Sony A7x lounge

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001742
Got a dilemma of sorts. Today the Loxia 21 got delivered. I was going to simply return it without even opening the box (due to my change of heart about selling my 5DS R), but after comparing it to my EF 16-35 f/4L IS I am wowed. Actually in the middle 2/3 of the frame the Loxia shows no superiority over the 16-35mm. But in that last area towards the borders the Loxia just absolutely crushes the 16-35mm. So, I am torn and really leaning towards keeping it. I just sold my 24-70L II today, so it can pay for the Loxia.

Also, my Loxia appears to be slightly decentered, but it looks maybe OK. I'm thinking I'll never notice it, especially at landscape apertures.

an odd dilemma...a zoom or a prime...

HOw do you test for decentering...not that I am going to, just curious.

The local camera rental place now carries Zeiss Batis FE mount lenses...not the 18mm yet...but the rest of the lineup...now I am gonna have to rent the 25...trying to get them to stock the 18 too...they carry the 17 TSE now after me prodding...and I have rented it I think 3 times since they started to carry it...

TRhoads wrote in post #18001786
an odd dilemma...a zoom or a prime...

HOw do you test for decentering...not that I am going to, just curious.

The local camera rental place now carries Zeiss Batis FE mount lenses...not the 18mm yet...but the rest of the lineup...now I am gonna have to rent the 25...trying to get them to stock the 18 too...they carry the 17 TSE now after me prodding...and I have rented it I think 3 times since they started to carry it...

Fred Miranda has a Batis 18mm up for sale; he's tested it and it is perfectly centered. Very very tempting.

How to test for decentering: http://www.gletscherbr​uch.de …ierung/dezentri​erung.html
Actually very easy.

That's a hell of a dilemma to have, David. For you AND for me.

I just got back from Yosemite (3 day trip. Downloading the pics as we speak).

Without having seen the pics, I'll say this:
1. The EF 16-35/4 got a lot of work. BUT it also reminded me how big and heavy the Canon glass is. Which made me think Loxia...
2. Then I come home and read your post....now I'm tempted to move Loxia 21 as well.

Specially since I'm now hearing/reading great things about the FE 70-300G. Which is making me think I am ready to go all in with Sony and dump the EF 70-200 and the Ef 100-400 (both of which got very little work on this trip).
The 6D body came along too, to go along with the 100-400, but there way no way I was carrying that on any hikes in addition to tripod and all the Sony and lenses.. So it got ZERO use.

The other day I was mulling the question: do I keep the 35L II or 24-70L II? Will it really matter stopped down at f/8? Then I tested it. 35L II beat the crap out of the superb 24-70L II, so I sold it. Good riddance, won't miss it.

16-35mm is tougher though. Like you it's one of my most used lenses. But, the Loxia is so good! So, here's a plan: sell the 16-35mm and buy a Rok 14mm to quench my ultra-wide thirst (may take several tries to get a good one, my last try failed). That would give me a reasonably well gapped prime lens range of 14, 21, 24, 35, 55, and 90 (keep the 70-200mm for now). All of those are superb primes that I can have total confidence in.

Regarding size, the Loxia is great. Heavier than the Batis', but small. Pardon me, but it is darn cute! One negative: there is almost no place on the barrel that doesn't turn: close to the camera is the aperture ring, and the rest of the little barrel is almost all focus ring. So, how do you mount or dismount the lens if there's no solid barrel to get hold of? I've just been using the focus ring to mount/dismount the lens, but that makes me nervous.

vinmunoz wrote in post #17999329
Brittney in her prom attire...

Lightroom only...

I would darken the shadows/blacks of her dress a bit more... I can see her undergarments pretty clearly in that second shot, probably not something her parents would be too thrilled by if they realized it

rcarlton wrote in post #17999692
When I hear people mention that the small size of the Sony mirrorless cameras is hard to get used to, I chuckle. I began with a Canon AE-1 Program and A-1 which are a little smaller than the Sony. I thought the DSLR was too big for my liking. I still do, and really appreciate the small Sony.

Yeah, I seriously don't get it either. I think people are just hung up on their perceptions from picking up the cameras in the store and thinking because it felt foreign it was "bad"... everything different feels weird at first... use it for a day or two and that feeling goes away. I actually think my a7S is too large for some uses... I use my X-E2 more often in large part (no pun intended) due to it's size.

Re edit of my earlier pano. I'm a bit happier with this one

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/G6Q6​WN

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001831
The other day I was mulling the question: do I keep the 35L II or 24-70L II? Will it really matter stopped down at f/8? Then I tested it. 35L II beat the crap out of the superb 24-70L II, so I sold it. Good riddance, won't miss it.

16-35mm is tougher though. Like you it's one of my most used lenses. But, the Loxia is so good! So, here's a plan: sell the 16-35mm and buy a Rok 14mm to quench my ultra-wide thirst (may take several tries to get a good one, my last try failed). That would give me a reasonably well gapped prime lens range of 14, 21, 24, 35, 55, and 90 (keep the 70-200mm for now). All of those are superb primes that I can have total confidence in.

Regarding size, the Loxia is great. Heavier than the Batis', but small. Pardon me, but it is darn cute! One negative: there is almost no place on the barrel that doesn't turn: close to the camera is the aperture ring, and the rest of the little barrel is almost all focus ring. So, how do you mount or dismount the lens if there's no solid barrel to get hold of? I've just been using the focus ring to mount/dismount the lens, but that makes me nervous.

I'll suggest the CV 15 instead of the rok 14.
MUCH smaller. Sharper. Excellent lens. And you're MF anyway between those two.
Mine got some use on this trip.

I'd love a prime lineup like the one you just listed. Remind me what your 24, 55 and 90 are?

Another approach I'm considering is the FE 24-70/2.8 and FE 70-300G. And sell everything else.
But again this means going all native.

Puckman wrote in post #18001879
I'll suggest the CV 15 instead of the rok 14.
MUCH smaller. Sharper. Excellent lens. And you're MF anyway between those two.
Mine got some use on this trip.

I'd love a prime lineup like the one you just listed. Remind me what your 24, 55 and 90 are?

Another approach I'm considering is the FE 24-70/2.8 and FE 70-300G. And sell everything else.
But again this means going all native.

The Rok 14mm holds it's own against the likes of the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15mm and the Nikon 14-24mm and is less than $300, which is a major factor in my scheming.

The new e-mount version of the CV 15 looks like an absolute disaster. The adapted m-mount version appears to be the way to go. Disappointing. I do love the way the CV 15 renders, and it's small size is wonderful too. If it were only $300 it would definitely be a very strong consideration.

TS-E 24L II, Otus 55mm, and Tamron 90mm Macro.

The FE 24-70mm looks pretty amazing. As sharp as the Canon, but better bokeh at max aperture.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001907
The Rok 14mm holds it's own against the likes of the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15mm and the Nikon 14-24mm and is less than $300, which is a major factor in my scheming.

The new e-mount version of the CV 15 looks like an absolute disaster. The adapted m-mount version appears to be the way to go. Disappointing. I do love the way the CV 15 renders, and it's small size is wonderful too. If it were only $300 it would definitely be a very strong consideration.

TS-E 24L II, Otus 55mm, and Tamron 90mm Macro.

The FE 24-70mm looks pretty amazing. As sharp as the Canon, but better bokeh at max aperture.

the sy 14 isnt perfect, you can see in the 3d craft link that extreme corners smear (certainly not the end of the world).

if going by that criteria, it would be rated pretty poorly on FM. Another issue is that FM had a bad copy: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/14258​42/9#13531068

you can see the M mount version doing much better, night and day difference. Either FM has a bad copy or the E version is a dud. The great thing about the voigtlander is the weight, size, and front filter threads. being puny in size means I may take it way more often than not, in my case the cv12 is even worse than the cv15 (but certainly better than FM's dud!)

It's a long thread, but if you look through there are several people, not just Fred, reporting duds. I agree, the m-mount looks like the way to go. What a ridiculous shame that the lens actually does worse as a native e mount!

Ok, so if I get the CV 15 III, what adapter do I get?

Oh nevermind...that thread has really turned me off on the CV 15. What a disaster. Not interested in playing the lottery on that. Seems there are a lot of bad m-mount copies too.

Charlie wrote in post #18001959
the sy 14 isnt perfect, you can see in the 3d craft link that extreme corners smear (certainly not the end of the world).

if going by that criteria, it would be rated pretty poorly on FM. Another issue is that FM had a bad copy: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/14258​42/9#13531068

you can see the M mount version doing much better, night and day difference. Either FM has a bad copy or the E version is a dud. The great thing about the voigtlander is the weight, size, and front filter threads. being puny in size means I may take it way more often than not, in my case the cv12 is even worse than the cv15 (but certainly better than FM's dud!)

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001907
The Rok 14mm holds it's own against the likes of the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15mm and the Nikon 14-24mm and is less than $300, which is a major factor in my scheming.

The new e-mount version of the CV 15 looks like an absolute disaster. The adapted m-mount version appears to be the way to go. Disappointing. I do love the way the CV 15 renders, and it's small size is wonderful too. If it were only $300 it would definitely be a very strong consideration.

TS-E 24L II, Otus 55mm, and Tamron 90mm Macro.

The FE 24-70mm looks pretty amazing. As sharp as the Canon, but better bokeh at max aperture.

I've had the CV 15 M-mount for a long time now and absolutely love it. Not interested in the E-mount version.
I use mine with a generic brand (Fotga, I think?) M to E-mount adapter. Solid as a rock. Never lets me down.
But I understand the love for the SY14. I loved my SY 85 when I had it.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001969
It's a long thread, but if you look through there are several people, not just Fred, reporting duds. I agree, the m-mount looks like the way to go. What a ridiculous shame that the lens actually does worse as a native e mount!

Ok, so if I get the CV 15 III, what adapter do I get?

Oh nevermind...that thread has really turned me off on the CV 15. What a disaster. Not interested in playing the lottery on that. Seems there are a lot of bad m-mount copies too.

lol, my ignorance is bliss

i kid i kid, my cv 12 is good to the corners.

Puckman wrote in post #18001971
I've had the CV 15 M-mount for a long time now and absolutely love it. Not interested in the E-mount version.
I use mine with a generic brand (Fotga, I think?) M to E-mount adapter. Solid as a rock. Never lets me down.
But I understand the love for the SY14. I loved my SY 85 when I had it.

I'de take the cv 12 over the sy 14 for all but astro or beach abuse(shooting at the beach takes a toll on gear!). The starbursts are so much better (often more important than absolute sharpness), being stupid small and light also makes it much more pleasurable to use.

on a side note, your discussion on the 70-200 and 100-400 ditching in favor of the 70-300g.... goal is the lose weight and bulk, and that certainly happens, just not sure I want to handle a lens that's double the weight of my smallish fd 200, and at the same time, 200 isnt optimum for landscapes, I do like the 300mm ability......ughh, wish it was lighter, 800g is serious enough for me to do a double take. 300mm is not that important, but nice as well as a 1:3 macro mode makes it extremely appealing.

Got any full res image samples from the CV 12? I would love a 12mm.

Puckman wrote in post #18001813
That's a hell of a dilemma to have, David. For you AND for me.

I just got back from Yosemite (3 day trip. Downloading the pics as we speak).

Looking forward to seeing image from there...Love that place and intend to go back more than once...

After my last outing, I am starting to trust the metering more, and really getting into the ability to edit just one file instead of blending 3 or 4...

A rare sunset on Clingmans Dome. Weather up there is usually brutal, despite the snow on the ground and cold temps near freezing, it wasn't too bad.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GBKb​w5

David Arbogast wrote in post #18001986
Got any full res image samples from the CV 12? I would love a 12mm.

you can try this raw: https://dl.dropboxuser​content.com …893/20151108-DSC03817.ARW

it's at F11, as I'm typically at that aperture when using it. It's part of an HDR series, should be more helpful when evaluating sharpness.