That seems like just about the perfect travel kit to me, 12-24G and 24-70GM.
Thanks Gary and Jim!
Yes, those two lenses do make a good travel pair. They rode on the bicycle throughout Mallorca but I did sneak a couple of primes to shoot after cycling!
Ronny, great work from Iceland, your trip definitely was worth it even weather was challenging. Technical question: is the 16-35 really so soft (or weak microcontrast) compared to Loxia 21 (and Loxia 50)? Or is it because 16-35 photos were shoot with A7mkII and Loxia 21/50 photos with A7r mkII, and your downscaling process from larger megapixel camera results sharper images?
If you compare sharpness (on forum size images) for example this Loxia 50 image and this Loxia 21 image then all 16-35 images have much weaker micro-contrast and sharpness (pick any, non of them are even close to as sharp as Loxia photos).
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Ronny, great work from Iceland, your trip definitely was worth it even weather was challenging. Technical question: is the 16-35 really so soft (or weak microcontrast) compared to Loxia 21 (and Loxia 50)? Or is it because 16-35 photos were shoot with A7mkII and Loxia 21/50 photos with A7r mkII, and your downscaling process from larger megapixel camera results sharper images?
If you compare sharpness (on forum size images) for example this Loxia 50 image and this Loxia 21 image then all 16-35 images have much weaker micro-contrast and sharpness (pick any, non of them are even close to as sharp as Loxia photos).
Thanks Samuli
You are absolutely right. My 16-35 f4 is much weaker than Loxia 21 and 50
If that's because I only used it on A7II instead of A7R II ..I don't know .. but I agree with you
is not the same punch in the zoom images as on Loxia
It may be because I used it on many pictures at 16 or 35mm which are probably the weakest focal lengths ?
if I can find equal pictures and edit in exactly the same way where I use 16-35 on 21mm any compare it to loxia 21 and upload something so we can compare ..if there is an interest in a comparison
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Thanks Samuli
You are absolutely right. My 16-35 f4 is much weaker than Loxia 21 and 50
If that's because I only used it on A7II instead of A7R II ..I don't know .. but I agree with you
is not the same punch in the zoom images as on Loxia
It may be because I used it on many pictures at 16 or 35mm which are probably the weakest focal lengths ?
if I can find equal pictures and edit in exactly the same way where I use 16-35 on 21mm any compare it to loxia 21 and upload something so we can compare ..if there is an interest in a comparison...Show more →
I believe 16-25 is supposed to be the stronger FL for this lens with 35 being the weakest.
Gunzorro wrote:
Are you just hitting all the tourist hotspots with your new Laowa 15?
Great shots, Guy!
Actually getting images for a show in January. Im in charge of ALL multi media stuff and I like to open the show with photography and what city we are in. I do this for NY as well. Actually going to NY this month.
My wife runs a big Model and Talent convention and I do a lot of photography for it and also to support it via presentations and anything that goes on the big screen. Im that guy.
But having said that this is the easiest gig I ever done. Just go out and shoot. Gotta love that
Ronny, I also assumed that that it just doesn't have the same punch as Loxias. It's difficult to match Loxia 21 & 50 (& 35 and 85) on landscapes. Few months ago I was afraid you getting this zoom that it may not get results you are familiar with other lenses.
Phillip's 16-35 looks plenty sharp on forum size, thou lacking same kind of punch what Loxia 21 images have.
I have already 3 times decided to not buy Loxia 21, and I'm again considering it...Then again realizing that I never would shoot landscapes with so wide lens, and having better lenses for 21mm boke shooting, and then not considering buying it anymore...
I'm not getting the difference between shot 2 and 3. They look the same at quick comparison. Something you wanted to compare in them?
Nah just accidentally pasted the same image twice but thanks for pointing it out to me