SGinNorcal wrote:
The 16-55II is excellent wide open, I used it alot. Paired with it I have the Sigma 12/1.4 for wider and faster. It's a great little lens. But sometimes I want primes and the 18/1.4 is my fave.
Since you have both, which would you opt for in the Vatican, Pantheon, other indoors locations that are dark in Rome? The zoom for convenience, likely shooting around 1600 ISO or the primes which could get you to the 400ISO range?
pechance wrote:
Since you have both, which would you opt for in the Vatican, Pantheon, other indoors locations that are dark in Rome? The zoom for convenience, likely shooting around 1600 ISO or the primes which could get you to the 400ISO range?
I was in Rome last spring and didn't find places too dark (maybe except Santa Maria Nova and Santa Constanza) to shot with 1,4/35mm and Rokkor 35mm and Laowa 15mm shift lens (at F8) on fullframe Sony - maybe some fast 1.8/20 would be better but I've traveled light. So, more important it appeared to be how lens controls backlight, not just flare from pont light sources but overall contrast from large windows etc.
Laowa 15mm shift is my bread&butter lens but it could be better in that regard (somewhen I would accompany it with 20mm, Canon TS-E 24mm II which I had too is not that mych better and less wider, 17 TS-E is no better too).
pechance wrote:
Since you have both, which would you opt for in the Vatican, Pantheon, other indoors locations that are dark in Rome? The zoom for convenience, likely shooting around 1600 ISO or the primes which could get you to the 400ISO range?
Ive not been to the Vatican but that sounds like a perfect use of the Sigma 12/1.4. The 18 would probably not be wide enough.
pechance wrote:
I have the 18, 33 1.4's and the 56/1.2 which is what I was originally thinking of taking but the idea of a zoom for trips like this with my wife might be better.....
I have gotten spoiled with my small MF glass (43 and 49mm filters).... If I had the courage, I'd take my 18/2.8 skopar, 27/2 Ultron and 50/2 APO Lanthar - no camera bag - just a fanny pack. But it doesn't really help in low light.
This, have the Courage!
Having super fast lenses or the highest MP bodies is the goal of most threads here on FM. But in reality carrying and using it all, especially on a long multi-stop foreign trip, is wrong for so many reasons. Extra weight, extra bulk, larger bags, larger filter sets, being noticed because of the gear, theft insurance and the chance of robbery? A “once in a lifetime trip” should be about you and your wife having the best of times and shooting with a minimalist kit with lenses and bodies you know, not a new, expensive and very complicated camera system you know nothing about. (I say this as a 8 year user of Sony FF with 3 bodies and too many lenses. My last 2 overseas trip have been with my Fuji's. )
On my recent Summer 2-1/2 month trip to Thailand with my wife, I took my Fuji X-T5, the C/V 18 f2.8 CS and 27mm f2 Ultron, and XF 50mm f2 Fujicron in a Peak Design 3 L bag as my daily kit. Really lightweight kit at < 3 Lbs; small, non-evasive and I just loved. Took 3,800 raw & Jpeg photos, just over 1/3 of the photos were with the Ultron. Had a TTL Godox IT30 Pro flash with me but it was only used a few times.
Yes I brought a 2nd, bigger 6L bag with a backup body X-E5, the XF 14 f2.8 (Exc. copy MPB used $278), XF 35 f1.4, Sigma 56 f1.4 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 zoom, as it was my first overseas trip with my Fuji gear. Most days the 6L bag was locked in the hotels safe. I bought the Sigma zoom as a do all lens just for this trip, and used it for lots of shots, but liked going bagless on many days, just a body with wrist strap and a pancake mounted, the other pancake in my pocket. Really came in handy as we used the very crowded Metro train system in Bangkok extensively.
In your case maybe bring the XF 18 f1.4 in your packed luggage as an alternate to the 18mm CS if you are worried about the corners. I was not and I am very happy with the results.
Everyone on here can not make up your mind for you. Not that this will either, but, rent what you think you want.
Sure sounds like you WANT a FF body, Sony I guess, so rent one. Heck, rent the A7RV (or IV) and a A7CR too, just for another body and smaller. Then, rent you 4-6 lenses, some prime, some zoom. Load it all up. Take all of that, and a bunch of batteries too.
Then, when you get home, look at all your images, and then the gear before sending it back and then think out loud "This lens was a complete waste. This one was almost a waste. This one I didn't like. And so on".
You know what works most of the time? Not thinking about what you WANT. Just take the minimum you NEED, and be happy with the results. If you want tack sharp across all corners, on any focal length, and no more than ISO 400, or noise free clean and sharp at any ISO, no matter what... then take $20k worth of stuff in a giant bag and carry it all around, just in case.
If the goal is hand-holding in low light, as crazy as it sounds have you considered micro 4/3? With non-telephoto lenses people get 2 second exposures with those handheld.
marlinspike wrote:
If the goal is hand-holding in low light, as crazy as it sounds have you considered micro 4/3? With non-telephoto lenses people get 2 second exposures with those handheld.
People get 2 second exposures with the new Hasselblad too.
p.2 #12 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Part of the reason you might perceive some softness in the corners is that you're stretching those corners to achieve perspective correction.
Unless you're using a T/S lens, you'll have to do the same thing with a Sony kit, leading to the same possible issues.
If you want a lighter lens than the 16-55, check out the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
I have the Sigma 10-18 and really like it for a wide angle lens (my main criteria are compactness and decent sharpness). The big problem with these sigma lenses is that they lack an aperture ring so you need to dedicate a dial on the camera for that.
p.2 #13 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gyoung143 wrote:
1.4 on wide angles not much use for church interiors etc, not enough DoF. I use the 14mm, usually at f/4.
Gerry
Though hyperfocal distance is only about 12 feet at f/1.4 for a 14mm, so in theory if lens is set at that, anything 6ft onward *should* appear to be in focus -- certainly a lot of the shown ceiling photos are at easily that distance away. Of course, that's only if you're looking at about a 8"x12" sized reproduction. That said, lens is likely to be pretty soft at f/1.4 with a good amount of vignetting.
p.2 #14 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gyoung143 wrote:
1.4 on wide angles not much use for church interiors etc, not enough DoF. I use the 14mm, usually at f/4.
Gerry
Doesn't this depend on where you focus? My calculator shows if I focus at around 35' with 18mm @ 1.4 on XT5, I get 18.165 feet to 500' in focus. Sure, stopping down to F4 get's to 6.7' to 498' of focus.
With your 14 @4 = massive DoF - 4'-infinity
Separate question, how do you find your 14 on the 40mp sensor?
p.2 #16 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
Doesn't this depend on where you focus? My calculator shows if I focus at around 35' with 18mm @ 1.4 on XT5, I get 18.165 feet to 500' in focus. Sure, stopping down to F4 get's to 6.7' to 498' of focus.
With your 14 @4 = massive DoF - 4'-infinity
Separate question, how do you find your 14 on the 40mp sensor?
I’ll respond from my own long experience with the 14mm, which I’ve had for over a decade. It works great with 40MP sensor cameras — I use mine on the XT5. There’s a myth that older (which, oddly, now means “more than five years!”) lenses aren’t up to the resolution of the higher MP sensor, but that is generally incorrect. Quite a few lenses aren’t more than capable of taking advantage of the higher resolution sensor in the obvious ways, and all lenses will perform a bit better on it.
If you are coming up with your DOF figures using some sort of “DOF calculator,” you should be aware that those are generally relying on some old-school notions about how sharp is sharp enough… that came from decades ago and were based on acceptable sharpness when enlarging to relatively small sizes — often smaller than a full monitor size on your computer. Today we expect, for various reasons including making much larger prints, a higher level of sharpness and detail.
That’s a long way of saying that you aren’t likely to actually get the sharpness you want across the distance range you suggest at a wide-open f/1.4 aperture.
While I can (and do occasionally) shoot an f/2.8 lens like the 14mm at f/2.8, its largest aperture, I usually don’t have to even with interiors, and I’m way more likely to use something like f/4 with it and other lenses.
p.2 #17 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you are coming up with your DOF figures using some sort of “DOF calculator,” you should be aware that those are generally relying on some old-school notions about how sharp is sharp enough… that came from decades ago and were based on acceptable sharpness when enlarging to relatively small sizes — often smaller than a full monitor size on your computer. Today we expect, for various reasons including making much larger prints, a higher level of sharpness and detail.
.
That "Old School" DoF works quite well if one observes the proper viewing distance. For a 2x3m print, one should be 2-3 meters away. Then DoF covers just fine, Of course moving closer to "inspect" detail, all DoF bets are off. Same for cropping or viewing at 100%.
Fuji has that nifty "Pixel Level" DoF which shows how dramatically smaller DoF gets at pixel level. That very small range is also the reason why AF inaccuracies matter so much (to me).
p.2 #18 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ll respond from my own long experience with the 14mm, which I’ve had for over a decade. It works great with 40MP sensor cameras — I use mine on the XT5. There’s a myth that older (which, oddly, now means “more than five years!”) lenses aren’t up to the resolution of the higher MP sensor, but that is generally incorrect. Quite a few lenses aren’t more than capable of taking advantage of the higher resolution sensor in the obvious ways, and all lenses will perform a bit better on it.
If you are coming up with your DOF figures using some sort of “DOF calculator,” you should be aware that those are generally relying on some old-school notions about how sharp is sharp enough… that came from decades ago and were based on acceptable sharpness when enlarging to relatively small sizes — often smaller than a full monitor size on your computer. Today we expect, for various reasons including making much larger prints, a higher level of sharpness and detail.
That’s a long way of saying that you aren’t likely to actually get the sharpness you want across the distance range you suggest at a wide-open f/1.4 aperture.
While I can (and do occasionally) shoot an f/2.8 lens like the 14mm at f/2.8, its largest aperture, I usually don’t have to even with interiors, and I’m way more likely to use something like f/4 with it and other lenses....Show more →
I think I need to practice trusting IBIS more - after decades of 1/FL, I still default to those shutter speeds. Slower SS's, mean 2.8 or 4 and a lower ISO.... Why am I hearing "Trust the IBIS, Luke..." BTW, who is this Luke guy and why are the voices in my head talking to him?
p.2 #20 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
Doesn't this depend on where you focus? My calculator shows if I focus at around 35' with 18mm @ 1.4 on XT5, I get 18.165 feet to 500' in focus. Sure, stopping down to F4 get's to 6.7' to 498' of focus.
With your 14 @4 = massive DoF - 4'-infinity
Separate question, how do you find your 14 on the 40mp sensor?
Yes but a typical interior likely has church pews a few feet in front of you, and the chancel might be 100ft away, that's quite typical, of palaces, museums etc as well.
And while I am a firm advocate for 'tradional' DoF figures, I've always treated them with a stop or so of caution. Not so much as the utterly pointless and useless 'pixel based' figures.
The 14mm does as well as ever, on Xt5, or 3 or Xpro2 if you look at the results as complete pictures. I'm not interested in peeping at minute parts of the image. I didn't leave half my lenses at home when I used Pan F instead of FP3. A good lens is a good lens, and produces good pictures. Where the Xt5 helps is IBIS. That and good high iso noise performance means I don't use the bean bag or mini tripod much anymore.
