marximus4192 wrote:
I'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?
I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.
On last month's trip I did the opposite. The 200600+1.4 on the a9 constantly except for a Milky Way shot; the Tam28200 on the Riv where I could enjoy cropper mode when needed for the 300mm.
Here's an example in cropper for 300 where the Riv was in my lap, the a9 in a Pelican on the floor. Either would have worked but the Riv was 'ready', all I had to do was roll down the window.
aldburg wrote: marximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.
For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.
I really like some the images I've seen in this thread. I was considering getting the Sony 24-105 but after comparing Flickr collections and both image threads here on FM the Tamron seems to have more potential for special rendering.
Of course, that could all be down to the photogrpaher's skill and post-processing prowess, but does anyone have experience with both the 24-104 G and the Tamron 28-200 and could share their thoughts? I'd probably use it as a documentary lens with occasional landscape duties.
Chris_88 wrote:
Sorry for asking this in an image thread, but how do you guys like the sunstars and the flare resistance?
Took a couple shots into the sun today at f/8 and f/11, sunstars are not well defined, nothing like the nice sunstars you get with recent Voigtlanders. That said, I've had a few more outings and I'm still happy with the lens overall, but sunstars aren't it's strength. Haven't had any problems with flare, but haven't tested for it.
lora_to wrote:
I really like some the images I've seen in this thread. I was considering getting the Sony 24-105 but after comparing Flickr collections and both image threads here on FM the Tamron seems to have more potential for special rendering.
Of course, that could all be down to the photogrpaher's skill and post-processing prowess, but does anyone have experience with both the 24-104 G and the Tamron 28-200 and could share their thoughts? I'd probably use it as a documentary lens with occasional landscape duties.
Lora I've mentioned several times elsewhere that I live in the 300+ focal length range, usually 400mm or more; so for what I shot I just wanted the lower ranges covered and with the most convenience. So after shooting with the Tam 28-200 for a week I sold my 24-105G and my 16-35/4. Both of those lenses were great but the Tam 17-28 and 28-200 do more for less. Less weight, less money and I used both Tams on last months trip and didn't miss the two Sonys they replaced at all.
I think the 24-105G was sharper at 105 than the Tam 28-200 at close to the same FL but really not enough for me to care one bit about.... stupid to say the Tamron was sharper at 200 but I used it a lot at 200 in cropper mode on the A7Riv and am very pleased with the sharpness there. Where the 24-105G had the F4 advantage at 105 the Tam28200 has the big F2.8 advantage wide so that was a wash.
I know many believe the 24-105G the best zoom in that range. I just don't need/nor want the best in that range.
For what I shoot, having the a9+200600G+1.4 dangling off one shoulder and the A7Riv+28-200 on the other was just wonderfully practical.
My only wish is that Tam would put out a 300/4 prime for Sony! Does Tamron make primes! Ha, teasing for I know they do, just not what I need.
Go ahead and rent one from Roger at Lensrental and see if it will work for what you shoot. I've rented many a lens from him and then decided.
That doesn’t mean you should shoot at f/16 with this lens. I would never shoot at that aperture due to diffraction, regardless of what you do with a M43.
marximus4192 wrote: aldburg wrotemarximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.
formula4speed wrote: Chris_88 wroteSorry for asking this in an image thread, but how do you guys like the sunstars and the flare resistance?Took a couple shots into the sun today at f/8 and f/11, sunstars are not well defined, nothing like the nice sunstars you get with recent Voigtlanders. That said, I've had a few more outings and I'm still happy with the lens overall, but sunstars aren't it's strength. Haven't had any problems with flare, but haven't tested for it.
Thanks for the info. I expected as much, but it's good to receive some first-hand impressions.
Hodie wrote:
That doesn’t mean you should shoot at f/16 with this lens. I would never shoot at that aperture due to diffraction, regardless of what you do with a M43.
marximus4192 wrotealdburg wrotemarximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.
Yeah I'd shoot F16 or F22 or whatever if I was trying whatever it takes to milk a Sun star out of it. I've not tried yet but I'd guess with the 28-200 it would take a whole lot of milking to get even a meager star with it.
Point taken on diffraction. We've got an mFT system lying about here somewhere and the diffraction penalty starts early on the smaller sensor. But sometimes do violate the rules of common sense even if just for fun.
Hodie wrote:
That doesn’t mean you should shoot at f/16 with this lens. I would never shoot at that aperture due to diffraction, regardless of what you do with a M43.
marximus4192 wrotealdburg wrotemarximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.
How bad is the softness due to diffraction in real life? I haven't done any tests myself but I do shoot at f11, f16 with my GFX. I have tried focus stack but that can be pain too.
Depends on the lens. Sometimes lesser designs are still sharpening up while also being negatively impacted. Also GFX will be able to stop down a bit futmrther thanks to its larger coverage.
bobby350z wrote: Hodie wroteThat doesn’t mean you should shoot at f/16 with this lens. I would never shoot at that aperture due to diffraction, regardless of what you do with a M43.
marximus4192 wrotealdburg wrotemarximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.How bad is the softness due to diffraction in real life? I haven't done any tests myself but I do shoot at f11, f16 with my GFX. I have tried focus stack but that can be pain too.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Depends on the lens. Sometimes lesser designs are still sharpening up while also being negatively impacted. Also GFX will be able to stop down a bit futmrther thanks to its larger coverage.
bobby350z wroteHodie wroteThat doesn’t mean you should shoot at f/16 with this lens. I would never shoot at that aperture due to diffraction, regardless of what you do with a M43.
marximus4192 wrotealdburg wrotemarximus4192 wroteI'm very interested in this lens as a possible replacement for my m4/3 gear. Has anybody shot this at f/16 (landscapes)?I'm not sure why you would want to shoot at f16 when the optimal sharpness for most lenses is around f8? I will occasionally shoot higher for long exposure photography when using an ND filter to get a longer shutter speed.For landscapes I want maximum depth of field. When I'm shooting m4/3 I shoot at f/8, which is equivalent to f/16. I like to shoot waterfalls and a lot of features come pretty close to the camera, and I want everything in focus.How bad is the softness due to diffraction in real life? I haven't done any tests myself but I do shoot at f11, f16 with my GFX. I have tried focus stack but that can be pain too.
Mine is pretty good, but I definitely get more near misses with this lens than my Sony primes. I've been shooting exclusively in AF-C with an A73 (I have a toddler, so movement is a given).
Used it in my home "studio" and despite eye-af confirmation, a few were front focused just a touch. The focal range is great for this purpose, and when it hit the sharpness was impressive. Misses with the Sony 85 1.8 in the same conditions are almost non-existent by comparison.
