aCuria Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Curious what lenses people are using 16-35 and 70-200? | |
Thanks for the long write up, it’s much appreciated!
I’m assuming from your post, that you are using a single camera for your event photography? Using a 16-35 and 70-200 on two cameras is not the same thing as using the 16-35 and having to switch lenses for 70mm. When being paid to do the event a backup camera is needed regardless… my as well use it.
I suspect you find changing lenses particularly annoying because that lens kit… is particularly large and heavy (12-24GM, 24-70v1, 100-400?) as compared to someone using lightweight primes which can be just 100-200g each. It’s much easier to switch lenses when they are small.
I have to disagree that the lens comparisons are navel gazing… when I tested the 35/1.4 ZA some years ago it was quite disappointing compared to the 35L (which I sold for the 35GM). In Sony’s current lens lineup, theres an awful number of terribly overpriced duds like the 24-240, 28/2, 35ZA, 16-70/4 ZA…it’s quite important to figure out what’s what, even the 70-200 v1 was not very impressive
You may be interested to know that the modern canon printer drivers (for the pro-1000 and similar) does not downsample the input image anymore (the old ones did), so massively increasing the input image dpi is preferable, while in the past you wanted to upsample or downsample to specific input image dpi so the printer driver doesn’t do (bad) up/down sampling
The amount of information the printer drivers can consume and reproduce in print actually far exceeds the capability of our cameras today, even for smaller prints
The Canon pro-1000 can output 2400 dots of varying sizes (and shades of grey) per inch, and in a 4x6 inch B&W print that’s 2400* 6” = 14,400 dots. Compare that to the 9504 pixel width you get out of the Riv…. Anyway 4x6” is an extreme example, I think you should see differences at > 8x12 if you can see them on your screen
There’s a video on this subject regarding the printing side of things i watched some time ago:
https://youtu.be/bjfWdWmCzSQ
Regardless, I agree that the other factors mentioned composition, lighting, timing, rare atmospheric conditions… are more important than the lens.
However the lens choice is the one where improvement involves spending money, while the others involves spending “time and effort”. The “currency” used to improve each one isn’t the same so they are not usually discussed together
I’m not sure how you frame your events shots, but regarding the corner / edge resolution comment, suppose you have a group photo don’t your subject’s heads end up closer to the edge of the frame rather than the centre? It’s actually pretty rare for me to put the subject’s head in the centre 33% of the frame. Usually the eyes will be in the top 25% of the frame.
For me the f/1.4 look is not the only reason to use f/1.4. I actually do carry NDs but I use them fairly rarely for the specific purpose of getting to f/1.4!
Pushing down the iso used indoors and at night is a big reason for me to use 1.4 or brighter. I would always shoot wide open when above iso 100 if i can get away with it, but it’s not always possible, especially if there are >2 people in the frame.
Some other reasons to shoot wide open for me are to keep the shutter speed low for Astro, and to remove distracting foregrounds in landscapes
I realize from your typical lens choices, the way you shoot is fairly different. I sold an EF 28-75 long ago, and a 24-105L more recently because both didn’t get much use.
These days for personal photography I often carry out either the 24GM (video) or 35GM alone in a small bag. Especially for indoor stuff and in the evening I won’t take any other lenses
Only if more reach is needed, then 85mm / 90mm / 70-200L(sold) / 150-600 (sold) would be brought along in addition.
If I foresee needing something wider then the 15 fisheye 17mm or 16-35 are added to the bag
I think in the end if I really need a zoom in that range I would have kept the 24-105 until today, or at the very least have missed having the 24-105 after selling it.
The most annoying thing for me right now, is bringing out the 35 + 90, and the 90mm (my longest ff lens now) not being long enough.
photosbyjaron wrote:
I'll chime in here since I was referenced. Sorry for the delay - just seeing this thread from the notifications of being mentioned, as I haven't been as active on the forum lately with other hobbies crowding brain and wallet space.
As it relates to the main subject of this thread: I think the 16-35/70-200 is a very capable combo and is what I used for the first several years of shooting landscapes once I got back into the hobby. Gives nice UWA and WA options, and it also allows for those tighter landscape shots that are often, in my opinion, the ones that really shine. The one area where this two lens combo lacks is probably event photography, simply because the 35-70 range really is such a useful range that is common to the human eye. If I was shooting events, I'd want a 24-70 in addition to the 70-200 (or in addition to a 16-35 for small room events) or a 35-150. That being said, regarding the subject for which I was referenced, past posts about the 35-150, I do think that for those that don't often use the 200mm of the 70-200, the 35-150 is a match made in heaven with the 16-35. For corporate events, weddings, parties, etc., it does seem to me to be the perfect lens to pair with a 16-35 for event photography. One of the main reasons I say this is because the overall composition appearance between 150 and 200 is fairly insubstantial. An event shot taken at 150 and cropped to what it would be had it been 200 is negligible. As compared to trying to do the same thing on the wider end. Cropping a 35 f/2.8 to a 65 f/2.5 just isn't the same. Anyways, that aspect is likely why the 35-150 was referenced in a thread about 16-35/70-200 combo.
So to further derail this for just one more post, here's my long-winded response to the discussion about the 35-150 here:
Ultimately, most of lens X vs lens X is navel gazing in the end, right? If we're shooting landscapes, unless we're printing 36x48 or something, we're not going to see a noticeable resolution difference - the real thing that matters is the composition, lighting, timing, rare atmospheric conditions, etc. - the lens is just a small piece of the story, and is merely an inanimate tool. Similarly, if we're shooting events, we're likely framing the subject near the center, and a small increase in corner resolution absolutely does not matter. At the point a speaker or a bride or the mother of the bride is far enough to the corner where resolution differences matter, we've screwed up as the photographer. The only time I wish for a prime is when I really want that f/1.4 look, but I don't consider that IQ. Narrow DOF is an artistic aesthetic decision and not a question of image quality. And the only time when it really matters to have a zoom is when I want a particular focal length look that I can't get with a prime.
For landscapes, there isn't a picture on any of my walls that I can look at and think, man, I wish I had used a Sony with a 16-35GM instead of a Z7 with a Z14-30. Nor are there images I've printed where I've wished I had used a 35GM instead of my T35-150 based on resolution or general IQ (the sun flare with sunsets is an issue). There are definitely shots where I wish I had used a dramatically different focal length, which was why prior to the 35-150, I carried my 14-24/24-70/100-400 everywhere I went - and spent an annoying amount of time during a sunset rushing to change lenses for a particular composition that would arise. The number of times during one fall season shooting our yellow aspens where I was constantly having to change lenses between my 24-70 and 100-400 to capture some unique sun ray in the distance, and then something up close, and then the need to switch back to the standard zoom, and then to the 35GM for a high resolution stitched pano, and then back to the standard zoom, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat - became extremely frustrating, and I longed for a lens with the IQ that was good enough and versatile enough where I'd change lenses fewer times and miss fewer shots with the wrong lens and not enough time to change (like a fox appearing out of nowhere, but having a 35GM on the body).
Now I mostly just carry a 16-35/35-150. I took my SY24/35GM/100-400GM along as well when we went to Patagonia, and quickly realized I could get 95% of the shots I wanted there just with the 16-35/35-150. So the 35-150 lives on my camera 95% of the time. I'll shoot with my 35GM when I make an concerted effort to capture f/1.4 shots, and I'll use my SY24 for milky way shots, but otherwise, the Tamron lives on my camera nearly full time. But that's because it is the tool that works best for my needs and the compromises I'm okay with. To me, convenience is having the focal range. But even convenience means different things to different people. I am highly annoyed by lens changes. Someone who loves and uses tiny Voigt lenses likely sees their size and weight as the convenience and think a giant, heavy lens as very inconvenient.
As it relates to actual image quality, in a blind test, 9 out of 10 times, even seasoned photographers will fail to differentiate one lens from another, unless we're talking about particularly noticeable features - like a Voight's sunstars, for example. But if we're going to acknowledge that the question of IQ is minor minutia that mostly just interests those of us who get wrapped into that sort of thing, then let's navel gaze as it relates to the T35-150 vs 24-70/70-200 for those overlapping focal lengths:
For sun flare/ghosting/etc., there is no question that this is a weakness of the T35-150. While it is better than the 100-400GM in that aspect, only minimally so. I will reach for a prime for a directly into the sunset shot 10 out of 10 times if available if that is the shot. Or I will stitch a scene where I can compose to minimize the glare.
For resolution, obviously a prime like a 35GM, one of the best primes on the market (if you get a good copy), is going to out-resolve any zoom. I don't have hands on experience with the new 24-70GMII or the 70-200GMII, but I'd be shocked if they can compare with the 35GM (whose resolution in a good copy is nearly comparable to the voigt). However, I imagine both GMII's can likely better resolve further to the corners than the T35-150 - and importantly, they should, they cost more, and they are focal lengths that are easier to construct for a sharp image. A 24-70/28-75 is not a crazy ask for a sharp lens. Nor is a 70-200. I think the real surprise is just how well the T35-150 compares to these standard lenses, given that it is a 4x lens mid-range to short telephoto zoom.
Bokeh is very personal. All have difference preferences, some stronger than others. I find that very few of my shots are ruined (or made) by bokeh. But I also don't do portrait photography where that matters. I'm an attorney, and this is just a hobby to me, so I shoot landscapes, my wife in landscapes, my dog, my dog in landscapes, my friends, and my friend's dogs (and a rare paid gig). That's basically it. The T35-150 at 35 f/2 has given me plenty of bokeh to work with, and I'm quite happy with it.
Modern lenses across the board are so good now that often there is more of a difference in the range of lens variability than there is between models. Only testing lenses in the method that Roger at lens rentals was doing would really tell us a base line - and that is only useful in a semi-academic manner of acknowledging which designer had likely the best design for X attribute. Copy to copy variation is such across the whole industry that the only useful comparisons are between the two copies an individual actually has in their possession. I've handled copies of the 35GM where the T35-150 would have been better in a heads up competition. A perfect 35GM, however, will trounce the zoom. I have a very good copy of the Sigma 24-70 (at least I did before I sent it in for the dust issue warranty repair), and there were some focal lengths where it bested the 35-150 and some where it was bested.
Grab a different copy of the Sigma 24-70 (or GMII) and you'll get different results. If you're in the States, I hate to suggest abusing our generous consumer return policies, but with the current state of lens variation, it's nearly advisable at this point to buy two copies and keep the best one while returning the other.
I acknowledge this is kind of rambling. To try to come to some point:
1) I think it is best to see these lenses as merely the tools they are and to consider for each individual's use case, particularly your use case, whether it's a better tool or a worse tool, than other tools available, for what you want out of it. After all, you wouldn't use a framing hammer to hang a picture frame, and you wouldn't want to try to frame a house with a finishing hammer. The question isn't which is a better tool - they are different tools - filling different tool slots.
I see the 35-150 as an incredibly useful tool for me, and I have hardly used my 35GM/100-400GM since I bought it. The primary reason is convenience. I don't have to change lenses, don't have to bring them with me, don't have to consider which tool is the "best" - because as a tool it is good enough to handle nearly anything I encounter (combined with the 16-35GM).
2) The focal range will either match your shooting preferences (your mind's eye of things) or it wont. 5 years ago, 15mm and 30mm were probably my most frequently taken focal length for images (15-30 zoom), and I was really into wide angle perspectives for landscapes. But then I considered that of the dozens of images we've printed to hang on our walls of our adventures in the last 5 years, maybe 1 image was at 14mm and less than half a dozen were at 24mm or less. When I realized that I actually preferred tighter images, and that most of my "keepers" that we ended up printing and hanging up were mostly 35mm and greater, I longed for a lens that could give me 24-70/70-200 type resolution in a single lens. So when Tamron announced the 35-150, I preordered it - the only lens I've ever done so. Simply because that focal range and the aperture range is so incredibly useful for my personal preferences.
Every lens is a bundle of compromises - compromises the designers had to make at the inception of the lens, and compromises also that result from manufacturing. (I tested 5 35GMs before I found my keeper and 2 T35-150s). I'd say the compromise of the 35-150 is a minor compromise in IQ and size and weight for the benefit of convenience. The convenience of not changing lenses, and the convenience in not needing to really carry additional lenses.
Absolute corner sharpness compared to the 24-70GMII or 70-200GMII is probably lower, but I also can zoom from 35 to 150 without a lens change. It is the PERFECT event lens. I recently shot an event, a rare thing for me, and I was able to zoom in on speakers for individual details and then zoom out enough to capture full scenes. With a 24-70, I would have wanted to also bring a 70-200 for that role. In that particular case, the tool gave me convenience. I could take a camera bag for just the camera and the one lens. I could get all the shots with the one lens. The client wouldn't have known or cared if I had used a 24-70/70-200 combo for that tiniest of increases in resolution in the corners.
As a prospective buyer, you just need to decide which bundle of compromises are right for you. Is it more lenses via primes, a bit fewer lenses in the GMII fashion, or is it the T35-150. Absolute IQ in the far corners should be nearly a last priority issue, unless you're printing massive landscape shots and standing 6 inches away to oooh and aahh at the details (which is also fine - I love to do that with our giant acrylic pano prints, and it's why I shoot with an RIV).
Good luck! And good luck with the lens lottery gods on whichever lens you go with!...Show more →
|