I've got an upcoming trip back to winter drear in Washington and trying to decide my lens selection for a7RII (and a7R, should it be needed). It's sure to be dark and wet, although I won't be shooting in pouring rain.
I knew I'd bring the EF 16-35/4L, having had good results with the 5DsR. Same for the earlier trips with the 50L in really dim surroundings. Same goes for the Sony 28/2. I'll take the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS in case of anything interesting in that vein (unlikely).
So the big question is whether to take the FE 24-70/4, the EF 24-70/2.8L, or the 24-105/4L.
Because of weather, cold and damp, I'm not inclined to take too many primes and change lenses too often. So will mostly use the 16-35 and a mid-range zoom. I like the Zony 24-70, but I'm thinking it's probably a little less sharp than either of the Canons.
Since it's been wet and gloomy here in So Cal, I've been shooting a lot of test shots to help decide. The latest was today with the 24-105L. And honestly, I'm reminded how good it is, at least my copy. Here is a series with mild PP, but no added lens profile or distortion correction used -- mainly just slight exposure and contrast, plus default LR CA correction. I've had good results with this in the past on the 5D2 and 1Ds3, and it seems it might be just the ticket for that mid-range coverage.
I'll bring a tripod, as I usually do, but odds are most of my shooting will be hand held, walking around town and woods.
Shots all taken hand held with Canon IS turned on. No vignetting correction applied.
Just wanted to see if there was a similar reaction to these shots. It seems the a7RII is making the lens look even better than the lower resolution bodies previously used. A welcome benefit.
24mm, and no distortion correction or lens profile -- not bad, right?
The opposite end -- 105mm. I know there is slight pin cushion, but not particularly evident here.
Mid-range 60mm -- still holding up pretty nicely. All have decent color and contrast and little fall-off @ f/5.6.
At the long end again, where this particular lens is weakest, unlike many copies, which are criticized for 24mm. Note: fairly undistorted curb line at top of frame.
Here's a neighbor's house, where lens profile and perspective correction were used, plus graduated filter used on sky and driveway, in addition to the previous adjustments. Just trying to get an assessment on overall side-to-side sharpness, which seems adequate, especially if I had used a tripod and f/11-13 and ISO 100.
And two contrasting images from Hamilton City's gardens with the new Loxia 85, both shot wide open. The first showed the one blemish I was able to induce with this lens - a touch of magenta fringing down the right hand side of Pan's body, very easily corrected in LR.
-John
ps. you make that Distagon sing, Bob - I'm loving mine, and the Loxia looks like it is in the same class...
Thanks for your input, Bob! I was hoping to rule out confirmation bias on my part. But it does look pretty good for a zoom. Not quite up to top prime level, but gotta live with some compromises. For now.
(Ha-ha! Love your "Stinky Butts" shot! )
I've got to get a photo on this historic page!
Here's another alternate to the 5DsR shot published earlier in October on the Canon forum (dual camera platform, shooting both cameras at once, with different Canon lenses). Using that same 24-105L lens above that I asked for outside opinion on.
! Here is another image from a studio session in this special page.
)