GMPhotography wrote:
Back to shooting . I went out today it should I say I escaped all the husband, father, grandkid stuff and told everyone to go pound sand. I’m off so there.
So I went up North and shot 4 of my lenses CV21,35,50 and the Sony 24. I did several shots against each other between the CV 21 and the Sony 24. I’ll get them up soon.
In all seriousness I tested all of these and really have yet to go play in my sandbox with them. I went to my junkyard up in Jerome.
Btw I found some new hoods they are by Haige or Houge but they are rectangular metal screw ins there not cheap like 40 bucks but they screw in and have a locking ring. Waiting for a 52 for my CV 21 which is hard to get off and on but this hood maybe stable enough to use. I’ll report more on this as I try them out in the next couple days...Show more →
Would it happen to be Haoge? If so, I think I have one of those hoods you're talking about which I have been using on the 7Artisans 50/1.1 as shown below. Solid hoods but would be concerned about vignetting.
Thats it John. Yes i need to check the vignetting for sure. I grabbed a 49mm for the Sony 55 but waiting on a 52 now. Actually need to go grab the 55 out of the mailbox
GMPhotography wrote:
Thats it John. Yes i need to check the vignetting for sure. I grabbed a 49mm for the Sony 55 but waiting on a 52 now. Actually need to go grab the 55 out of the mailbox
Sweet!
Did you order the 67mm already? If so, I'm definitely looking forward to your findings on vignetting. I was just thinking about this very thing over the weekend as I have never been a fan of wide angle petal lens hoods. If the vignette is minimal, I am in like Flint.
I just took a gander at the 67mm on Amazon. Three left....lol.
No I have not ordered the 67 thought I’d try my MF glass first. Some of my MF are hard to remove off the body. The Sony is pretty easy. Just tried the 49 on the 55 and it’s nice. Lens looks sharp too
Okay here is the math folks. I said repeatedly I use this all the time and its a joy to use. But if the math works than there is no issue
Crop which is a 18.5 Mpx file
11.49 x 17.23 inches or 3448 x 5168. Now thats full 300 DPI print size. Capice
Final Tif size at 8 bit 51mb
Full Frame
17.31 x 29.95 inches Or 5192 x 7785
Final Tif at 8 bit 116 mb
This is from a A7RIII
Folks the math is simple if your printing a 9 x 12 300 DPI print than your better than golden as its smaller than full rez of a 18 mpx file which can go to 18 inches almost. If your needs are bigger than dont shoot crop mode
Need to remember this always any lens and put any name brand you want on it but the center section will ALWAYS be better than the OUTER section of the lens. ALWAYS
I find it hilarious that we agonise over extreme corner sharpness etc. and justify the premium of Loxias etc. but then claim it's no big deal to do away with more than half the resolution by castrating a $5K camera and lens combo (7R3+24GM) instead of using a significantly cheaper system for better results. It's actually slightly better and cheaper to shoot a separate camera and lens combination than it is to purchase the 24GM and crop.
If you're stuck with a prime at a shoot and for some weird reason you must crop to get the 35mm look, sure, but purchasing this lens and a 7R2 or 7R3 to purposely reduce the camera to sub A6000 quality is bonkers imo.
Your options;
$750 for the A6K & Samyang 1.4/21 (35mm equiv) no AF
$750 for the A6K & Sigma 2.8/19 (35mm equiv)
$1K for the A6K & Sigma 1.4/30 (45mm equiv)
$1.5K for the A6K & 1.8/24ZA (35mm equiv)
$2K for the A6500 & 1.8/24ZA (35mm equiv)
$5K for the 7R3 & 24GM
The last option is the least compact and heaviest, the lens is effectively slower by about a stop (in S35 mode) which mitigates any sensitivity advantage FF has, it's slightly lower res (in S35 mode) and this combination won't achieve the shallow depth of field you'll have with the first setup.
If you need 4K video, the A6500 is brilliant (better 4K video than the 7R imo) and the combination is still less than half the price of the castrated FF setup.
Again, in a pinch, the crop mode can serve well, but I'd still advise to shoot FF and crop in post, just in case, but for planned outings and purchasing this lens with the intent that you will use it cropped, you're actually better off purchasing another body and lens as explained.
I don't think anyone is suggesting buying both an A7R3 and 24GM to exclusively use in crop mode.
A 24/1.4 will remain a 24/1.4 no matter what size sensor you put it in front of. Using an A7R3 in crop mode with a 24GM doesn't make it a slower lens, shutter speed or exposure will be unaffected by putting the camera in crop mode. The camera will only record data from a smaller area of the sensor.
Further a 24GM on an A7R3 in apsc crop mode will yield a depth of field of 9.6cm at a focus distance of 1m, whereas the wider 21mm lens on a apsc camera will yield a wider 12.6cm depth of field at the same focus distance and aperture.
Melindra wrote:
The last option is the least compact and heaviest, the lens is effectively slower by about a stop (in S35 mode) which mitigates any sensitivity advantage FF has, it's slightly lower res (in S35 mode) and this combination won't achieve the shallow depth of field you'll have with the first setup.
Thought I'd share that the combo can actually be had for around $3649-3800 right meow (through GT). I reference the lower end of that range based on what I paid personally over the last month.
Melindra wrote:
I don't agree re exposure. If you accept less than half the light the lens is capable of, it becomes, essentially, a slower lens.
But you're also only trying to cover half the area.
If at FF you're 1.4 exposure @1.4 is 1/125, ISO100 then changing to crop mode your exposure [email protected] is 1/125, ISO100. Effectively (in crop mode), you're not reducing the amount of light, your reducing the amount of space the light can fall onto. It doesn't alter the speed of the lens.
If you print a picture and then trim a couple of inches off the side of it, the image that remains still has the same intensity as it did before you trimmed it.... it doesn't fade because less ink is visible.
Now, this will alter the depth of field but it has zero impact on the exposure.
The effective sensor size behind the lens does not change the optical design or function of the lens, it only determines how much of the image circle cast by the lens is recorded.
The aperture f number is simply a ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. The image circle is not directly related to either, rather it is determined by how the lens focuses the image at the sensor plane. None of these lens factors can be influenced by the camera, it’s all a function of lens design.
Using a 24GM on a FF in crop mode does not change the focal length or he aperture diameter, so f1.4 is still possible. It also will not change the amount of light on the subject. So if the subject still fits within an apsc crop of the sensor, proper exposure is unaffected.
Now consider this, ALL sensors crop an image from the lens image circle. There are no round camera sensors, despite the fact that all lens elements are round as are the image circles they cast.
Melindra wrote:
I don't agree re exposure. If you accept less than half the light the lens is capable of, it becomes, essentially, a slower lens.
Depends on what you shoot. For landscapes NO. For people you can shoot in crop mode. You buy 24 for 1.4 in full frame goodness.
Melindra wrote:
I find it hilarious that we agonise over extreme corner sharpness etc. and justify the premium of Loxias etc. but then claim it's no big deal to do away with more than half the resolution by castrating a $5K camera and lens combo (7R3+24GM) instead of using a significantly cheaper system for better results. It's actually slightly better and cheaper to shoot a separate camera and lens combination than it is to purchase the 24GM and crop.
If you're stuck with a prime at a shoot and for some weird reason you must crop to get the 35mm look, sure, but purchasing this lens and a 7R2 or 7R3 to purposely reduce the camera to sub A6000 quality is bonkers imo.
Your options;
$750 for the A6K & Samyang 1.4/21 (35mm equiv) no AF
$750 for the A6K & Sigma 2.8/19 (35mm equiv)
$1K for the A6K & Sigma 1.4/30 (45mm equiv)
$1.5K for the A6K & 1.8/24ZA (35mm equiv)
$2K for the A6500 & 1.8/24ZA (35mm equiv)
$5K for the 7R3 & 24GM
The last option is the least compact and heaviest, the lens is effectively slower by about a stop (in S35 mode) which mitigates any sensitivity advantage FF has, it's slightly lower res (in S35 mode) and this combination won't achieve the shallow depth of field you'll have with the first setup.
If you need 4K video, the A6500 is brilliant (better 4K video than the 7R imo) and the combination is still less than half the price of the castrated FF setup.
Again, in a pinch, the crop mode can serve well, but I'd still advise to shoot FF and crop in post, just in case, but for planned outings and purchasing this lens with the intent that you will use it cropped, you're actually better off purchasing another body and lens as explained....Show more →
Nov 14, 2018 at 07:23 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
andrewknight wrote:
Add me to the list of people thinking about this! I am debating the 24GM vs the 35/1.4 and would love to see a direct comparison between these two. I have the 85GM and love that lens! After seeing some of the samples I am thinking about going the 24GM route now but not sure if 24mm is going to be too wide. Decisions to make.
Cropping a FF image to the size of APS-C whether you do it by using the crop mode button or afterward in post-processing reduces the resolution, the dynamic range, and the high ISO performance. So, you are making a sacrifice when you do that, but with the 42mp Sony sensor the resulting image is still pretty good. In your situation I think the FF 35mm lens is likely to produce better pictures and noticeably so quite often. Still if you have no alternative to cropping it is not something you need to be afraid of doing. Personally, I would not plan on regularly cropping a lens unless there simply was no reasonable alternative lens available, but if I was out and did not have the longer lens with me I would crop and not worry too much about it, YMMV.
Nov 14, 2018 at 07:28 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
kroyston wrote:
The effective sensor size behind the lens does not change the optical design or function of the lens, it only determines how much of the image circle cast by the lens is recorded.
The aperture f number is simply a ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. The image circle is not directly related to either, rather it is determined by how the lens focuses the image at the sensor plane. None of these lens factors can be influenced by the camera, it’s all a function of lens design.
Using a 24GM on a FF in crop mode does not change the focal length or he aperture diameter, so f1.4 is still possible. It also will not change the amount of light on the subject. So if the subject still fits within an apsc crop of the sensor, proper exposure is unaffected.
Now consider this, ALL sensors crop an image from the lens image circle. There are no round camera sensors, despite the fact that all lens elements are round as are the image circles they cast.
Although it is true that in crop mode (or on a camera with a smaller sensor) the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture will remain the same as when you shoot the same lens on FF, there will be an important difference in practice when you are shooting in some circumstances. If you have limited light, you will notice noise faster when you shoot in crop mode because you are in effect magnifying the image which includes magnifying the noise. In practice this means that if you could shoot ISO 3200 and not be bothered by the noise when shooting FF, when shooting in crop mode you will only be able to shoot at ISO 1600 and not be bothered by the noise. At the opposite extreme when you have lots of light (perhaps too much to capture it all) and you would be shooting with ISO 100 to maximize dynamic range and you just have enough dynamic range to no blow the highlights using 3 stops of shadow recovery to get the right detail out of the darkest part of the image, if you shoot in crop mode if +3 stops was the max shadow recovery that retained a good image, you will only be able to go to +2 stops of shadow recovery. Again because you are magnifying the image you are magnifying the noise in the shadows and you won't be able to push them as far. You will see these same issues whether you shoot a FF image and crop or whether you use a camera with a smaller sensor.
I carry a A6000 around for this purpose. With the A7rII as the main camera and the 24, 50, 85 if you use the a6000 occasionally you end up with effective 24 f1.4, 35 f2ish, 50 f1.4, 75 f2ish, 85 f1.4, 127 f2ish focal lengths. Those two bodies and 3 lenses make for a very compact versatile system.
. Seems we aren't the only ones shopping these at the moment.