I hope you don't mind if I took it to prove a point to myself and to extent to the others who were wondering the same thing (I would've done it myself but I don't have any 35/40mm lens available).
Point being that I don't really NEED a 40mm lens when I can just crop my 24 and have basically the same image.
I stretched the 24mm one to fill the 7952 x 5304 A7RIII max-pixel count and then superimposed the 40mm image (I suppose you moved a little between shots or tweaked the lines differently since the lines don't perfectly match between the two shots). The perspective is however identical, and the final output of the crop is 6473x4546 pixel, aka 29.4 Megapixels.
I think I can calm my GAS now, the cropped 24GM is definitely a perfectly-capable-enough replacement for a 35/40mm lens if you can accept a result with slightly fewer pixels/slightly higher noise....Show more →
Surely this is not right or maybe I'm missing something as 24GM in crop mode on the A7rIII gives an 18mp file size and a 36mm equivalent FOV so a 40mm FOV would give an even smaller file size. Your image looks more like a 28MM FOV. As I said I maybe missing something
I'm struggling to get results that I'm use to on my Samyang 35 1.4, but love the 24mm size and do like it for tight quarters like this. Here is a vertical crop.
Viramati wrote:
Surely this is not right or maybe I'm missing something as 24GM in crop mode on the A7rIII gives an 18mp file size and a 36mm equivalent FOV so a 40mm FOV would give an even smaller file size. Your image looks more like a 28MM FOV. As I said I maybe missing something
I would theoretically agree with you .... But I stacked Fred's photos and that was the result...
It seems I'll need a 40mm lens to try it out by myself then
I shot a B17 on tripod the other day and switched to crop mode I'll see if I can find the pics and I'll post them here so you can see the pic in 24mm and 36mm
Cropped to some degree, edited in LR, and probably pretty crappy photographically but hopefully will give some idea of what the lens can do in a variety of situations.
I picked up this lens on my way to the airport in October. Destination: Liverpool. Obviously - and probably to the detriment of a lot of my shots - I shot it almost exclusively at 1.4 the entire four-day trip. I just couldn't help myself.
I love this lens. Light, compact and it just delivers every time. Liverpool was pleasure, but I have used it a lot for work, shooting news. 24 is certainly an excellent one lens-solution for a lot of things, and the 24GM is sharp, has great contrast and micro-contrast and most importantly: It has really fast and dependable AF unless you stop it down a lot. I find that I don't need to do much pp with this lens, except maybe "bluing" down shots. I can just pop it on and go. After working a lot with the Batis 40 the past few days I can see the 24GM and B40 becoming my go to-kit for a lot of things.
Here's some Liverpool-shots made with the 24GM and A7R III:
Great shots! Highly edited...(the lens doesnt look like that naturally) but great shots!
norwegiandude wrote:
I picked up this lens on my way to the airport in October. Destination: Liverpool. Obviously - and probably to the detriment of a lot of my shots - I shot it almost exclusively at 1.4 the entire four-day trip. I just couldn't help myself.
I love this lens. Light, compact and it just delivers every time. Liverpool was pleasure, but I have used it a lot for work, shooting news. 24 is certainly an excellent one lens-solution for a lot of things, and the 24GM is sharp, has great contrast and micro-contrast and most importantly: It has really fast and dependable AF unless you stop it down a lot. I find that I don't need to do much pp with this lens, except maybe "bluing" down shots. I can just pop it on and go. After working a lot with the Batis 40 the past few days I can see the 24GM and B40 becoming my go to-kit for a lot of things.
Here's some Liverpool-shots made with the 24GM and A7R III:
KarmaKramer wrote:
Great shots! Highly edited...(the lens doesnt look like that naturally) but great shots!
Thanks! Fair point about the editing. Just to be clear however, I never said these pictures weren't edited. They obviously are. What I did say was that for work, for which these shots were not taken, using the 24GM gives RAWs that in my opinion need very little PP to go straight to print or web in a newspaper. When shooting on my own time I like pushing my edits a lot more, obviously. I don't agree completely with your comment about the lens not looking like this "naturally", though. If you meant "unedited", I agree. But if you are continuing your point about the Edinburgh-pictures earlier in this thread, where you say that pushing an edit makes all lenses the same, I'll have to disagree. Obviously if you max all the sliders a picture will just look like crap regardless, but my experience is that if you push the edit on an image you are pushing the characteristics inherent to lens that was used further. If a lens delivers a lot of contrast, you'll get even more if you push it and risk oversaturating the image. If the transition from sharp to oof is harsh, adding clarity will make it worse. How a lens renders, how sharp it is and the colour tone can be tweaked, but not completely nullified by how you edit the picture. Your argument seems to me like saying that a BMW and a Hyundai feel the same if you go over 100 mph Maybe what I should have said in my post above was just this: I like the results I get when I use this lens. That's what I meant to say anyways.
Maybe what I should have said in my post above was just this: I like the results I get when I use this lens. That's what I meant to say anyways.
