Here are several taken last weekend for Mason's "How to Train Your Dragon Party"...Mason was Hiccup, and his friend Sage was Astrid. All taken with the CV Nokton 50 1.5 ASPH, and all WO
Gregg
^^^^ Awesome, Greggf! Nice job capturing the moment, getting focus, and looks like a nice lens. I've got the Sonnar C 50/1.5, the Voigtlander appears to be another very pleasing character lens.
Thanks Derek. Yes, I also got another 55/1.8 and all is fine now.
Nice bird shot! How are you liking that rollei? The ZF/ZE planar shows strong field curvature on the A7.
Jochenb wrote:
Phillip: beautiful light. Btw, I see a large amount of black dots in the bokeh of that second one. It looks like your sensor is very dirty, but maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks :-)
I was shooting at f/11 and with a magnification close to 1:2 so effektively I was shooting at f/16 which of course shows every speck of dust. Buh yeah I should really get my sensor cleaned, it has gathered some dust which won't come off with my air blower.
welcome on board again btw
Dale, how does your WATE compare to the Canon 16-35 btw?
"Very cool score! One tip, you might want to ease up on the JPEG compression for your images, as they're showing some pretty bad posterization."
Going to research that now. I noticed the posterization also and was trying to figure out why that is. They look a lot better on my lightroom screen than on here. Still learning the basics. I read a whole thread about using upscaling scripts and using Fred Miranda actions and still trying to make sense of it. Trying to emulate some of the great photographers work i see on here and not quite getting the ĺook I'm going for. Thank you for the C&C, always appreciated.
Also, I've been shooting in jpeg mode the past few days to see how different the results would be to compare to raw files. Looks like it's time to switch back to raw.
I was shooting with two different wide angles (Samyang 14/2.8 and the Canon 16-35/4) this weekend and was struck by how differently they render the colour. (Huge differences in distortion as well as metering with the A7r)
Here is the same scene, more or less. Images taken within a minute of each other. The fog was shifting quickly but lighting was not that different. (These were handheld so it's not a totally scientific comparative.)
Nevertheless, I think you might find interesting, as I did, to see how differently the two lenses render the scene.
Without the correction profiles for this lens, I don't think you could shoot a lot of horizons or architecture with it's quite obvious and intrusive mustache distortion... the corrections are great to have.
Gregg, great portraits !
Jim, love the boots and watch shot
Bob, very nice set from the badlands
Dale, nice shots with the wate.
eheffa, pleasing coastal series.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Thanks :-)
I was shooting at f/11 and with a magnification close to 1:2 so effektively I was shooting at f/16 which of course shows every speck of dust. Buh yeah I should really get my sensor cleaned, it has gathered some dust which won't come off with my air blower.
welcome on board again btw
Dale, how does your WATE compare to the Canon 16-35 btw?
I have never shot with a modern Leica lens before. It is very different in the shooting experience. The lens is very small next to the Canon and therefore much better balanced on the camera. At F/8 the A7r is essentially a point and shoot camera with the entire world in sharp focus. From a practical perspective, the new Canon is also an extraordinary lens and will give quite comparable images at a fraction of the cost.. My first impression is that there is less distortion on the WATE and the edges are sharper, but this is not a huge advantage, if any after PP. The WATE advantage is clearly in the shooting experience. The WATE is smaller than my Contax C/Y 28mm f/2.8 lens with adapters! After one day, I feel like I would like to sell all my lenses and purchase smaller Leica RF lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens.
ebookman wrote:
I have never shot with a modern Leica lens before. It is very different in the shooting experience. The lens is very small next to the Canon and therefore much better balanced on the camera. At F/8 the A7r is essentially a point and shoot camera with the entire world in sharp focus. From a practical perspective, the new Canon is also an extraordinary lens and will give quite comparable images at a fraction of the cost.. My first impression is that there is less distortion on the WATE and the edges are sharper, but this is not a huge advantage, if any after PP. The WATE advantage is clearly in the shooting experience. The WATE is smaller than my Contax C/Y 28mm f/2.8 lens with adapters! After one day, I feel like I would like to sell all my lenses and purchase smaller Leica RF lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens....Show more →
These are interesting observations Dale.
There is no question that the Canon 16-35/4 is a long big lens - nothing stealthy about it at all. (It's not that heavy - just big & long relative to the Sony body.)
Can you show us a picture of the WATE on your A7r? (Not that I can afford one but it's interesting to consider nevertheless...)
Jochenb wrote:
Thanks Derek. Yes, I also got another 55/1.8 and all is fine now.
Nice bird shot! How are you liking that rollei? The ZF/ZE planar shows strong field curvature on the A7.
thanks! i have been stuck to the couch with my leg raised up while i recover from surgery since i got the lens so i haven't had a chance to get a feel for the lens. no chance for stopped down landscape type shots yet. i got the bird shot sticking the camera in on a tripod (horror of horrors) and using my phone as a remote while i rock the baby.
what kind of field curvature is it that you see with the ZF, typical zeiss outward U? pointing the camera out the window from the couch and using maximum LV magnification the extreme corners on mine seem to be hitting infinity at the same distance as the center (though there appears to be a bit of left right offset that disappears by f/5.6).
i got this lens expecting more similar performance to c/y than the ZF/ZE, e.g. better close up performance with less SA at the expense of infinity performance. also, i really wanted the metal focus ring that turns the right way and an aperture ring. as a bonus it turns out to be quite small (smaller than the 55/1.8 i think with adapter) and well built.
on an unrelated note here's some rokkor 58/1.2 shots i just processed (first and last wide open, the middle two are stopped down):
, Ronny! So, what is your dog carrying in that image? A hand grenade 
?
