Some photos from Stockholm, Sweden. It's a real rune stone fragment in #5 btw.. Most people just walk by thinking that it's fake.
A7II and CV 40/1.2 E.
HelenaN wrote:
Some photos from Stockholm, Sweden. It's a real rune stone fragment in #5 btw.. Most people just walk by thinking that it's fake.
A7II and CV 40/1.2 E.
HelenaN wrote:
Some photos from Stockholm, Sweden. It's a real rune stone fragment in #5 btw.. Most people just walk by thinking that it's fake.
A7II and CV 40/1.2 E.
HelenaN wrote:
Some photos from Stockholm, Sweden. It's a real rune stone fragment in #5 btw.. Most people just walk by thinking that it's fake.
A7II and CV 40/1.2 E.
HelenaN wrote:
Some photos from Stockholm, Sweden. It's a real rune stone fragment in #5 btw.. Most people just walk by thinking that it's fake.
A7II and CV 40/1.2 E.
Helena, I am joining the choir, what a fantastic set of images you posted there!
Sony a7RII with Zeiss C/Y Vario-Sonnar 100-300mm. A little bit of rain in the morning so we had good visibility, unprocessed JPEGs as I'm pretty happy as is (except sensor blob).
I usually shoot the Sigma 150-600C and shot a few similar pictures with both lenses - the Sigma is sharper, especially in the corners at 300mm, barely any CA, but also more than twice as heavy, twice as long, twice the diameter. And most importantly the Sigma somehow _feels_ at least 3 times heavier and larger than the Zeiss - the Vario-Sonnar feels seriously tiny in comparison. The focus ring on my Sigma is a little sticky but the Vario-Sonnar is harder to focus because there's so little throw at near infinity.
The Sigma and Zeiss behave different in the highlights, or rather when image is exposed longer and parts of the image are brighter, the Vario-Sonnar is sort of dreamy and the Sigma is just sharp and clinical.
JadedWriter wrote:
Everything was shot using the 135GM. How come?
I was curious as I really like the rendering. I have the 135GM and depending on available light I switch between it and the 100 STF. I'm always impressed by the images these lenses help produce. The 135 rendering does come close to the STF.
I'm curious about the STF lens, but it seems very niche. I already know I can't use it for indoor event work. Corporate headshots sure, but I already use my 70-200GM for those. I guess I could get one for flower shots at least. The 135 renders really well though. I've been liking it more and more the more I use it, shot a lot of an event with it last week and that pretty much sealed it for my no regrets lens. saxguy wrote:
I was curious as I really like the rendering. I have the 135GM and depending on available light I switch between it and the 100 STF. I'm always impressed by the images these lenses help produce. The 135 rendering does come close to the STF.
I have a few shots with the STF in the a7r iv image thread and the 135mm thread. In good light it's a great lens, but I think with the 135, 95% of what the STF can do for non closeup work can be achieved.
