Any of you guys with the FE28 and the 21 adapter? I read Jordan's review and it seems mostly positive. Thinking of picking that up instead of the 16-35. Reason being I don't shoot a lot of wide angle, so not sure how much I would use the 16-35. The adapter has a few things going for it, it's cheaper, lighter, would give me a 2.8 instead of a 4 and because I have the rII, don't necessarily need the OSS. Bad things are that no filters, but I don't shoot with them a lot. Obviously it's not going to be as nice as say the 25 Batis and probably not as good as the 16-35 @ 21 and f/4, but for the $250, might be worth picking up. If it performs at half the performance of the 16-35 I could live with it at 20% of the cost. Like the fact that unlike the Fuji converters don't have to menu dive to toggle it on. Really love the 28 as a prime on both the rII and my a6000 so it's going to stay.
I think if you already have the 28, it's a no brainer. If you don't have either, and don't plan on getting the 28, then it's a harder choice. I'm using the Canon FD 20/2.8 as my UWA right now, and I prefer that to the 28+21 combo.
ariel777 wrote:
From the photos I have seen, I'm not particularly impressed with the 16-35/4, quite unlike those taken with the primes, i.e., the 55/1.8 and the two Batis lenses in particular. Since it had been my intention to initially purchase the 55 and the 16-35 with the A7RII this coming week, I now plan on getting only the 55 initially. Any thoughts from those who have the 16-35? BTW, I do recognize that the IQ of a zoom does not typically match that from a prime, but the differences I have observed are fairly dramatic and beyond the "normal" gap, IMO. Comments from those who have the 16-35 would be appreciated.
I'm not sure whether you're doing yourself a favor comparing the 16-35 to the 55 1.8, as you are comparing one of the best 50mm primes ever made to a comparatively slow UWA zoom. I don't have the Batis 25, but from what I've seen on the net, the 25/2 is -not surprisingly- clearly better than my 16-35. However, I don't think the gap goes beyond the average zoom - prime divide. My copy of the 16-35 isn't sharp corner to corner wide open, but as I'm mostly using it as a landscape lens, I need to stop down anyways, and by f8 I get edge to edge sharpness. I actually find it easier to get good results with the 16-35 than the Sony 24mm f2, because the latter had these weird wavy distortion patterns and I like the flexibility offered by the zoom. Then again, I admit that I'd prefer a slightly faster aperture from time to time. That however would mean either a bigger zoom (such as the a-mount 16-35 2.8) or less flexibility (Batis 25, Samyang 14 2.8, adapted Zeiss 15, 18, 21, etc.). If I were using my UWA wide-open all the time (e.g. for astrophotography), I'd definitely get one of those lenses instead of the 16-35.
As Bob said above, there are some talented photographers on these pages!!
These were taken on my wanderings downtown last night.
Gregg
A7rM and ZM 35 1.4 Dist
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Great shot Bob ,Philipe,Werner,Charles ,Kevin,Michiel,bulletlavolta, Rene and Jordan
Kevin : Really nice shot from Iceland... want to see more I.m going to Iceland in late sept
I also want to see the Like button back.. and nr of likes and who liked it !
Thanks Bob, Ronny and Manuel !
Ronny - p.m. me for any information you may require, I can send you a pdf of my plan, route, timing etc. if you would like. I can't wait to go back there again !
+100 on the Like function. I thought it was just a glitch, has it been deliberately removed ? I can't find any reference to it anywhere and Fred didn't reply to my PM so I guess he's received a ton of mail on this subject. It is far and away the best way to show you like someone work, or something they said or did, without spamming up the thread with 'Like' posts.
Shelt - it's always fun to see you post pictures from our neck of the woods. Now you've posted an image from one of our most frequent hikes, Tennessee Valley. One day we'll cross paths, I'm sure. You'll recognize me by the A7RII in my hands!
Jman13 - great results with those FD lenses. I also tried the FD 20mm f2.8 for wide angle today, and am posting some of those images below.
With the Minolta 35-70mm f4 alpha mount. I paid $35 this lens!
jpfigueiredo wrote:
I'm loving your stream on flickr. Great photography.
Thank you. That means a lot to me
justruss wrote:
Agreed with the previous poster-- I'm loving these 12/5.6 shots! It's not the focal length + sensor... it's the photographer and processor.
Are you cropping these or doing anything to deal with smeared corners? How do the images look zoomed in on crops?
And thank you, too!
There is next-to-no corner smear on the 12mm lens—but there is heavy vignetting and magenta casting, depending on shooting conditions. Occasionally I will use the Adobe Flat Field plugin for Lightroom to correct for these issues; though it's simple enough to remove magentas, purples, and vignetting, "by hand" in Lightroom.
Charles: Stunning portraits with Mandler's finest.
Greggf: Beautiful street photography series. I particularly like that last shot.
Rene: Great mountain landscapes, especially the third one.
Johnahill: The lightning in that shot is amazing.
Charles...great portrait series with the 75 Lux!
eBrandon...excellent graffiti pics.
Rene...awesome pics last page!
Chris88...thanks you!
Gregg
A7rM and ZM 35 1.4
I.m going to Iceland in late sept 
