Hi Wayne, here some images to pixelpeep. Downloaded original size files,
Zone10 seems not to like it ;-). I did not cancel all editing, but reset
cropping and sharpening (not with all).
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=23085>
The garden and intererior are with the original A7, so lens stablisation
only (I'm satisfied with it, my reference being the E-M1...). The gardens
and house of Monet in Giverny, France, btw. Pictures are sharpened. Inside
pictures partly without support (I'm usually looking for doorposts etc, I
worry about horizontal level later ;-).
Rest is A7R ii, no sharpening except default LR. IBIS for some part of the
stabilisation, lens for the rest, as I understood. Didn't test it
extensively, but it's OK.
Hope you see why I'm quite satisfied with the lens (and camera's).
Please share your findings.
Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 20:33 schreef Frank <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Aha, I have a 4/16-35mm for some month now. I like the quality of the
> images, partly due to the Sony camera's (sensors that is ;-).
>
> I figured to buy it secondhand, use it for a while, maybe two years, and
> then evaluate which focal length brought me my best pictures and shooting
> fun. And then maybe buy a prime with that focal length, for some more
> light. With the popularity of Sony mirrorless I presume I can sell it with
> limited loss, if needed.
>
> Until then, I'll help myself with some f2 Zuiko's (which are, at f2, quite
> limited in terms of their sharpness area I think).
>
> I'll collect a few images to give you an idea.
>
> Good luck with your search.
>
>
> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:21 schreef Wayne Shumaker <om3ti@xxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Sometimes you just need a wide. Yes, stitching can be done...but not as
>> fun.
>>
>> Here are some shots taken in Virgin Gorda with OM4Ti + 16mm fisheye and
>> 21mm/2 (provia):
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3hwtuh0j3ajzvx3/AAAPPoXbLvkw33282XetltPya?dl=0
>>
>> The fisheye I found, if the horizon is centered, the distortion is not
>> bad to look at. The OM 21/2 was one of my favorite lenses (along with
>> 100mm/2 and some others).
>>
>> Now I have two lenses for my A7 III: 24-105 and 70-300. I have used a
>> Canon 16-35 in the past.
>>
>> Sony has an 11-24/4, 16-35/4 and 16-35/2.8 GM. There are other brands out
>> there, as well as some primes. The 16-35/2.8 GM is $$$ at about $2100.
>> There is a Zeiss Batis 18mm/2.8, Venus Optics Laowa 12mm/2.8 and 15/2...
>>
>> Ken Rockwell also points out that image stabilization is problematic with
>> ultrawides, since it is impossible to do from center to edge.
>>
>> My question is what other's opinion would be for ultra wide?
>>
>> WayneS
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|