I used to wonder why Tibetans used to stare. I've been going since 2006, when the region had not seen many changes or visitors. Then one day I realised - eye colour, same as Sakyamuni in their monasteries. My reasoning for this shot below was: I needed best stability, so 1/80s and IBIS. I needed f2.8 for enough DOF and front-back shaping of the statue and aureole; and ISO 8000 was still below my imposed limit for the 42mp sensor of ISO 10000. The 85 is almost too good here. SW Tibet, in Tsang.
Joshua: Nice shot from downtown LA and impressive bird shots from CR on these last few pages. Not that you surprise anyone anymore with your remarkable skills .
Phillip: If I may ask, how did you process the above image? Looks very clean for ISO 8000.
Rene: Beautiful shot of the Zermatt region. I suppose this shot is from earlier this year or do you guys have very little snow this year?
Bob: I gotta say, you make a lens that I disliked when I had it, look very good. I don't have that much experience with CV lenses, but I found the 35 1.2 ii vm to have a weird, "over-the-top" rendition that wasn't too my liking.
Douglas: Beautiful sunrise shots.
Stephen: Nice light trails and sunstars with the 40 1.2.
More foliage with the 135 GM (stopped way down for DOF). In retrospect, the 100-400 would have worked better here (for a tighter shot), but I only had the 135 with me.
Chris_88 wrote:
Joshua: Nice shot from downtown LA and impressive bird shots from CR on these last few pages. Not that you surprise anyone anymore with your remarkable skills .
Thank you very much, Chris! The last few bird images are from Ecuador and not from CR although bird-wise the 2 countries are fairly similar to each other.
You certainly know how to make the GM 135mm lens sing with that foliage image!
________________________________________
Here are two images from the interior of the Getty Center using the Sigma FE 14-24mm DN at f/4 handheld on the A7r IV...
rji2goleez wrote:
First snaps with a new to me Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 vII. Nora is my faithful model. These are both wide open at f/1.2. Last time I used a copy of this lens was on my NEX-6. Love it on the A7rIV with the Techart adapter!
I consider purchasing this lens as well.How is the corner performance on your A7R4 Bob?
Chris_88 wrote:
Joshua: Nice shot from downtown LA and impressive bird shots from CR on these last few pages. Not that you surprise anyone anymore with your remarkable skills .
Phillip: If I may ask, how did you process the above image? Looks very clean for ISO 8000.
Rene: Beautiful shot of the Zermatt region. I suppose this shot is from earlier this year or do you guys have very little snow this year?
Bob: I gotta say, you make a lens that I disliked when I had it, look very good. I don't have that much experience with CV lenses, but I found the 35 1.2 ii vm to have a weird, "over-the-top" rendition that wasn't too my liking.
Douglas: Beautiful sunrise shots.
Stephen: Nice light trails and sunstars with the 40 1.2.
Looking across a Pond with surrounding trees in Autumn Color.
Tripod mounted A7r and Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens.
ISO 100, approximately f11, 1/320 second.
Exposure corrected +0.36 Stops.
October 3, 2015
At a pond on the east side of north bound New York State Route 30, I believe near South Bay and/or Rock Island Bay of Tupper Lake, Adirondack Mountains.
Chris_88 wrote:
Bob: I gotta say, you make a lens that I disliked when I had it, look very good. I don't have that much experience with CV lenses, but I found the 35 1.2 ii vm to have a weird, "over-the-top" rendition that wasn't too my liking.
rji2goleez wrote:
Chris - A good example of the difference of preference . . . it was the rendering of this lens that I missed!
The lens sures works just fine in your capable hands, Bob.
Different preferences are a good thing, otherwise we would all be chasing the same lenses on the used market, driving up prices even further .
I guess, it's just me, though. I don't seem to gel with any CV lens: With the 35 1.2 I found the rendering too funky, the CV 65 didn't fit in my lens line-up FL-wise and the CV 12 while nice, wasn't great in the corners. I guess I'm one of the very few regulars around here that doesn't own at least one CV lens.
I got a little creative with this one, hah. Made the dippers super visible compared to the other stars. Yesterday morning was a gorgeous one, that is for sure.
4 image blend. 2 for focus stack, 1 for the beam, 1 for the stars 2 hours pre-sunrise.
A7RIV, Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM @ many different exposure setting combinations.
Chris_88 wrote:
Joshua: Nice shot from downtown LA and impressive bird shots from CR on these last few pages. Not that you surprise anyone anymore with your remarkable skills .
Phillip: If I may ask, how did you process the above image? Looks very clean for ISO 8000.
Rene: Beautiful shot of the Zermatt region. I suppose this shot is from earlier this year or do you guys have very little snow this year?
Bob: I gotta say, you make a lens that I disliked when I had it, look very good. I don't have that much experience with CV lenses, but I found the 35 1.2 ii vm to have a weird, "over-the-top" rendition that wasn't too my liking.
Douglas: Beautiful sunrise shots.
Stephen: Nice light trails and sunstars with the 40 1.2.
I got a little creative with this one, hah. Made the dippers super visible compared to the other stars. Yesterday morning was a gorgeous one, that is for sure.
4 image blend. 2 for focus stack, 1 for the beam, 1 for the stars 2 hours pre-sunrise.
A7RIV, Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM @ many different exposure setting combinations.
. 
