Depends on how much caffeine one has had, among other factors I haven't used a stabilized lens recently but I do think it could help at medium tele and longer FLs.
Lieutenant Z wrote:
IMHO, stabilisation is just a gadget. For a 180 mm telephoto you just need a steady hand and a minimum speed of 1/250 s.
saph wrote:
Depends on how much caffeine one has had, among other factors I haven't used a stabilized lens recently but I do think it could help at medium tele and longer FLs.
worked great for me with my 350mm all the way down to 1/125 handheld using an olympus and kept giving me a high percentage of keepers all the way down to 1/20. i'm pretty sure i can't get anything critically sharp using a 700mm equivalent lens at 1/20 without image stabilization.
Then maybe I need to cut out tea and coffee 1/20th is quite amazing at that FL to get a high percentage. With my 400 5.6 manual Nikon I get good success, but I depend on keeping the shutter usually 1/400 or higher.
sebboh wrote:
worked great for me with my 350mm all the way down to 1/125 handheld using an olympus and kept giving me a high percentage of keepers all the way down to 1/20. i'm pretty sure i can't get anything critically sharp using a 700mm equivalent lens at 1/20 without image stabilization.
Very nice, particularly the red berry surrounded by creamy bokeh. Congrats on the sweet acquisition!
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Got an 80 Lux this week. So far, I think it's a keeper. Much more compact than my ZF 100/2, and easier to focus IMO. More character too.
Not any great pictures so far, but here are some from today on the A7. First three WO, fourth at f/4 or maybe f/2.8 -- it's pretty sharp by f/2.8 at infinity.
saph wrote:
Then maybe I need to cut out tea and coffee 1/20th is quite amazing at that FL to get a high percentage. With my 400 5.6 manual Nikon I get good success, but I depend on keeping the shutter usually 1/400 or higher.
yeah, with the same lens without image stabilization on i pretty much have to shoot 1/500 or faster.
Finally had time to read it; it's an interesting article. Thank you.
I am still wondering where the M and R price differences come from (more work to squeeze glass into smaller enclosure or demand/marketing?) Nevertheless, the write-up is a good guideline to get few R jewels from the past (I have a link to more detailed coverage of selected R glass - will try to find it after dinner)
@Jako...superb shots with the 80! What beautiful rendering! Love the first shot the most..I'm a sucker for wide open/tons of buttery bokeh!!
@saph...really like the leaves...I just got the 50 Lux, and I think the 90 Cron will be my next...but I have been using the 90 Elmarit, and really enjoy the colors from it...we'll see.
Gregg
Thank you saph, Gregg & Manu.
Summilux-R 80 suppose to shine mid/far distances. Once excitement of shotting WO fades I will put it to land/cityscape use.
Summicron-R 50; great lens but it's hard (for me at least) to capture non-flat images with it.
I only shot +/- 350 frames with A7r including 50 or so frames of shutter sound comparison with another photog using A7, but few shots between A7R/D800E show slight sharpness increase most likely due to true AA-less design of A7r. Both cameras are built differently and for different use. From image output perspective I am pleased with A7R and honestly I didn't even bother going into details to compare it extensively to D800E. A7R has all I needed (no IQ compromise if giving up on D800E) so it becomes my primary digital camera from now on.
As for Summicron-R 35; I mostly use it between f/2.8 -4.0 but this lens is very sharp when stopped down. From my tests it slightly outperforms Zeiss Distagon 2/35 at least in the center.
area.
I haven't used a stabilized lens recently but I do think it could help at medium tele and longer FLs.
