eheffa wrote:
I'm really enjoying your images Werner. I'm on page 214 & addicted to this thread.
For all the bad press the 24-70 F4 FE lens gets, I have seen many excellent images posted here.
You have a tremendous arsenal of glass & loads of experience with many fine lenses; What are your impressions of this lens?
Thanks.
-evan
Hi Evan,
thanks for your kind words.
The opinions about the 24/70 FE are very split and differed.
I like the lens a lot because it has its own right for its intended use. When traveling and walking around you will enjoy the versatility of the zoom range and the very good OSS.
It is a zoom and the optical quality is not on the level of the very best primes (and can't be).
Distortion of the lens at all focal lengths is very strong if you have straight lines of buildings etc you have to use the lens profile in LR to correct which works very good (or use Jpegs ooc). Sure there is then some interpolation going on but with the A7R you can't tell it in prints (i print up to A2, Epson 3800). Landscape or people usually needs no profile and correction. CA's are pretty low and easily corrected.
At 24 mm the corners are not too good even stopped down (but corner performance is imo a little overrated and for some almost a fetish) but i used the lens at 24 a lot with no regrets. If you zoom in between 35 and 60 the lens performance is at its best. At 70 is a bit weaker but still very good for portraits etc.
Tu sum up: The lens is up to my expectations for a midrange zoom, very versatile and you can shoot great pic with it.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hi Jack, thanks for clarifying but I'm still slightly confused what is the benefit of using ND filters this way. For example your photo on last page was f/2.8, 1/60s, ISO 100 with ND 0.6 (=2 stop filter) ==> EV 11 light. Without filter it would have been 1/250s, which I would have preferred to avoid camera shake (if shoot handheld). From image capture point of view only difference on this kind of light is the shutter speed, and effect is negative not positive. On much brighter conditions (EV 15 or brighter, assuming photographer wants to shoot this scene with f/2.8) there could be benefit of avoiding EFCS caused vignetting, but it can also be done by disabling EFCS (if one has patience to go through the menu and finally find the setting).
From LCD/viewfinder point of view there is no different with or without the ND filter in this kind of light. In very bright light (1/8000s situations) camera may use smaller aperture to protect sensor from too much light, in which case I understand what you mean by LCD being sharper etc.
Hi Samuli - I think most of the problem here is I'm having difficult in describing what I originally was trying to convey. Plus my examples I choose to use were made in a hurry and don't help. I agree in the examples I used one could just have easily stepped down lens or lowered shutter speed to achieve same results. I don't want to distract from this thread to much in big discussion on ND filters. Here is a link to better examples for quick look at what I was talking about maybe.... ND filter - Before and After
tjack wrote:
Hi Samuli - I think most of the problem here is I'm having difficult in describing what I originally was trying to convey. Plus my examples I choose to use were made in a hurry and don't help. I agree in the examples I used one could just have easily stepped down lens or lowered shutter speed to achieve same results. I don't want to distract from this thread to much in big discussion on ND filters. Here is a link to better examples for quick look at what I was talking about maybe.... ND filter - Before and After
Hi Jack,
But your link is to ND grad filters and not straight ND filters. There is a big difference. ND grad filters darken some parts of the frame and not others. This is very useful when there is more dynamic range than the camera can capture. Regular ND filters, however, darken all of the frame equally. They basically function to allow slower shutter speeds, as far as I know. I think what people are confused by is why the lower shutter speeds in your examples are useful, or maybe you are using ND grads and then we could easily understand why you might want to use them.
I explained my examples are not good choice of ND filter use. ND grad and ND hard have similar use, I use both. Also look Big Stopper link for ND hard before and after example. Hard ND filters also increase capture of Dynamic Range of whole image, not just for slowing shutter.
The opinions about the 24/70 FE are very split and differed.
I like the lens a lot because it has its own right for its intended use. When traveling and walking around you will enjoy the versatility of the zoom range and the very good OSS.
It is a zoom and the optical quality is not on the level of the very best primes (and can't be).
Distortion of the lens at all focal lengths is very strong if you have straight lines of buildings etc you have to use the lens profile in LR to correct which works very good (or use Jpegs ooc). Sure there is then some interpolation going on but with the A7R you can't tell it in prints (i print up to A2, Epson 3800). Landscape or people usually needs no profile and correction. CA's are pretty low and easily corrected.
At 24 mm the corners are not too good even stopped down (but corner performance is imo a little overrated and for some almost a fetish) but i used the lens at 24 a lot with no regrets. If you zoom in between 35 and 60 the lens performance is at its best. At 70 is a bit weaker but still very good for portraits etc.
Tu sum up: The lens is up to my expectations for a midrange zoom, very versatile and you can shoot great pic with it.
tjack wrote:
I explained my examples are not good choice of ND filter use. ND grad and ND hard have similar use, I use both. Also look Big Stopper link for ND hard before and after example. Hard ND filters also increase capture of Dynamic Range of whole image, not just for slowing shutter.
Hard, in addition to soft, is a type of ND grad filter. Its refers to the transition of the ND portion, be it a subtle transition, useful for most scenes, or a hard edge, which is very pronounced, but that works well for things like seascapes where the horizon line is distinct and flat across the frame.
It sounds like your calling a basic ND filter, not a ND grad filter, hard ?
It furthermore sounds like your suggesting that using a ND filter, not a ND grad filter, will increase the dynamic range ?
Correct, there are many kinds and then they can be used upside down, rotated and stacked also many strengths so gets confusing for many people sometimes because of all the choices.
Set the record straight:
There are two options for mounting ND filters to your lens:
1.) Buy 1 or more glass filters to screw onto the end of your lens
2.) Buy a filter system and a collection of ND filters to slot into it
Additionally there are at least 4 common types of ND filters available:
xbarcelo wrote:
Yes, tjack, we know there are many different types of ND filters, but which ones are you using when you claim that they improve sharpness and colours?
I'm using my secret ones that I'm not telling you about cause only I have them...haha
Just kidding, but I thought I already answered that in that the filters don't do that they only help with correct exposure.
in a moment of break from work in Padua, not far from my office, I ended up in the quarter-finals of a soccer tournament, the light was blinding. I'm not really comfortable shooting when the movements are fast, manual focus has limits and I really am no expert in this, I tried my best. I think the ball has rewarded me.
