I got the version 11 release for free. I must confess that after so many years of lightroom (from version 1 to version 6 !), my main workhorse, I was anxious to switch to something else : I can witness today that i have no regret and hope that capture One will sustain long with the right philosphy of making real progress in each new version.
  19. Without doubts the new camera is better, but shooting mainly landscape and portraits, I am not so much sensitive to this. Yes 10 fps is great but not absolutely necessary. And yes a new battery is quite an improvement but I already use a grip with my A7 RII. Dynamic range, which is very important for me (may be the first reason why I bought the RII) has also improved a little and also IBIS, but not to such an extent that it makes a big difference. Then there is the pixel shift, but for a limited use and no possibility to check the result in the camera. For the future, I might not want a big increase in pixel count but certainly a new generation of sensor with better color quality and DR. However, I am glad to see Sony moving on and I shall wait for the A7 RIV !
  20. Thanks guys for your quite relevant answers. I did start using Capture One and, although it takes time to adapt coming from Lightroom, it seems quite powerful. I need of course to learn and test much more (and presumably it will take some time to reach a good undersatnding of all the features) but the test I did with landscape pictures on Capture One sounds very promising. By the way, I was so used to Lightroom that I had lost somewhat my creativity, applying very often the same corrections or changes to my pictures : switching to another system with a different philosophy and structure forces me to adopt a new behaviour. As you all know, probably better than me, Photography requires patience and time, but it's defenitely worth the journey.
  21. Dear all, I have been a Lighthroom user for years and been satisfied with it even though nobody's perfect and some other are better in some aspects. The announcement from Adobe That they discontinue the standalone version (LR6) and promote only The CC version (be it "Classic" or not) looks like a "take it or leave" message ! On a pure economic standpoint, I fully understand their interest : getting a permanent subscription fee at a minimum of 144€ per year should make the shareholders happy ! But, considering my needs, I do not see a lot of advantages in switching to the CC. I understand the benefits of the cloud and the capacity to access to your pictures everywhere you are and with any type of device, but quite frankly I do not care. Having the full LR version downloaded on my PC and on another portable is quite enough for me and I am not dependent on any internet / WIFI connection to do my posttreatment. You also may argue on the security and the fact you can save your production on the Adobe cloud : fine, but having backups on several portable harddisks is sufficient for me, knowing that a lot of progress is made with those devices and you can find at least 2 Tbytes robust portable harddisks at a quite reasonable price. There are certainly other advantages to switch to CC ,speed (?), permanent releases...but at the risk to be extremely oldfashioned, i am quite happy with what I already have. Is there anyone sharing the same opinion or am I the only one ?
  22. To answer your questions : For the grip, the ergonomics are quite good with no problem in using this for one hour or more. It's even better since you can really keep the camera in your hand without effort. In addition, it's much easier to shoot hands held on portrait mode. For the lenses, I would just say that the Zeiss 55 F1.8 is a good option, quite sharp and light, if you do not need a faster aperture.
  23. Hi, I have been a canon user for 10 years and switched to Sony a few years ago : If you are targetting the good quality Sony zoom lenses, it will be very comparable in terms of size and weight (I did have the Canon 24-70 L, and 70-200 L, and now shoot with the Sony 24-70 GM paired with my A7 RII). So, the big difference is the camera body by far smaller and lighter as you already know : it's quite a change when you come from a 5D series but you get used to that quickly. However, in order to get a more balanced system with the Sony, I got a grip which brings also other advantages such as battery life (a sony weakness). all in all, it is still smaller than a 5D III or IV. I am pretty happy with my Sony today and would certainly not come back to Canon, but not for weight reasons : the DR, the pixel count (which enable to crop more), and other features are better. If you do not want the native Sony zooms, may be you could have a look on the last Sigma ones rather than Tamron : they seem quite attractive in terms of quality. Now, despite the rather small difference for the lenses between Sony and canon, a keeping a comparable set of lenses (4), I had the capacity to carry a smaller Lowerpro bag with the Sony gear than with my former canon one. Some of the Sony (Zeiss) lenses like the 55 F1.8 being quite small and light (same for the 12-24 zoom).
  24. I owned the 16-35 F4 in absence of any other good zoom at the time, and sold it because there was an overlap with my 24-70 GM. I then got recently the 12-24. I had a good experience with the Zeiss 16-35 and if you have a limited budget, it would be probably the best choice for landscape. In addition, this zoom is quite small and light. I did not try the 16-35 GM but I guess it is better in terms of sharpness and hopefully at 35 where the Zeiss is not very good. I have tested the 12-24 since a month in different situations and it performs well. However it is a real wide angle zoom with the distortion you may expect and the corners at all apertures are quite soft. I would say it is a nice to have but somewhat a specialized zoom, not the one I would have bought first. So, if you have enough money to spend, if you are not afraid with the weight and size, and according to the existing reviews, the 16-35 GM could be the good choice A last comment : you come from the Nikon world (I came from the Canon one some years ago) and are probably used to a bulkier bodies. It is clear that, with the actual technology, most of the very good lenses will allways be rather heavy, so do not hesitate to add a grip to your camera : it will be much better balanced (among other advantages) This is what I did and I am very happy with that.
  25. Hi all, I am just an amateur photographer; So take my comments with I have got the new 12 24 lens a few days ago and spent my week end in shooting with it urban landscape in Paris. All what I have already read on the lens seems quite true : First of all, it is a light and somewhat small one ! (when compared to my bulky 24 70 GM which I like however) Very easy when paired with my A7RII. The ergonomics are quite good and overall quality fine with me. The focussing is fast enough and I had no difficulties in shooting hands held although a tripod would have obviously brought more quality to the pictures. In terms of sharpness, be it at 12, 16 or 24, the center and near center are very good. However, the (extreme) corners are clearly soft, even at F8 or F11 (I almost never shoot at more than F11 with the A7RII). I did not check any MTF curves, and did not make serious comparisons with other lenses such as the 16-35 F4 Zeiss but it seems not far from It in terms of sharpness. At 24mm, my 24-70 GM is better, but I did not buy this 12-24 to shoot at 24 ! To be honest, my favorite prints are the A2 ones, and for this size, the pictures are sharp enough (except if you have to crop a lot). As far as the distortion in concerned, it has been said that it is well contained and I could not agree more for such a wide angle zoom. Not very difficult to correct with Lightroom (or better, with DXO). For this first test, I did not benefit from the lens correction in Lightroom which is not yet there.. Since, most of the time, I do not shoot in low light with such a lens, the F4 maximum aperture is not an issue and, if needed, I shall shoot at a low speed with a tripod of course. I would be curious to test this zoom for shooting the milky way although a wider aperture than F4 would be better. As a conclusion, this first test was positive and I shall certainly keep this zoom in my bag, using it more specifically in the 12-16 range.
×
×
  • Create New...