One from today. This is an experiment. Blend of two images--one with SR app, the other long exposure. The SR app is not always so good with light trails as there are more obvious breaks in the trails. Need to keep experimenting. Anyway, not sure this works entirely. Anyone spot why?
I don't think you'll ever get smooth light trails with the SR app. The cars are moving too fast and the camera doesn't expose continuously between shots (it doesn't fire fast enough). Then, the long exposure doesn't cover the gaps because the cars are not trailing in exactly the same place. You should just long exposure for this one.
rji2goleez wrote:
I don't think you'll ever get smooth light trails with the SR app. The cars are moving too fast and the camera doesn't expose continuously between shots (it doesn't fire fast enough). Then, the long exposure doesn't cover the gaps because the cars are not trailing in exactly the same place. You should just long exposure for this one.
Actually, the cars were barely moving--rush hour in Atlanta. The light trails are from a 25 or 30 second exposure....However, you are likely right that unless one combines many long exposure images, the SR app is probably not going to work.
Another from my recent Zion National Park trip. I love just wondering along the Virgin River between the canyon walls in the morning. The reflected light off the canyon walls and cottonwood trees create a magical atmosphere.
Even using the Laowa 12mm in this tight space was barely enough to capture it all. This is a cool library inside the Hotel Emma at the Pearl in SATX. The larger version is nicer to look at so you can see the detail in the image.
AGeoJO wrote:
Ronny,
I am not sure about the 16-35mm lens for you. Since you have the Loxia 21mm, I would consider getting a 12-15mm lens, if I were you. The transition from the Loxia to the 12mm is more meaningful. Currently, there are two 12mm lens available; the Voigtlander 12mm and Laowa 12mm.
Here in the US, the price of a used Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 is less than the Voigtlander and Laowa12mm new and both lenses are basically not available used. IMHO, the Voigtlander 12mm is really an awesome landscape lens and since you use tripod for that, the slow aperture should matter and the size/weight makes is better than Laowa 12mm and it transmits exif data as it is an FE lens. If you do a fair amount of cityscape or urban photography on the, the Laowa seems to be better distortion wise and it is faster, too, which may be great for astrophotography if you do that. ...Show more →
Agreed. While the 16-35 is solid, especially at 16-24mm, to me it always leaves a little to be desired. I think you'll find the RX1 Sonnar and Loxia 21 to be technically stronger Ronny, but with much more pleasing rendering regarding contrast, colors, and highlight and shadows. The 16-35 files needs more work, and to my eye, never quite match the subtle hues and wonderful nuance of those two lenses. I would go wider and keep your Loxia 21. I think Fred compared the 16-35 and 21 Loxia with a good copy of the 16-35, so maybe he can advise. I have owned all those lenses, but never done a shoot out. But the 16-35 is always the least desirable to me in terms of final image IQ and rendering (which makes sense at the price points and products' purposes).
AGeoJO wrote:
Ronny,
I am not sure about the 16-35mm lens for you. Since you have the Loxia 21mm, I would consider getting a 12-15mm lens, if I were you. The transition from the Loxia to the 12mm is more meaningful. Currently, there are two 12mm lens available; the Voigtlander 12mm and Laowa 12mm.
Here in the US, the price of a used Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 is less than the Voigtlander and Laowa 12mm new and both lenses are basically not available used. IMHO, the Voigtlander 12mm is really an awesome landscape lens and since you use tripod for that, the slow aperture should not matter and the size/weight makes is better than Laowa 12mm and it transmits exif data as it is an FE lens. If you do a fair amount of cityscape or urban photography, the Laowa seems to be better distortion wise and it is faster, too, which may be great for astrophotography if you do that. ...Show more →
Thanks guys
Is Voigtlander 12mm F5.6 M-mount ? See that Fred has in III- version ?
doesn't seem to find it in Sweden
rji2goleez wrote:
Joshua and Fred - Simply jaw dropping.
I was out at lunch with two lenses today . . . sort of a test to see if I would consider putting them up for sale due to limited use. These are with the Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 II. Every time I consider putting this up on the board, I take a few images and I'm in love with the colors and sharpness of this lens. It simply renders in a luxurious way. The the way these images end up down sized here doesn't do the images justice compared to what's on my monitor. All are at f/8...Show more →
Thank you very much, Bob!
I had that lens several years ago before and I really enjoyed it. Your images prove that it is really a superb performer. I am basically in the same boat as you with regards using lens or lenses you consider selling and ended up putting it back away. In my case it is the Sony 135mm f/1.8 Zeiss. I don't use it often enough but I don't have the motivation to sell it after looking at the images.
darrellc wrote:
I yawn at most BIF pics - these are artful, interesting, just great. Thx for all your sharing on FM!
Thank you for your kind words. I am flattered you like'm.
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Has received a offer to buy a FE16-35 f4
what do you think ? Have I any use of it ?
The price is quite oki for it in Sweden used ... no bargain though (800-850 dollar) New is $ 1,400 in sweden
My landscape lenses are now Loxia 21 and 50 also my fisheye Nikkor 16mm works ok
and then Rx1R with 35mm focal length
The idea is for trips to Lofoten and Iceland..thought it might be convenient in some cases with a Zoom...actually feels quite enough with those lenses I have ..or
Thanks
Ronny//
Edit ; know that the new GM 16-35 f2.8 probably come out this year .. but probably be out of my price range...Show more →
Do you need 16mm or maybe something in the 28-35 range ? If you want both then I'd consider it. If not and you are short of a 35 I'd buy the CV 35/1.7 instead, I just love this lens (thanks again to Helena and Philip for the inspiration).
If you want an UWA then I'd consider the CV 15/4.
Both of the CVs are so light you simply won't notice the addition to your bag.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Agreed. While the 16-35 is solid, especially at 16-24mm, to me it always leaves a little to be desired. I think you'll find the RX1 Sonnar and Loxia 21 to be technically stronger Ronny, but with much more pleasing rendering regarding contrast, colors, and highlight and shadows. The 16-35 files needs more work, and to my eye, never quite match the subtle hues and wonderful nuance of those two lenses. I would go wider and keep your Loxia 21. I think Fred compared the 16-35 and 21 Loxia with a good copy of the 16-35, so maybe he can advise. I have owned all those lenses, but never done a shoot out. But the 16-35 is always the least desirable to me in terms of final image IQ and rendering (which makes sense at the price points and products' purposes)....Show more →
Thanks .. I will of course keep loxia 21 .. I thought that I use 16-35 as an alternative to loxia 21.. Will see how I do .. in this case I think I go for a Wider lens
One from today. This is an experiment. Blend of two images--one with SR app, the other long exposure. The SR app is not always so good with light trails as there are more obvious breaks in the trails. Need to keep experimenting. Anyway, not sure this works entirely. Anyone spot why?
HelenaN wrote:
Beautiful day in town with A7II and CV Nokton 50/1.5 VM. Unfortunately it is now raining and it looks like it'll continue like that for a whole week.
At least you have taken more spectacular images on that day than I did for weeks. The short days are really annoying. It's dark when I go to work and it's dark when I come back..
