Werner, nice to see we share the same taste for a reasonable walkabout lens on the A7r.
Here are mine from this week.
LEICA APO-TELYT-R 280 mm f/2.8 & A7r
The first one is a stitch from a tripod. The second one is a two frame vertical position handheld stitch.
The third one is a three frame, vertical position, handheld stitch. The rest is handheld uncropped.
On the last two, the lens's aperture was fully opened. On the rest, I don't remember.
Here are some images taken with my A7r with my Leica R 28mm f2.8 Elmarit V2 lens. Images taken this evening along Jordan Creek, Trexler Nature Preserve, Schnecksville, PA and along Old Packhouse Road in Schnecksville, PA. All images processed in LR5.3. Unfortunately I am starting to find some spots in some bright areas of the sky in many images. I am waiting for the Sensor Swabs with Eclipse from B&H; they are out of stock. I hope I can get these off of the sensor glass.
I’ve been putzing around the house trying to figure out what of the glass collection should probably go, and the logical place to start was the Fujis that haven’t seen any use since I sold off the XE1. The 35 and 55 I won’t have any problem letting go of, but I do really like the 100/2.8, mostly for the colors. I don’t know that I’d have much reason to choose it over my other 100ish lenses, so I’m not sure that I’m keeping it, but it’s a very nice budget 100.
@Minomaniac
Wow, what you can do handheld with the Beast is fantastic! Had the feeling that even on the monopod it was shaky...
In those film-days i used the lens rarely and i had more misses than hits it was a pain with low ISO's and the wait for the film to be developed. Now we can check instantly and use higher shutter speeds with high ISO...
What speed are you using handheld? Have to try HH...
I have the Tele-converter Apo x1.4 = 400/4.0, will try it soon.
I was using a shutter speed of 1/640s for the hand-held shots. I think 1/1250s would be advisable. Nevertheless I thing that the lens is better used with a mono-pod with ballhead or a tripod, as you did.
Albeit, I hand-held the Minolta AF 300/2.8 APO G for several hours, with some breaks in between on the A850 with the grip attached and that worked fine.
The Minolta is a bit lighter than the Leitz dumbbell and therefore handles better hand-held.
I suggest you go out and look at look at depth of field calculators for the parameters you have discussed in this respect. If you are focused at 2 meters, then having an OOF background is absolutely within expectation by about 6 meters or so. Even if you are at 3 meters, there will still be an OOF background, but it may be pretty far back, say, about 20 meters back.
Notice how rapidly the DOF collapses behind the focuc point as you go from 3 to 2 meters... you can't be casual about the distance in this kind of discussion because a small change in focus distance can create the appearance of differences in performance, when it really was a difference in the geometry of the setup.
In other words, you are not focused at a hyperfocal distance at f/11 with that lens and distance, so there is going to be clear differentiation in the subject/background rendering.
---Michael...Show more →
Yes of course, if strictly talking DOF calculations for pixel peeping/large print sizes with small watching distance - my point was that at size of small web thumbnails we show here in forum there usually is not as big subject separation from background. My references for this are Zeiss 2/35 and 1.4/35, with which I have shoot thousands of photos in past years. For reason or another I get constant surprises with FE35 at small apertures (f/8-16); "Hmmm, I would have assumed background objects being sharper based on earlier experience shooting with ZE2/35 or ZE1.4/35 lenses".
And no, this definitely is not problem - I generally find traditional all sharp from front to back landscapes rather boring, and I try to avoid this kind of boring "only 2D" compositions, but naturally sometimes there is no option and one is forced to take such photos.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
FE35 has systematically ugliest boke at large enlargements/pixel peeping I have seen any lens to produce. BUT this only happens when background is on multiple depths and having transparency/holes, for example forest where there are branches from pine tree in 3m, then there is forest behind = really ugly boke. This poked my eye first time I brought FE35 to forest (see my post on page 21, post #2, photo 2 and 2b). Photo I posted above had rather "single distance" boke, so it looks rather nice on boke.
I agree that the pleasingness of pixel-peep bokeh has not been a major design consideration.
Term "cross-eyed boke" I learned from Lloyd, he mentioned it in this blog post and in corresponding paid article.
I don't pay, but since he also refers to it as "double-image bokeh" I assume he is talking about overcorrected spherical aberration. In that case the reason for the rather nice bokeh in the photo you posted above is more likely that it was shot at f/11, versus f/2.8 for the ugly one. A theory of single vs. multiple distance layers sounds too fantastic.
Yes of course, if strictly talking DOF calculations for pixel peeping/large print sizes with small watching distance - my point was that at size of small web thumbnails we show here in forum there usually is not as big subject separation from background.
I don't know whether your lens deviates wildly from the theory, but to me the image does not appear to be in glaring contrast to the sketched scenario. A theoretical 2-pixel background blur disk is within the possibilities of your scenario, and then I am talking about your 1280-px wide 'thumbnail'.
Toothwalker wrote:
In that case the reason for the rather nice bokeh in the photo you posted above is more likely that it was shot at f/11, versus f/2.8 for the ugly one. A theory of single vs. multiple distance layers sounds too fantastic.
Paul, this is the only "theory" I have come up. However I'm also not so keen on thinking everything purely from theory point of view; there are way too many things which are supposed to exactly same from theory perspective, but different from visual appearance, which matters more for photographers.
I have not yet seen this super ugly boke in my or other people photos where background is made from planar non-transparent&continuous subjects (e.g. most scenarios in urban photography). Even I really tried (strong complex textures in backgrounds etc.) I have not been able to repeat the super ugly boke in urban environment. But it happens almost every "DOF photo" I attempt to take in forest where this "multiple distance layers" scenario is present.
Both Lloyd and myself observed that, when this "cross-eyed boke" happens, it takes a lot of closing down to get it better; in most of my photos it's as bad f/5.6 as it was f/2.8, f/8 slightly better and f/11 starts to become normal. That might be normal for "overcorrected spherical aberration", which I'm not so familiar in practice. Majority of older Zeiss design I'm familiar are not having boke issues with double-image boke/overcorrected spherical aberration, but other kind of issues instead.
Michigan Hall of Justice, known locally as the Taj Mahal. I just attended a training conference there. Ted was one of the other students.
Thanks for looking.
Mark
first shot with the 24-70 FE
lobby of the Supreme Court looking at the state capitol
I am waiting for the Sensor Swabs with Eclipse from B&H; they are out of stock. I hope I can get these off of the sensor glass.
