Sony FE Images Thread
Dec 25, 2014 at 05:17 AM
p.618 #3Sony FE Images Thread
Not the greatest of reproductions (tight corner and large variation in light), but still a great Xmas image (all credits to the artist).
Dec 25, 2014 at 05:39 AM
p.618 #4Sony FE Images Thread
While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!
Dec 25, 2014 at 05:50 AM
p.618 #5Sony FE Images Thread
rji2goleez wrote:
While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!
Bob, I do really like the 16-35 f/4 shots, but I can see that that just a tiny bit better performance from the primes. Before I paid attention to the fact you were shooting the zoom and the primes (and thinking you were just shooting the zoom) I preferred the 2nd and 4th one. I think it is particularly in the excellent control of coma, where the primes give you that just a bit extra in these shots.
While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!
Bob, I do really like the 16-35 f/4 shots, but I can see that that just a tiny bit better performance from the primes. Before I paid attention to the fact you were shooting the zoom and the primes (and thinking you were just shooting the zoom) I preferred the 2nd and 4th one. I think it is particularly in the excellent control of coma, where the primes give you that just a bit extra in these shots.
Dec 25, 2014 at 08:19 AM
p.618 #6Sony FE Images Thread
mediart wrote:
Sony A7 - Minolta 50mm 1.4
I love the 1.4!
Sony A7 - Minolta 50mm 1.4
I love the 1.4!
Dec 25, 2014 at 08:23 AM
p.618 #7Sony FE Images Thread
Interesting Bob .. Thanks for the comparison 
Great shot !
Great shot !
Dec 25, 2014 at 09:13 AM
p.618 #8Sony FE Images Thread
Yes, Bob, very interesting. And a spectacular shot, too!
Dec 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM
p.618 #9Sony FE Images Thread
A jaw dropping image, Werner!
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
Dec 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM
p.618 #10Sony FE Images Thread
Happy Christmas everybody!
Looks like a tough decision to make, Bob. (May be that's just me who can hardly say goodbey to any lens
)
Looks like a tough decision to make, Bob. (May be that's just me who can hardly say goodbey to any lens
) |
||
 |
||
|
Dec 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM
|
p.618 #11Sony FE Images Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
A jaw dropping image, Werner!
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
+1. Would be nice to see 16mm (instead of 18mm) for comparison to the 15mm. Also something with more detail/texture across the frame.
A jaw dropping image, Werner!
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
+1. Would be nice to see 16mm (instead of 18mm) for comparison to the 15mm. Also something with more detail/texture across the frame.
Dec 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM
p.618 #12Sony FE Images Thread
Werner_Utsch wrote:
MERRY CHRISTMAS
May you always fly as high as save to the light !
"Ikarus"
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7493/16053283156_a09a303672_h.jpg
DSC01296.jpg by W.Utsch, on Flickr
Werner,
Möwen am Luganer See sind phänomenal!
May you always fly as high as save to the light !
"Ikarus"
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7493/16053283156_a09a303672_h.jpg
DSC01296.jpg by W.Utsch, on Flickr
Werner,
Möwen am Luganer See sind phänomenal!
Dec 25, 2014 at 12:21 PM
p.618 #13Sony FE Images Thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
Bob, I do really like the 16-35 f/4 shots, but I can see that that just a tiny bit better performance from the primes. Before I paid attention to the fact you were shooting the zoom and the primes (and thinking you were just shooting the zoom) I preferred the 2nd and 4th one. I think it is particularly in the excellent control of coma, where the primes give you that just a bit extra in these shots.
I agree with you but I start to wonder if the difference is worth the investment. Sure, pixel peeping should go in favor of the prime and I wouldn't expect a different outcome but the difference seems small.
rji2goleez wrote
While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!I agree with you but I start to wonder if the difference is worth the investment. Sure, pixel peeping should go in favor of the prime and I wouldn't expect a different outcome but the difference seems small.
Dec 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM
p.618 #14Sony FE Images Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
A jaw dropping image, Werner!
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
Probably not. Certainly, this was not meant to be conclusive test but a comparison using settings I typically use when shooting wide, on a tripod and at night. Wide open, I would expect a bigger difference possibly.
A jaw dropping image, Werner!
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
Probably not. Certainly, this was not meant to be conclusive test but a comparison using settings I typically use when shooting wide, on a tripod and at night. Wide open, I would expect a bigger difference possibly.
Dec 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM
p.618 #15Sony FE Images Thread
Last night, I also took out the FE70-200/4 and captured some Minneapolis skyline shots looking down the Mississippi River. It was the first time using this lens on a tripod.
Dec 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM
p.618 #16Sony FE Images Thread
Bob,your pictures show minor,if any,differences between the 16-35/4 and the mighty two i.e. 21/2.8 and 15/2.8.From now on choosing between them will be more complicated
Dec 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM
p.618 #17Sony FE Images Thread
Bob .. Thanks for those great shots and the comparison
Dec 25, 2014 at 01:16 PM
p.618 #18Sony FE Images Thread
The difference is quite visible in the starburst of the lights. Somehow, those generated by the Zeiss 15mm are more clearly defined. Not that it matters much but quite noticeable even in the small web sized images. BTW, I noticed that character of starburst rendition in the Sony 24-70mm f/4 lens, as well.
Dec 25, 2014 at 01:38 PM
p.618 #19Sony FE Images Thread
I like Bob's shots, but they are at f10, probably not a great aperture to compare lenses at and the scene doesn't contain a lot of fine details. I see more distortion in the wide end of the zoom which is only at 18mm. Big difference in AOV to the 15mm. Starbursts are nicer with the primes too.
Dec 25, 2014 at 01:48 PM
p.618 #20Sony FE Images Thread
Thanks for all your comments. I'll work on finding something with more detail. I wanted to first focus on a typical subject that I actually shoot at the settings I usually shoot them. I was interested in seeing the difference in star patterns at smaller apertures since the FE16-35/4 shows small star patterns already when WO. Also, the zoom displays a different star pattern than the Distagons, one I rather like where each 'star point' comes in pairs.
Dec 25, 2014 at 02:11 PM