Greggf wrote:
All taken with CV 35 1.7 Ultron LTM ..mostly wide open, and pretty much SOOC...This lens has a ton of character, and I love it for these kinds of shots...
Gregg
Great shots Greggf,
I 've seen that you own both 35 1.2 and 1.7 Voitglander. I 'm still wondering if the 1.2 would be the good choice but I'm demanding regarding smoothness and lense draw. The 1.2 shows some outlining that disturbs me.
Would you choose one of them eventually and why?
Did you make comparisons?
Maybe I'll wait for a native FE zeiss solution but I fear extra weight and extra cost (like the 35 1.4 ZE/ZF)...
Some images from Skipsfjorden, a small roadless fjord on the Island Vannøya at 70ºN, the fjord facing the Arctic Sea to the north. I have spent some hot days sleeping and warm nights wandering, fishing and photographing.
talkinghead wrote:
Great Shots everyone....mostly a lurker here....trying to soak up as much info as possible on different lenses with the A7/R. Just got mine (A7) recently... still learning the "in's and out's".
Greggf......question for you. I have really enjoyed your shots with the CY 35-70/f3.4, enough so that I am on the lookout for one myself. I do, however, already have the Minolta MD 35-70/f3.4 Macro, and have used it a lot with my NEX6. I notice that you recently procured the Minolta lens....so..... having the CY already, why did you decide to pick up the MD? And now that you have both, which one do you prefer and why? Sorry, I guess that's a couple of questions
Thanks for any insight!
It's a condition called G.A.S....and most, or a lot of photogs I know of have it. I love my Contax 35-70. It is an awesome lens. My adapter sucks, and I get the dreaded spots on the sensor from using the combo on my A7 a lot. I just need to get another newer adapter, that's all. I think the Contax has a closer focus in the macro mode, and i like the look it gives, a little more than the Minolta, and the Contax does have tons of POP that I love, more so than the Minolta. But the Minolta is no slouch and does a great job too! Especially for the price, and it is a little smaller, too!! I might keep both...but I do have my eye on a Leica R 4/35-70, though...
We'll see.
The minolta is great...keep playing with it...I know I will!!
I 've seen that you own both 35 1.2 and 1.7 Voitglander. I 'm still wondering if the 1.2 would be the good choice but I'm demanding regarding smoothness and lense draw. The 1.2 shows some outlining that disturbs me.
Would you choose one of them eventually and why?
Did you make comparisons?
Maybe I'll wait for a native FE zeiss solution but I fear extra weight and extra cost (like the 35 1.4 ZE/ZF)...
The 35 1.2 is an incredible lens. But pricey, too! I really liked the images it produced, but in the end, I wanted other lenses too, and sold it to fund those purchases! I picked up the Ultron for a very reasonable price! I'm more of a 50mm plus lens guy, but I do like to keep my options open, hence the Ultron. I do have the 35mm range covered with 3 lenses now: Contax 35-70, Minolta MD 35-70, and the Ultron. The Ultron has the edge as far as size goes, and is a great walk around...and I love the classic look it gives, whereas the 1.2 and my other 2 35-70's, @35 are quite different.
Gregg
Well since i had a couple of members make some useful suggestions in another post i will post here. Maybe we can get the mods to add (S) to the title of this thread?
vipergts831 wrote:
Well since i had a couple of members make some useful suggestions in another post i will post here. Maybe we can get the mods to add (S) to the title of this thread?
First shots with the new camera.
I want to see more of a7s shots =). and yes to updating the title of the thread please
