Some more flowers (Don't know what type this is). Taken with Sony A850 and Sigma EX 105mm f/2.8 DG @ f/4 and ISO 400. Handheld and my hands were shaking a bit too much ...
Bad light, I know, but this is not my kind of photography anyway and it´s a huge crop, around 3 mpix, from the 24 mp original file. I consider the lens behaved awesomely given these bad conditions.
From a wedding 4 weeks ago. This was around 30 degrees, which in the UK means humid as hell... thankfully it was all in one venue so not too much running around to be done. It was a very small wedding, around 18 guests, and the areas were quite small inside as well at times, so it through up different sorts of challenges. But I'm happy with the set in the end.
Question... Today, someone offered me 16-35za, 85za, 135za... £2200. What do you think, bad, good, average? Part of me thinks it might be worth switching to za stuff to get better colour consistency throughout, as much as I love my Minolta stuff. The other part of me thinks I pretty much have all my bases covered, and that is a lot of money to spend on stuff that isn't essential...
ricardovaste wrote:
Mawz, how do you find the 17-35/2.8-4 on FF?
Question... Today, someone offered me 16-35za, 85za, 135za... £2200. What do you think, bad, good, average? Part of me thinks it might be worth switching to za stuff to get better colour consistency throughout, as much as I love my Minolta stuff. The other part of me thinks I pretty much have all my bases covered, and that is a lot of money to spend on stuff that isn't essential...
Not bad price actually. 16-35 is pretty good and 135mm is something like "signature" lens for Sony system, probably best 135mm. 85 is.. well usable.
Tho color consistency.. dont think so in this case. They are similar but not same.
As far as I know only Nikon lenses tend to have similar rendering (even ages back).
Sony has ZA 16-35 and 24-70 which have same rendering. 85 seems bit cooler and quite contrasty. 135 has special "airy" look with really nice colors, tho IMHO doesnt look much like 85 (and it doesnt have that much CA). And others, like 70-200 have completely different look.
ZA lens to some degree look similar, but not same. At least not zooms and primes together.
Just see for yourself if its close enough for you or not. Problem is that you wont see those lens together with same processing from same person. Still Dyxum does help a lot with this. Asking guys there will give you maybe better samples and some useful help.
ricardovaste wrote:
Mawz, how do you find the 17-35/2.8-4 on FF?
Question... Today, someone offered me 16-35za, 85za, 135za... £2200. What do you think, bad, good, average? Part of me thinks it might be worth switching to za stuff to get better colour consistency throughout, as much as I love my Minolta stuff. The other part of me thinks I pretty much have all my bases covered, and that is a lot of money to spend on stuff that isn't essential...
I quite like the 17-35D on FF. It's no ZA16-35, but it's actually quite a good performer. You do have to stop down to f8 to get the corners up to par though. Good cheap alternative to the ZA, and a much better performer than any other Minolta-branded lens wider than 24mm (Yes, it outperforms the 17-35G and the 20/2.8)
Mescalamba wrote:
As far as I know only Nikon lenses tend to have similar rendering (even ages back).
Sony has ZA 16-35 and 24-70 which have same rendering. 85 seems bit cooler and quite contrasty. 135 has special "airy" look with really nice colors, tho IMHO doesnt look much like 85 (and it doesnt have that much CA). And others, like 70-200 have completely different look.
ZA lens to some degree look similar, but not same. At least not zooms and primes together.
Just see for yourself if its close enough for you or not. Problem is that you wont see those lens together with same processing from same person. Still Dyxum does help a lot with this. Asking guys there will give you maybe better samples and some useful help....Show more →
The 70-200G is not a ZA and is in fact a Minolta design (it was originally released with the Maxxum 7 in 2000). I wouldn't expect it to have anything resembling ZA colour.
The ZA's do have a signature rendering style, but like the G lenses, there's quite a bit of variation within the style. The ZA85 definitely has aspects of the 85G(D)'s rendering while the ZA135 seems to have some classic Sonnar to it.
I appreciate the help . This isn't really what I was after though... It was the idea of using 16-35, 85, 135 together, in series. So there would be images side by side of the same lighting, similar or identical colour palettes... The link shows all sorts of random photos, so I guess I'm looking for more user samples than anything else, from someone who uses them extensively together. This is the area my current set up falls a little short.. as I have Minolta, Sigma, Tokina used alongside each other. Colours can be quite obviously different at times.
The one thing that always stopped me on getting the 16-35 is the high amounts of vignetting. I imagine that coatings are similar if not the same as the 24-70 so the color should be very similar.
I've noticed my 85mm ZA F1.4 and 24-70mm ZA F2.8 had slightly different color signatures. The 24-70 was a bit more color neutral but with overall more saturation while the 85mm ZA seemed slightly more green/blue biased. And to be honest, I noticed more global contrast on the 24-70mm than on the 85mm.
Here are three shots on an A900 - same day, same place within minutes of eachother. No post process except to diminish brightness on 85 shot which read less sky and overexposed a bit. Otherwise just straight Jpegs out of camera resized for this forum.
and it´s a huge crop, around 3 mpix, from the 24 mp original file. I consider the lens behaved awesomely given these bad conditions.
)
