Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Hi Stephen
I miss your post sry 
I'm not so impressed by 24-105
it's ok and pretty sharp but I can agree with you on rendering
it draws pretty flat
I think my prime and contax 100-300 are better at this
but a zoom is so smooth on travel and not having to change lenses or trying to move back or forth which is usually not so easy in the field .. as i said I am not completely satisfied .. see in the future maybe I switch back to primes instead again maybe loxia 35-50-85 will see
just in that picture it was good light and good conditions .. otherwise it was very bad conditions on the whole last Icelandic trip, which surely reflected how the pictures became overall
I probably say that my Icelandic pictures from this trip don't have the same quality as my other two trip from Iceland
My thoughts
but sure the lenses are important also and on this trip I use 24-105 and 100-400 for 95% off the pictures
I think 100-300 contax is better for landscape then 100-400 also
but 100-400 GM is so much better at other things and motives and so good to have AF etc.
Ronny
...Show more →
Ronny -- Thank you for your detailed report on the use of Sony 24-105 on your most recent Iceland trip.
I agree 100% with what you've said, and I appreciate hearing it from someone I whose work I admire and seek to emulate.
First, I agree that the 24-105 is less contrasty and slightly less sharp compared to the lenses we have used from Zeiss, in my case the Loxia series and ZE/ZF series. In many conditions, this works to the benefit of the 24-105, where contrast is very high, especially at low sun angle at more extreme latitudes, like Norway, Iceland, and the Pacific Northwest/Alaska. In some cases, the Zeiss mentioned above are TOO contrasty for me -- not that it can't be handled in post, but some views are excellent with 24-105, as seen in many of Joshua's travels like Borneo and twilight scenes.
Second -- Like you, I agree changing lenses can be a hassle and opens the door to fumbling in the field and hurting great equipment, or allowing moisture or blowing debris into camera sensor. I like to keep things as tight as possible, especially if inclement weather threatens. In this case, the zooms are amazing values and much less worry.
My overall preference is for primes as well: I love the Loxia series, the Zeiss Classic (haven't had the $ to get into Milvus or Otus), and some of Canon's L such as the TS-E and a few others. But when it comes to traveling, even for a weekend or week, I prefer to have a couple zooms to act as my foundation, even if I take and use a few primes most of the time. I've enjoyed my Sony 12-24 and 24-105 quite a bit, but as you say, there are compromises in sharpness, contrast, and I'll add color fidelity.
I think you did amazingly well with the 24-105 in particular with those flat lighting circumstances you encountered. Certainly it is not the dramatic skies and peekaboo sunlight we've seen in your past visits (I still recall vividly the backlit "Troll" in bay with the glancing sunlight!, as well as your ice-on-the shore shots).
I'm impressed with the results being shown by talented FM members using Sigma's latest zooms, and I may later pursue one or two of them, starting with the 14-24 Art and see how it compares to my Sony 12-24.
Thanks again, as always, for your inspiring photos and technical info.
|
