Nice results from you as usual.
Very nice!
Really sad that I could not joined you guys for the outing yesterday, better discuss off-line!
There's always next month, but don't miss too many
Sony A7/(r) image sharing thread #2
- Thread starter pinholecam
- Start date
- Status
Nice results from you as usual.
Very nice!
There's always next month, but don't miss too many
ahmad0420
New Member
Last edited:
Thanks!
Here's a follow up from the epic sunrise!
Angel In Blue Jeans by t3cnica, on Flickr
Sony A7R + FE 16-35
Thanks!
Here's a follow up from the epic sunrise!
Sony A7R + FE 16-35
Nice!!..
When the sunlight hits the cbd area in the morning, its real nice.
Can you share your thoughts about the lens compared to the other UWAs you have used before?
(eg. flare resistance; AF in the darker wee hrs or MF handling when necessary in real low light, etc)
TIA
after stalking this thread for a while, my first newbie contribution
Tower of London poppies by s3phiria, on Flickr
A7 kit
Tower of London poppies by s3phiria, on FlickrA7 kit
Had an evening off (from my kids) for taking X'mas deco but the lights at Centeerpoint decide to not cooperate 
A7S + FE11635 + Light Trail app:
The app is nice for capturing more trails. The downside is that it'll capture the moving deco lights as trails too.
A7S + FE11635 + Light Trail app:
The app is nice for capturing more trails. The downside is that it'll capture the moving deco lights as trails too.
Last edited:
nice. hope it will works with A7 II
Had an evening off (from my kids) for taking X'mas deco but the lights in Centerpoint decide not to come on
A7S + FE11635 + Light Trail app:
The app is nice for capturing more streaks. The downside is that it'll capture the moving deco lights as streaks too.
Last edited:
Sharing a comparison I did with the Smooth Reflection app on A7S + FE1635.
Without app at 6s exposure:
With app at 5s exposure per shot (can't remember how many but it's more than 10):
The water is a bit choppy due to people walking on it. You can see the smoothing but I wouldn't use it much because it takes quite a few shots to blend. There are a few modes so I am not if the app optimize for the type of scene. Will find sometime to compare with an ND filter and see.
Without app at 6s exposure:
With app at 5s exposure per shot (can't remember how many but it's more than 10):
The water is a bit choppy due to people walking on it. You can see the smoothing but I wouldn't use it much because it takes quite a few shots to blend. There are a few modes so I am not if the app optimize for the type of scene. Will find sometime to compare with an ND filter and see.
albertri
Senior Member
Sharing a comparison I did with the Smooth Reflection app on A7S + FE1635.
Without app at 6s exposure:
With app at 5s exposure per shot (can't remember how many but it's more than 10):
The water is a bit choppy due to people walking on it. You can see the smoothing but I wouldn't use it much because it takes quite a few shots to blend. There are a few modes so I am not if the app optimize for the type of scene. Will find sometime to compare with an ND filter and see.
not bad specially if you don't have ND filter. I have not played much with A7/x apps other than sharing photos to HP or tablets
Thanks!
I have been in this hobby for ~4 years and this is the 3rd UWA which I am using.
I am actually very new to the FE 16-35 and still getting used to it.
But for sure I can say, this little lens totally blows my previous 10-22 and 16-35L II out of the water, in terms of resolution and sharpness.
The FE 16-35 is sharp, edge to edge, even at f4. This is one aspect which my previous lenses cannot do, the bare minimum I could do then, was f5.6 and it was mediocre.
Flare resistance is about the same for all 3 lenses which is great, prolly the 10-22 will edge out just a bit.
AF wise, the 2 Canon lenses are the winners, perhaps due the combined usage with PDAF from the DSLR(vs the slower CDAF on the A7R).
Since my predominant genre is land/cityscapes, AF is a non-issue to me as I normally will hyperfocus with the lens.
I have used the 16-35L II on my A7R via Metabones adapter and the L-glass is sharper and resolve better on the A7R than on my then-5DMK3. Canon sure did over-engineered the 16-35L II.
Well, the 2 Canon lenses are quite dated, therefore I guess it is normal for the Sony glass to top out in overall performance.
1 little complain about the FE 16-35 is the reverse external zoom. I really prefer the conventional manner, with 16mm being compact and 35mm being zoomed in physically. Hell, my 2 Canon lenses are all internal zooming.
So yeah, some views which I can share currently, until I use the lens through and through. Since the UWA focal length is my playground, I guess it's just a matter of time before I derive more findings!
Thank you!
Don't want to inundate the thread with my queries.
Add a photo 1st
A7+Pentax FA*85/1.4
Graziella #2 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Many thanks for your inputs.
Really valuable insights.
Yeah, I think Canon has addressed the all round sharpness with their new 16-35/4, though the 16-35/2.8II has been their 'best' option for quite a while.
You mention that you use hyper focal distance, so you mean you just base it off the electronic scale that appears on the LCD?
I'd think magnifying in at f4 and low light conditions like 5.30am/7.30pm may be hard if the location has no bright object?
This is one of my main concerns if going for this lens.
Add a photo 1st
A7+Pentax FA*85/1.4
Graziella #2 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Thanks!
I have been in this hobby for ~4 years and this is the 3rd UWA which I am using.
I am actually very new to the FE 16-35 and still getting used to it.
But for sure I can say, this little lens totally blows my previous 10-22 and 16-35L II out of the water, in terms of resolution and sharpness.
The FE 16-35 is sharp, edge to edge, even at f4. This is one aspect which my previous lenses cannot do, the bare minimum I could do then, was f5.6 and it was mediocre.
Flare resistance is about the same for all 3 lenses which is great, prolly the 10-22 will edge out just a bit.
AF wise, the 2 Canon lenses are the winners, perhaps due the combined usage with PDAF from the DSLR(vs the slower CDAF on the A7R).
Since my predominant genre is land/cityscapes, AF is a non-issue to me as I normally will hyperfocus with the lens.
I have used the 16-35L II on my A7R via Metabones adapter and the L-glass is sharper and resolve better on the A7R than on my then-5DMK3. Canon sure did over-engineered the 16-35L II.
Well, the 2 Canon lenses are quite dated, therefore I guess it is normal for the Sony glass to top out in overall performance.
1 little complain about the FE 16-35 is the reverse external zoom. I really prefer the conventional manner, with 16mm being compact and 35mm being zoomed in physically. Hell, my 2 Canon lenses are all internal zooming.
So yeah, some views which I can share currently, until I use the lens through and through. Since the UWA focal length is my playground, I guess it's just a matter of time before I derive more findings!
Thank you!
Many thanks for your inputs.
Really valuable insights.
Yeah, I think Canon has addressed the all round sharpness with their new 16-35/4, though the 16-35/2.8II has been their 'best' option for quite a while.
You mention that you use hyper focal distance, so you mean you just base it off the electronic scale that appears on the LCD?
I'd think magnifying in at f4 and low light conditions like 5.30am/7.30pm may be hard if the location has no bright object?
This is one of my main concerns if going for this lens.
baa tanhaa
Member
A7 + 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G at 70mm 4.5
Don't want to inundate the thread with my queries.
Add a photo 1st
A7+Pentax FA*85/1.4
https://flic.kr/p/pVpUTW
Graziella #2 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Many thanks for your inputs.
Really valuable insights.
Yeah, I think Canon has addressed the all round sharpness with their new 16-35/4, though the 16-35/2.8II has been their 'best' option for quite a while.
You mention that you use hyper focal distance, so you mean you just base it off the electronic scale that appears on the LCD?
I'd think magnifying in at f4 and low light conditions like 5.30am/7.30pm may be hard if the location has no bright object?
This is one of my main concerns if going for this lens.
When I used to have the Canon lenses, I will hyperfocus via the distance scale on the lens but for the FE 16-35 everything is electronic, so I had to use the electronic scale in the camera and when the lens is switched to MF.
For shooting landscapes in low light, you can try boosting your ISO first, as the live view will simulate the exposure, meaning you can see the dark scene better. After you have checked for accurate focus, you then return back to low ISO and commence your long exposure or whichever settings that suffice the scene.
Nikonzen
Senior Member
Probably your only option for normal to tele is to get good at setting up a "focus trap" very quickly on the fly. Learn to anticipate the decisive moment, prefocus for it, and then hammer the target when it gets in the kill zone. I'm an old manual focus fool...it is a tough row to hoe let me tell you what. Proper focus is so critical and many folks don't get it entirely. Focus is probably my number one photographic dilemma as I use old manual focus lenses exclusively on a old body with a very poor VF too...I really need to go full frame digital to make any progress with my particular problem. I envy you FF guys but I still own a F2 so it's all good...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
