AGeoJO wrote:
On the other hand, the Batis 24mm would go nicely with the 35mm f/1.4 lens but the 35mm is too close to the 55mm FL-wise , and heavier.
I don't think there is major difference 25 vs 35 and 35 vs 55 on FOV, so I don't understand why 25-35 would be ok, but 35-55 not ok. "Ratios" are 35/25=1.4 and 55/35=1.57. For me both combos are too close to each another.
Visualization of 25-35-55:
Personally I prefer higher "ratio", on my last trip I had 3 cameras + 25-50-135 lenses (ratios 2.0 & 2.7) and it worked quite well, even I was quite afraid of that the "gap" in FOVs between 50 and 135 is too much. In practice the "flow" was very good, and rarely missed FOVs between 50 and 135.
Samuli, thanks. I understand the ratio. Somehow you apparently misunderstood me, that's what I meant. I prefer my travel lineup to consist of 15mm, 28mm and 55mm lenses. Yes, I back paddle a little here - I had more a 50mm as a standard focal length in my mind when I made that opinion and not a 55mm. For the tele end, I would prefer a 100mm lens over the 85mm, which is covered by the Batis 85mm but I take the Batis or use my Minolta 100mm f/2 in combo with the LA-EA4, which is not particularly light though.
puckman wrote:
The Samyang 24mm and its 85 brother have been on my list for some time. But I keep shying away due to the size. How do you like the performance of that 24/1.4 (both wide-open, for some some shallow DOF and used in a more traditional landscapey kinda way at f8 or f11...)?
Worth bothering with for a Sony A7II (keeping in mind that I still own the Canon 6D, and could potentially use it there too)?
I currently have an old FD 24/2.8 for a much smaller sized carry-around lens on the Sony. But that has its own issues too.
I've gone back and forth with the 24/1.4... It seems plenty sharp but it's really close to other focal lengths I already have. I got it mostly for astrophotography but thought what the heck, it will be a great landscape lens too. I was doing some comparison shots yesterday to my Zeiss 2.8/12 and the Rokinon held it's own. I was not very clear in my post yesterday but this first shot was the Rokinon at I think f11. The picture of the bench yesterday without the lens is the Rokinon @ 1.4. I've attached a shot of my Zeiss, 28/2 and the 24/1.4 to show the size.
AGeoJO wrote:
I hear you and I got a hunch that the Batis would perform better. Although I am considering the Batis as well but I am also considering getting a CV 15mm III for a really small, compact and lightweight for covering my UWA needs. So, CV 15, 28mm f/2 and 55mm f/1.8 would cover the range nicely and, like mentioned before, this kit combo would be the ultimate small and lightweight travel gear. Well, add the Batis 85mm to that you are set for 99% of your shooting. On the other hand, the Batis 24mm would go nicely with the 35mm f/1.4 lens but the 35mm is too close to the 55mm FL-wise , and heavier....Show more →
I got the CV15/4.5 III last week. It came along with me on my first Sony A7II vacation (was a Canon guy prior). My kit was the CV15, FD24/2.8, FD50/1.8, Vivitar 135/2.8 and the FE24-70 as the walkaround zoom (when changing lenses was not practical).
The kit worked like a charm, I must say. So I completely agree with your statements above.
The truth is, I don't really need 28mm (I prefer 24mm as a landscape FOV) but that looks so simple and tasty (having AF and having something that's not THAT wide does come in handy sometimes) that I might get it anyway (the 28/2 that is).
The Batis would be more about replacing my FD24 with something more high end.
I've only had the FD24 for a week and have been happy with it so far, so I'm in no rush. But the idea of having something more high end like the Batis still appeals. I suspect it's going to blow the FD24 or FE28 out of the water in terms of IQ.
Membler wrote:
I've gone back and forth with the 24/1.4... It seems plenty sharp but it's really close to other focal lengths I already have. I got it mostly for astrophotography but thought what the heck, it will be a great landscape lens too. I was doing some comparison shots yesterday to my Zeiss 2.8/12 and the Rokinon held it's own. I was not very clear in my post yesterday but this first shot was the Rokinon at I think f11. The picture of the bench yesterday without the lens is the Rokinon @ 1.4. I've attached a shot of my Zeiss, 28/2 and the 24/1.4 to show the size.
puckman wrote:
The Batis would be more about replacing my FD24 with something more high end.
I've only had the FD24 for a week and have been happy with it so far, so I'm in no rush. But the idea of having something more high end like the Batis still appeals. I suspect it's going to blow the FD24 or FE28 out of the water in terms of IQ.
It might render a bit better, or have less distortion, but the FE28 is pretty darn sharp, across about 90% of the frame and then improves a bit more into the corners stopped down. Its a surprisingly sharp lens, with really pleasing color, and actually a pretty smooth bokeh quality (especially for a wide).
I've been doing some comparisons with my 35 Sonnar on the RX1 and its amazing how well the 28FE holds up, in fact, I find its overall rendering more pleasing the 35/2.8 FE I used to have. The 35 Sonnar still comes out ahead, as its the finest 35mm I've ever owned, but the 28 isn't bad at all, and is really quite pleasing to me. The 35/2.8 on the other hand I just never got along with, always looked so harsh compared to the Sonnar whenever they went head to head.
Now will the Batis be a good lens ? I'm sure it will, but its also going to be 3x the price. You could pick up a 28FE and a 55FE for what one lens would cost you.
Will the Batis have less distortion ? Probably
Will it be sharper in the center ? Not by much
Will is have a smoother rendering ? Hard to say.... 25mm isn't known for smooth bokeh quality and the 28 does pretty well
The 28 FE is simply a great lens overall, and at its price point, an amazing lens. Zeiss logo or not, it simply takes pleasing photos, at least per my taste.
25 and 35 have a huge difference. If you don't think there is you probably haven't shot with either that much
I've shot a lot with a 24mm 1.4 and it can really lead to some unique compositions involving people. For landscape I find that 24mm isn't usually wide enough. I prefer 20/21mm.
davewolfs wrote:
25 and 35 have a huge difference. If you don't think there is you probably haven't shot with either that much
I've shot a lot with a 24mm 1.4 and it can really lead to some unique compositions involving people. For landscape I find that 24mm isn't usually wide enough. I prefer 20/21mm.
Its all relative man....
To the type of photographer who has a huge collection of glass, maybe multiple for each focal length (Such as owning a 50 Sonnar and and 50 Planar just as they draw so differently), post 10x a day on discussion boards etc, then yeah, it can be viewed as a big difference.
Its just like a scratch golfer finds each club different as they hit the ball 10 yards further with each lower club. When a golf hack like me plays though its a total crap shoot what I'm going to hit further. It kind of makes it pointless for me to have 14 clubs even given how poor I play. I could get by with a driver, fairway wood, 5 iron, 9 iron, wedge and putter.
Some people simply aren't going to find 24 vs 35 a huge difference. You can call them idiots, say they haven't shot much etc, but people just don't see a huge difference.
When I worked a photo shop I was always trying to explain how a certain model might have a wider FoV than another P&S, or lens etc. Darn if didn't compare them side by side for customers and they would still stare blankly saying they look the same.
I love 35mm, but I also shoot probably 90% of my shots with my 24-70 at 24mm. I could happily live with either of them.
davewolfs wrote:
25 and 35 have a huge difference. If you don't think there is you probably haven't shot with either that much
Discussion was about lens set to carry around/travel, not about 25 and 35 having same FOV. In a perfect world each photographer should have assistant carrying the equipment, then for example I could have 3 different 28mm lenses with their unique rendering style with me everywhere. In real life however Joshua and majority of us have to carry our lenses ourselves, and sometimes meet airline weight regulations as well, and maybe it's also awkward to carry big photo bag on crouded locations. So it's not practical to carry every lens you own because they have different FOV and boke quantity (and rendering styles as well), but one has to pick suitable number of lenses to go with.
Naturally it makes huge difference what one is shooting. For example I have completely different set of lenses when I go photograph on open swamp or to dense forest. On dense forest I have been many times with set of lenses 21-25/28-35-45/50.
davewolfs wrote:
I've shot a lot with a 24mm 1.4 and it can really lead to some unique compositions involving people. For landscape I find that 24mm isn't usually wide enough. I prefer 20/21mm.
Generally I find wider than 28mm landscapes boring and lacking of clear subject - of course there are exceptions, but talking generally landscapes posted here, Flickr, 500px etc. Naturally there have been many great landscapes shoot with wider FOVs as well (not that many % if you ask me). It looks like people see pros taking nice landscape with ultrawide and then they thing "landscape = ultrawide" and go shoot ultra boring pictures of field and river where 60% is boring sky and 35% boring field and 5% river and powerlines everywhere and photo is screaming to have some interesting main subject but it just isn't there.
People have their own preferences, and I prefer tight compositions, lack of human touch in landcape and clear main subject. Statistically majority of my landscapes were shoot 28-180mm range, concentrating to 35-50-85 focal lengths (I have statistics only about last 10 years, but the digital era before that and film era before that were not that much different).
, and heavier.
I got you now...
That's my one beef with it.
