A few more from Reunion. I wanted to travel light, so I left my beloved CY 28/2.8 and Rokkor 58/1.2 at home and brought Voigtländer 15/4.5, FE 28 and CY 50/1.7. The focal lengths were perfect and the 15 and 50mm performed well. FE 28 is a bit weak for distant landscapes though, so next time I'll bring the CY 28, I think.
I must say, everything in this thread gets better and better. I'm excited cause the building people where I work in the city told me I can go to the roof one day to take some pics. So hopefully I can grab some good shots around SoHo.
I like this one from the other day that I took in the backyard, not sure why:
HelenaN wrote:
A few more from Reunion. I wanted to travel light, so I left my beloved CY 28/2.8 and Rokkor 58/1.2 at home and brought Voigtländer 15/4.5, FE 28 and CY 50/1.7. The focal lengths were perfect and the 15 and 50mm performed well. FE 28 is a bit weak for distant landscapes though, so next time I'll bring the CY 28, I think.
Would love a bit more of your impressions comparing the C/Y 28/2.8 and the FE28. I have both lenses as well, and at least in the corners, I find the FE is sharper at all apertures. The C/Y does have more micro-contrast, but the FE is no slouch in this area. I do like the C/Y for wide-open central-subject street style shooting, where the micro-contrast is really evident, and I also use the C/Y if I'm going to be shooting a lot of buildings, because the FE's distortion is so extreme. But for landscape, I've been pretty happy with the FE 28.
alwang wrote:
Would love a bit more of your impressions comparing the C/Y 28/2.8 and the FE28. I have both lenses as well, and at least in the corners, I find the FE is sharper at all apertures. The C/Y does have more micro-contrast, but the FE is no slouch in this area. I do like the C/Y for wide-open central-subject street style shooting, where the micro-contrast is really evident, and I also use the C/Y if I'm going to be shooting a lot of buildings, because the FE's distortion is so extreme. But for landscape, I've been pretty happy with the FE 28. ...Show more →
That's interesting. Maybe copy variation? Or perhaps just a question of personal taste? My FE 28 is OK for landscapes, it's just that my CY 28/2.8 is better and I think the main difference is the micro-contrast, which I notice more in landscapes than in closer shots. It's also slightly sharper over all the frame except the extreme corners. However, I think it's my Contax that is better than average rather than my FE 28 being sub-par.
What a great thread! I would like to comment on everything but there are so many great images and observations on lenses and technique, it is hard to comment on everything.
Here are additional thoughts on the Sony FE 24-240mm. I recently took a toad trip with a bag full of lenses. For pure convenience I kept reaching for the FE 24-240mm or the compact Leica WATE. At one point with a feeling of guilt I put the Canon EF 85 f/1.8 on the camera for five minutes. The first shot is with the Sony FE 24- 240mm to establish the location which is Southern Utah in an area famous for western films.
Sony FE 24- 240mm 1/2000 second F/4.0 30mm ISO 100
Sony FE 24- 240mm 1/500 second F/6.3 160mm ISO 100
Canon EF 85 1/8000 second f/1.8 wide open 85mm ISO 100
Yes, even I can see, I pay a price for convenience. There is a distinct difference between the images, but I am not sure the distinction is measured so much in IQ as drawing style. There is also the obvious difference in low light capabilities. But there is also the the issue of working quickly and getting more opportunities in favor of the super zoom.
navmannz wrote:
One from a recent trip in the northern North Island, NZ
I see you shot that with the CV 35 Ultron. I'm seriously considering it as I look for a 35 that's smallish in size.
How do you like it? Any thoughts? Advice? I've considered the FE 35/2.8 but was hoping for something faster. The FE 35/1.4 is too big.
There's also the new CV 35/1.7 and the CV 35/1.4. I lose AF, but that's no biggie for me. But I am concerned about smearing or any such issues that have been associated with the CV lenses.
I shoot with the A7RII.
ebookman wrote:
What a great thread! I would like to comment on everything but there are so many great images and observations on lenses and technique, it is hard to comment on everything.
Here are additional thoughts on the Sony FE 24-240mm. I recently took a toad trip with a bag full of lenses. For pure convenience I kept reaching for the FE 24-240mm or the compact Leica WATE. At one point with a feeling of guilt I put the Canon EF 85 f/1.8 on the camera for five minutes. The first shot is with the Sony FE 24- 240mm to establish the location which is Southern Utah in an area famous for western films.
Yes, even I can see, I pay a price for convenience. There is a distinct difference between the images, but I am not sure the distinction is measured so much in IQ as drawing style. There is also the obvious difference in low light capabilities. But there is also the the issue of working quickly and getting more opportunities in favor of the super zoom. ...Show more →
I agree, Dale - there are all sorts of insights to be gained from following this thread, and you demonstrate really well why I am enjoying my set of little CV and Canon FD primes - having been very much wedded in the past to having everything sharp, I'm enjoying exploring the subtlety of out of focus.
BTW, chuckled at your typo - I presume that you meant 'road trip' rather than 'toad trip', but then again, with a bag full of lenses, perhaps you meant 'towed trip'
Lost 5 pages... my Like button now is a bit stressed
Super compliments to all and thanks for sharing also technical information. The quality of images here is simply superlative
Manuel
puckman wrote:
I see you shot that with the CV 35 Ultron. I'm seriously considering it as I look for a 35 that's smallish in size.
How do you like it? Any thoughts? Advice? I've considered the FE 35/2.8 but was hoping for something faster. The FE 35/1.4 is too big.
There's also the new CV 35/1.7 and the CV 35/1.4. I lose AF, but that's no biggie for me. But I am concerned about smearing or any such issues that have been associated with the CV lenses.
I shoot with the A7RII.
Hi Puckman, I did a lot of searching before I settled on this lens, and do really appreciate its small size and its performance given the hiking that I enjoy doing. Like you, I passed over the FE35/2.8 for its lack of speed, and the FE35/1.4 for its size. Among the CVs the 35/1.2 obviously performs very well based on images on this thread, but is also very large, and the 35/1.4 Nokton I only had to try once to pass by - optically it doesn't seem to be there. I also looked at other M-mount options, but didn't want to take out a mortgage for a Summicron given questions over its smearing on the A7R, and the Zeiss ZM 35 is quite a chunky lens too. I already had the Ultron 21/18 which I like, so when CV announced the 35mm Ultron I thought that I'd check it out.
I was initially disappointed by a slight magenta cast with my A7R, but this has disappeared completely now that I've upgraded to an A7RII. The corners are not as sharp as on my Canon FD 35/2, but the central 60-70% of the image is definitely sharper throughout the aperture range than the Canon, and it is also much more usable wide open than the FD. For landscape work I've tested it at various focus distances to find the manual preset at which I maximise foreground focus while maintaining infinity focus; that gives me results that I'm very happy with .
Phillip Reeve also has a very good review of this lens on his website.
