Phillip Reeve wrote:
nice one!
Do you use the LA-EA3 or LA-EA4?
How well does the OS work and what is your impression of the lens?
Hi Phillip!
Neither actually. The lens is the Nikon F mount version that i had for my film body (F90x). I used a mechanical adapter, and had to focus manually... Video and Photos... For Landscape and Portrait shots it was ok, but in action shots it was a bit harder... I still managed to get a few good ones but i am now considering to try out an AF option for this range...
We set the path that he was supposed to ski down, and i skied first to set up shop. I prefocused (lens works only in manual on the A7) where we said that he will go through and fired the shutter in burst mode as he came down.
sebboh wrote:
very nice phillip! do you find the bokina to be considerably better for macro than your rokkor 100/4?
certainly!
the Minolta is extending in two directions when you focus it. This results in a pretty high resistance, focusing is anything but smooth. This really bothered me. The Bokina in contrast has a perfect amount of reistance in my opinion.
the Minolta lens has a really short focus throw from 1m to infinity which makes it harder to focus precisely at longe distances. The Tokina travels arount 60 degrees from 1m to infinity which is fine.
I prefer the Bokina's bokeh which is pretty close to perfect. The Minolta isn't bad in absolute terms but much worse in relative terms.
bot lenses are super sharp. I never compared them directly but both are sharp from corner to corner at every aperture.
I think the Minolta migh be a bit better corrected for CA. In high contrast scenes at f/2.5 I have seen some fringing but this might be gone by f/4.
The Bokina is quite heavy at 530g vs 380g for the Minolta.
That Tokina is my favorite lens at the moment and I sold the Minolta for 30€ less than what I had payed for the Bokina.
I am wondering whether the Zeiss 2/100 or Zuiko 2/90 would be much better than the Bokina. f/2 would be nice to have but from what I have seen so far I think they suffer more from bokeh fringing than the Bokina.
the bokina is a good lens but man it really is a tank for the max aperture.
my copy is the Vivitar Series 1 variety, I definitely think it was worth the price I paid for it. I don't know what it typically goes for, but it's clearly the winner in that price range.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I am wondering whether the Zeiss 2/100 or Zuiko 2/90 would be much better than the Bokina. f/2 would be nice to have but from what I have seen so far I think they suffer more from bokeh fringing than the Bokina.
OM 90/2 is great! And I love the bokeh as well. I think it's one of the best bokehs in the Zuiko lineup.
lenticular11 wrote:
Superb shots this page once again.
ADVICE PLEASE:
I may be picky, but the images I'm often getting out of my A7R (all alt, but generally 1st class lenses) often have more noise than I would expect.
I dont think you're picky. The A7 is noisier than Canon 5D2 (ancient alert!) at base ISO with default settings in ACR. Easy enough to get rid of with NR but it surprised me and there's always a cost with NR. Not so much for a sky but more so on some structural surface where you'll lose some "organics".
stass wrote:
OM 90/2 is great! And I love the bokeh as well. I think it's one of the best bokehs in the Zuiko lineup.
Stass (or anyone else) can you provide sample of some more challenging boke situation - this kind of photo, where background is +20x distance compared to subject is not showing anything else than boke quantity, any lens will do just fine in this kind of scenario - I'm personally more interested about quality.
EDIT: Aaargh, this one is expensive, cheapest ones >800EUR in eBay....
Im sure he will be along to post, but the OM 90/2 and 50/2 have the best OoF rendering of any lenses IMO excepting what the 50 does with specular highlights stopped down (too few aperture blades).
Im sure he will be along to post, but the OM 90/2 and 50/2 have the best OoF rendering of any lenses IMO excepting what the 50 does with specular highlights stopped down (too few aperture blades).
unsurprisingly (since we have opposite views on what makes a lens draw pleasing), i disagree. i shot an OM 90/2 macro briefly and didn't care much for it's rendering. the transition from in focus to out of focus is sharper than any other lens i've used i believe. the actual out of focus rendering is decent but not great with fair bit of bokeh fringing. it's possible i might have been more impressed with it if i hadn't been comparing it directly against the cv 125 apo, which does have the most beautiful (to me) rendering i've seen in a macro. nice gentle transitions to oof no bokeh fringing, clean accurate color, and smooth smooth bokeh.
redisburning wrote:
Im sure he will be along to post, but the OM 90/2 and 50/2 have the best OoF rendering of any lenses IMO excepting what the 50 does with specular highlights stopped down (too few aperture blades).
It's sad that so many old lenses have only 5 or 6 blades - so many great legendary lenses ruined by that. Of course it depends on usage, and in some usage this isn't much of an issue. But regardless it would be nice to see OM 90/2 (and why not OM 50/2) A7/A7r samples.
BTW. As I'm not 100% happy to FE55 rendering style (emphasis on style, not commenting about "performance") also boke quality is quite "iffy" for my taste. I just ordered C/Y 1.4/50 and only thing I'm doubting is the closed down aperture shape due to 6-blade aperture. Not much choices as ZE 1.4/50 is difficult and frustrating to operate on A7 and A7r due to focus shift, ZF version focuses to wrong direction and I really hate MP50 rendering style. Also I would prefer to wait for wide angle OTUS before wasting my last Euros to OTUS-lens...
?
