Phillip Reeve wrote:
hmm,I am tempted. In my mind Mallorca is full of annoying package tourist but it seems that there is lots of beatiful nature as well.
Phillip, the key on going locations popular within "package tourist people" is to go when the annoying tourists are not there Also I find most of these locations way too hot on summer time. Additional benefit is that travelling is very cheap, you can get hotels as cheap as 15EUR/night etc. I have never been any of these locations at "prime time", but during October/November or February visited many Mediterranean islands. Mallorca looks nice, maybe next winter...
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I don't care for sandy beaches but for nice landscapes, like the one in your photograph, can you recommend a good website or travel guide?
At winter when no body isn't swimming, many beaches offer nice rocks on foreground and ND-filter can smoothen the waves and south side of islands offer beaches getting sunrise and sunset light, or at least either one.
Just came back from Crete (one of Greece islands). Definitely not crowded at this time of year, didn't see any other tourists - very nice as I hate the package tourists... However if you visit this time of year, be prepared for some rain and cold nights (indoors as houses have almost no heating or insulation - and hotels are mostly empty, rooms can be very cold in first night).
Nice thing about Adobe Lightroom is that it gives nice statistics, with it's search filters.
FE35 statistics:
FE35 statistics:
I had FE35 and FE55 with me, as well as ZE135 (used with 5DmkII). FE35 and FE55 are "too close" to each another from perspective point of view for me, really would have preferred FE28 instead 35mm. Maybe later, but unfortunately Sony seems keen on 24mm focal length, which I find too wide to combine with normal lens. Well, can't have it all, maybe just have to stick with ZE series lenses... First few days it rained quite often, due to which FE55 got much more usage for hood protecting the front polarizer filter from rain (the 58mm Hoya rubber hood can be fully extended with FE55).
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/35 FE @ f/8.0, 1/30s, ISO 100 @ Sony A7, Carl Zeiss T* Polarizer
Some photos with the A7 and the Konica 21/2,8, quite a rare one. My initial assessment is that is quite a nice lens, very sharp in the center of the frame and decent enough bokeh. However, it has strong field curvature (on the A7), significant chromatic aberration and not very strong extreme corners (but then, field curvature doesn't help here). Some examples:
MarcB83 wrote:
I ended up picking the Voigtlander Skopar 20/3.5 SL II on Nikon mount. Not as good as the Zeiss but incredibly compact and good enough for me. And much cheaper than either the 18 or 21 Zeiss.
Here's what Photozone.de had to say about i in their test:
"The Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical is a unique lens: it's the smallest ultra-wide angle lens available for full format DSLRs. Pancake lenses tend to have incorporated some compromises - usually they are comparatively slow and they never reach the performance levels of their bigger counterparts which can simply take advantage of more and bigger lens elements. The weaknesses of the Skopar are most noticeable at max. aperture. The lens produces a fairly extreme amount of vignetting (albeit not worse than e.g. the much bigger Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for instance) and the corners are plain soft. Generally you should avoid this setting unless you're looking for a center-pronounced close focus shot. However, the lens manages to produce decent results between f/5.6 and f/11 with a good sharpness distribution across the frame. The amount of distortions is moderate and lateral CAs are quite well controlled.
However, the key strength of the lens is not so much the optical performance but its extremely compact size and low weight. There're enough situations where you simply don't want to carry lens bricks (e.g. during outdoor- or travel photography) and this is where the Voigtlander really shines. Apart from this practical aspect it's also simply fun to handle such a well-built dwarfish lens. Some may criticize the lack of AF but, frankly, this is usually a non-issue in an ultra-wide lens and for precision focus you can simple switch your camera to Live-View mode. At around 500EUR/US$ it's not a cheap item but not more expensive than conventional prime lenses in this range.
All-in-all it's a interesting lens for low-weight and small size fanatics (and that does possibly include the author), less so for those seeking for maximum performance."...Show more →
designet wrote:
Juan, I just got the Olympus 21/3.5 with encouragement from rji2goleez. I am really enjoying it. As you search for your own copy, you may want to look into the question of single or multi coating. Here's a link.
sculptormic wrote:
Juan the VC Ultron 21 is really sharp. has some color cast on the sides but it is easy to correct.
The Canon 20/2.8 is good too, less sharp, but no corner problems.
The C/Y Zeiss Distagon 18/4 does work well also on the A7r.
But the Olympus is nice and small and not to expensive. Never used it myself.
Tested the Minolta MD 20/2.8 the other day and it is no good, not a straight line to find. Very hard to correct distortion. The VC is very good for architecture, almost no distortion.
AGeoJO wrote:
Several years back I bought an Oly 21mm f/3.5 under the condition to be able to return it to the seller if it didn't meet my satisfaction. I wasn't really impressed with its performance and I ended up returning that lens. I am sure it was the single coating version, BTW. Fast forward to just 10 days ago, I bought a mint one locally. The price has doubled but it is an MC version. I am sure that it doesn't have to do with the version, whether it is an MC or not and simply with a copy-to-copy variation but boy, what a difference in the performance between what tried before and the one I have now! A truly remarkable lens and it is so tiny .
I compared it to my Zeiss ZF.2 Distagon and after f/5.6 they both basically perform about the same. And the Oly is a fraction of the weight and bulk of the Zeiss. Did I mention that it is a small lens ? It is basically the same size as the Oly to Sony E adapter. I am looking into getting the f/2.0 version now and it is even rarer than the f/3.5 version and double the price, if not more....Show more →
Thanks for all guys. I think my choice is the Zuiko 21
, Manu! Did you do some upward shifting on that one?
but it is an MC version. I am sure that it doesn't have to do with the version, whether it is an MC or not and simply with a copy-to-copy variation
.