GMPhotography wrote:
I’m impressed at 1.4 of the group shot that it got that much DOF out of it to cover a second row of bodies. Very cool
A high risk move pulled off
The key to that is to carefully align the wedding party so there's not a lot of depth. Before the Nikkor and Sigma 105's came along it shoot these with the 135mm f1.8 art.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
The key to that is to carefully align the wedding party so there's not a lot of depth. Before the Nikkor and Sigma 105's came along it shoot these with the 135mm f1.8 art.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Good stuff, Ken. Looking forward to seeing some more work with it.
Any general feelings to share after some use with the setup?
AF speed with the Canon mount 105mm is quite fast. I could use it using continuous Eye-AF during the processional. It's quite a bit faster than my Nikkor 105mm 1.4E/Commlite combo. I can't tell you about other apertures used as I only used it at f1.4...
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
AF speed with the Canon mount 105mm is quite fast. I could use it using continuous Eye-AF during the processional. It's quite a bit faster than my Nikkor 105mm 1.4E/Commlite combo. I can't tell you about other apertures used as I only used it at f1.4...
Thanks for that, Ken.
Also, by any chance are you finding it to be a bit much with regard to size and weight relative to focal length/usability?
I'm all for carrying around whatever size rig gives me the best results for a given scenario. But on the other hand, I also know what it feels like to leave giant lenses at home more often than not based on the usability to pain in the arse ratio. I've been telling myself that it's probably awesome enough that I'll forgive it for being a relatively short prime tele that is a giant.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
AF speed with the Canon mount 105mm is quite fast. I could use it using continuous Eye-AF during the processional. It's quite a bit faster than my Nikkor 105mm 1.4E/Commlite combo. I can't tell you about other apertures used as I only used it at f1.4...
Perfect- hopefully it'd be as good with my A7R3. Continuous Eye-AF during a processional would equate to anything I'd throw at the AF system challenge-wise with that lens.
Also, by any chance are you finding it to be a bit much with regard to size and weight relative to focal length/usability?
I'm all for carrying around whatever size rig gives me the best results for a given scenario. But on the other hand, I also know what it feels like to leave giant lenses at home more often than not based on the usability to pain in the arse ratio. I've been telling myself that it's probably awesome enough that I'll forgive it for being a relatively short prime tele that is a giant.
Not at all. Here's the 105mm and 135mm Art lenses side by side. It's a little heavier but not unwieldy.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
Not at all. Here's the 105mm and 135mm Art lenses side by side. It's a little heavier but not unwieldy.
Ah. Not too shabby at all as I don't mind the 135. I was under the impression the disparity would be greater. Thanks for the side by side.
So what works better is my real question the MC-11 or the Metabones. For me the most important with a lens like this would be people so Eye AF would be primary use case.
I’m still in mental debate getting the FE or the Canon. I’m not sure what would buy me the most usefulness. It sounds pretty fast by Kens report.
I will certainly listen to any advice. I give it and I can take it too. Lol
Seriously I could do this today and sell my Sony 85 1.8 and Batis 135 right now if I can get this in my hands for NY. I leave Tuesday morning driving across country but don’t need lens till like the 10th. I’ll still rent the 70-200 for my gig but I can put this to use for sure and some runway stuff. We double shoot on some stuff. I’d like to shoot this and give my assistant the 70-200. Hmmm
I think I’m really crazy. I need mental health care.
They seem round in the middle and look at the vertical couple shot on top it seems pretty round but on horizontal the far corners your getting cats eye. Yea a little surprised too. But as long as it’s not in the middle it’s not to bad, at least for me. It’s when it’s right around the subject it’s more objectionable.
GMPhotography wrote:
So what works better is my real question the MC-11 or the Metabones. For me the most important with a lens like this would be people so Eye AF would be primary use case.
I’m still in mental debate getting the FE or the Canon. I’m not sure what would buy me the most usefulness. It sounds pretty fast by Kens report.
I will certainly listen to any advice. I give it and I can take it too. Lol
I think it will be contingent on whether you decide to pick up an A9 again unless Sony decides to bring the same AF update/feature enabling to the other bodies. With FW 3.0 on the A9, you get all of the AF features enabled along with the superior focusing ability of their "Green" mode (something I've been hoping for, for quite a while now).
The safest bet for me since the beginning was always the Metabones since you could choose the mode you wanted to be in. With the Sigma, if you have an SGV lens mounted, it is forced into their functional equivalent of Advanced mode and you have no say in it (with no consistency in performance across the line of lenses).
With some of the SGV lenses mounted on the MC-11, it functions in similarly poor fashion to being on the MB in "Advanced" mode (a little better than that but still pretty much something I wouldn't rely on).
Thanks John what I wanted to hear. I’m debating on grabbing a A9 again. I have the A7III up for rent for NY but I can upgrade that to the A9 as they won’t ship till the 5th to me in New York. I’m not at risk as I have the 70-200 to really shoot the runway stuff. But I do use my Batis 135 but can certainly use this instead.
With both the 135mm and 105mm Art lenses I find the Metabones works better in all conditions. Eye-AF and Lock-on AF work in continuous. The Metabones also works better in low light for some reason too.
