Phillip Reeve wrote:
Nice one. Have you raided a truck carrying nice lenses btw?
sorta, nehemiah has been nice enough to let me try out some of his lenses.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
And how well do you get along with focusing that Minolta manually?
the manual focus is actually really quick and easy, no trouble tracking or focusing quickly. much nicer than the focus by wire lenses. my main gripes are that it is that the ring is tiny and in an odd place making it difficult to reach for instinctively and that it is too loose, you can't let go of it and expect it to stay.
Nexed wrote:
I think your Venice images are a spectacular advertisement for the 35mm f/1.4. Love what you do with it.
First attempt at some astro photography. Used the Irix 15mm, and unexpectedly managed to capture a Lyrid meteor:
Thank you very much!
Your first attempt is richly rewarded - very well done!
Greggf wrote:
Joshua...Never tire of your (any of your) images!
Great grabs everyone!
Gregg
A7rll and Nikon 28 2.8 ais.
Thank you, Gregg!
I had the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS. It was a great lens alright but I think the A7r II sensor brings out more out of that lens than the native Nikon body I had before (D700). I love what you did with it, Gregg!
I posted a similar image before but not this one... Again, from Venice during the carnival.
sebboh wrote:
sorta, nehemiah has been nice enough to let me try out some of his lenses.
the manual focus is actually really quick and easy, no trouble tracking or focusing quickly. much nicer than the focus by wire lenses. my main gripes are that it is that the ring is tiny and in an odd place making it difficult to reach for instinctively and that it is too loose, you can't let go of it and expect it to stay.
More Wild Garlic (Ransom) following last weeks post when I felt it needed another week or two - just about there now, and still a little earlier than previous years in this spot - Damery Woods, Glos.
A7RII - couple with Yashica ML 15mm Fisheye
Rokkor 40mm CLE LM fit with close focus adapter. F2
avalon27 wrote:
More Wild Garlic (Ransom) following last weeks post when I felt it needed another week or two - just about there now, and still a little earlier than previous years in this spot - Damery Woods, Glos.
I recently came across a loxia 50 for a great price and am considering replacing my C/Y 50mm f1.7 and 35-70 with it. It has been glued on my a7ii for the past few days and am very surprised with how well the rendering compliments my c/y 28mm f2.8. The build quality, size, and feel are also a perfect in my opinion.
I wish I had more time to visit this site. It is so inspiring.
I am not a commercial photographer, but have a lot of musician friends. I often do informal photoshoots for them when they need photographs for professional purposes.
This is my first outing with the FE 85/1.8 -- I am thoroughly convinced about the quality of this lens. With A7rII eye-af!!!
sebboh wrote:
i think it might actually be smaller than the OM.
i'm considering getting one and trying to stick it in a rokkor 135/2.8 body...
The Minolta's diameter seems to be 7 mm smaller than the OM but length the same (flange focal distance considered). Does the Minolta have floating elements btw.?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The Minolta's diameter seems to be 7 mm smaller than the OM but length the same (flange focal distance considered). Does the Minolta have floating elements btw.?
I have seen your killer images with the OM Phillip. After owning the 100 ZF, CY, Mino and OM, I settled on the Mino. The Mino has better color, is lighter, cheaper and smaller and I believe sharper (though they are both quite sharp even WO). The OM has better focusing distance, smoother bokeh, and much heavier build and longer focus throw. I personally don't like the heaviness or long throw, but many other will. The only one left in that range I'd really like to try is the r 90 cron.
Derek has been lending me some of his gear too.
Little 100 Mino celebration below--just got it about 2/3 weeks ago.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I have seen your killer images with the OM Phillip. After owning the 100 ZF, CY, Mino and OM, I settled on the Mino. The Mino has better color, is lighter, cheaper and smaller and I believe sharper (though they are both quite sharp even WO). The OM has better focusing distance, smoother bokeh, and much heavier build and longer focus throw. I personally don't like the heaviness or long throw, but many other will. The only one left in that range I'd really like to try is the r 90 cron.
Derek has been lending me some of his gear too.
Little 100 Mino celebration below--just got it about 2/3 weeks ago....Show more →
I think the OM is still the better choice for me because I rarely need fast manual focus but appreciate a smooth proper manual focus ring. If I compare the MTF charts for the Minolta and the Olympus the Minolta is a bit sharper in the center wo but the Olympus is a bit stronger in the midzone. Stopped down the Minot has again the edge with less astigmatism/CA and a bit better contrast. But as you say thsoe differences are minor in practice.
The Olympus weights 520 g, the Minolta 473 g. Do you feel that is a significant difference? And how would you rate them in regard to axial CA?
Axial CA is very reasonable--it's often no present except WO and in bright contrast situations. Even then, it never takes more than 5 on the fringing tool remover in LR. It's much better than the FD 85 1.2 you reviewed. It's never ruined a photo, or been enough to cause gray blobs where purple/green use to be. I would say in that regard it's slightly worse than the OM 100 as the contrast of the lens is higher, but essentially the same. It's a non-issue. See first set of crops. My za 85 or 85 FD would fringe much worse.
Weight wise, 50g is not bad. The OM extends further when focusing all the way in addition to being larger/heavier, so the Minolta 100 feels better balanced and less heavy on the a7 to me. The OM has heavy feeling build, like a metal/brass type stuff. The Mino is more made of high quality plastics, so not as nice feeling, though doesn't feel cheap at all.
The one thing that is worse than the OM is the bokeh fringing. Bokeh on the Mino is busier (structurally) and higher contrast (color wise), and everyone once in a while I get fringing that's noticeable. I would say it's similar to the CY 100 f2. See 2nd set of crops. Obviously, bokeh fringing is harder to correct. By 2.8 is much much better, and f4 it's gone.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Axial CA is very reasonable--it's often no present except WO and in bright contrast situations. Even then, it never takes more than 5 on the fringing tool remover in LR. It's much better than the FD 85 1.2 you reviewed. It's never ruined a photo, or been enough to cause gray blobs where purple/green use to be. I would say in that regard it's slightly worse than the OM 100 as the contrast of the lens is higher, but essentially the same. It's a non-issue. See first set of crops. My za 85 or 85 FD would fringe much worse.
Weight wise, 50g is not bad. The OM extends further when focusing all the way in addition to being larger/heavier, so the Minolta 100 feels better balanced and less heavy on the a7 to me. The OM has heavy feeling build, like a metal/brass type stuff. The Mino is more made of high quality plastics, so not as nice feeling, though doesn't feel cheap at all.
The one thing that is worse than the OM is the bokeh fringing. Bokeh on the Mino is busier (structurally) and higher contrast (color wise), and everyone once in a while I get fringing that's noticeable. I would say it's similar to the CY 100 f2. See 2nd set of crops. Obviously, bokeh fringing is harder to correct. By 2.8 is much much better, and f4 it's gone....Show more →
thanks
I should have said not only is the bokeh smoother on the OM, I found the transition zones smoother too, which is pretty important to the feel of the image but I don't think as many other shooters are so concerned about that.
. I am well covered with the OM 2/100 though.
