Lenses

[Geoff CB]

Quick test of the Tamron 45mm 1.8. Great close focus and interesting separation. 

 

[kye]

12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

That is the beauty of Clear Zoom on the Sony cameras. You can have your 24-70 with that one lens, and do it in FF if you use a A7 series body..

Absolutely.  I think it depends on if you tend to work more in-camera or in post.

I've been working on the idea of cropping / reframing / stabilising in post for some time now and I must admit that I'm pretty useless at actually shooting wider than what I want so that's a skill I need to work on.  I spent so long doing stills photography that I have an unconscious sense of composition - not that I'm great at it, but more that it's something that happens without me really thinking about it, which means I find myself composing in the viewfinder and not shooting wider like I had planned!

[webrunner5]

Well when I was young anything wider than a 24mm was so full of distortion you could not use it. Not counting there was hardly and lens wider than that anyways to even buy but a fisheye or two that cost as much as a new car or more. So when I bought my 16-35mm Sony FE I was amazed how wide it shot and I was like a kid in the candy store. I don't think it moved off of 16mm for a month or more lol. They are a real eye opener.

[mercer]

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I don't actually own it yet but I'm curious whether a Sigma ART 24-35mm f2 (in EF mount for universality of adapting) could possibly be the one for me with the caveat of having speed boosted and non speed boosted adapters for it.

Although I have to say that for pure versatility the Tamron 16-300mm EF mount I've got (again if allowed with both types of adapters) is probably a more practical choice, particularly as it also has OIS.

Yes, if it wasn’t for the sheer size of that lens, it would be in my kit already. A fast wide zoom would serve two distinct purposes in my opinion...

1. As a set of wide primes... 

2. A slow zoom in from 24-35mm on a person’s face to their eye could be a powerful shot. Of course, I assume it isn’t parfocal so it may not be an easy shot to get  

I’m not familiar with that Tamron but it seems like a good range... lol.

Have you ever used the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8? I didn’t even know the lens existed until the other day. From the Flickr pages, it seems like a decent performer for its size and price. 

On 4/19/2019 at 12:14 AM, kye said:

Tricky question.

I'd be torn between the 17.5mm 0.95 on my GH5, vs a fast zoom and having to go to APSC or FF.  Even then I'd have trouble choosing between a 24-70 or a 16-35.  I really like 16mm, 35mm, and 80mm lengths, and having to choose between 16 with it's 'wow' factor vs something longer than 35mm would be tricky.  I'd probably go the 16-35 and then go 8K ASAP to be able to crop in and extend the lens.

As I’ve said before, the Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 is one of the nicest lenses I’ve ever owned. It would be glued to my camera if I still shot M4/3.

By the sound of your second choice it seems like maybe you’re thinking of going back to aps-c or maybe even to FF?

[kye]

@webrunner5 - I agree, there is something special about 16mm.

I think that you can make a great argument that there is something special about every focal length, because in the hands of the masters all are capable of beauty and wonder.  I've chosen 16mm, 35mm, and 80mm lengths, but @mercer makes a very strong case for 28mm, and if @BTM_Pix wasn't trying to make every app and gadget not yet on the market I suspect he could make a strong case for basically every other length!

You've inspired me to have another look through some footage from our trip through Asia last year and post some stills.  Not that I'm anything even in the same universe as a master, but I've managed to luck my way into some nice shots, proving that it's more about what you put in front of the lens than the operator.  These are ungraded, apart from some quick WB and contrast, and GH5 10-bit HLG.

16mm equivalent (SLR Magic 8mm f4):

I love it because it's wide, but also because it distorts things so things look grander (like the first shot), but you have to be careful not to over-do it:

35mm equivalent (Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95):

I especially like the 35mm for environmental portraits, and having a fast aperture allows great low light performance as well as subject isolation.

I also took a 116mm equivalent lens on that trip (58mm Helios) but have since changed my longest length to an 80mm equivalent (Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8) because 116mm was a bit too far from the 35mm equivalent of the Voigt.

116mm equivalent (Helios 58mm f2):

I find the large aperture is useful for low-light, but also for getting shots through glass and defocusing the marks on the window sufficiently (the scooter shot was through a bus window).

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

As I’ve said before, the Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 is one of the nicest lenses I’ve ever owned. It would be glued to my camera if I still shot M4/3.

By the sound of your second choice it seems like maybe you’re thinking of going back to aps-c or maybe even to FF?

I'd only contemplate going back if I could only have one lens... fortunately that isn't the case! ???

[webrunner5]

Wow those are great. Well done. I particularly like the Mount Fuji one. What a beautiful mountain.

[kye]

32 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow those are great. Well done. I particularly like the Mount Fuji one. What a beautiful mountain.

I tell you what, getting that shot of Mt Fuji was an ordeal!

We did a day trip that took us to a few unrelated places and then to a beach where you can see the mountain from.  Awesome, I thought, great opportunity for a time-lapse with a great composition.  We walked about 20 minutes from the bus to the beach and had a limited time there, so I setup a time-lapse, but we mostly couldn't see the mountain because it was covered in cloud, with only a little bit sticking out.  Time goes on, Mt Fuji pokes out of the clouds and I realise I'm pointing at the wrong peak.  I reset and go again, nothing working because it's still covered in clouds.  I'm really pushing things with the time because this is our only opportunity to see the mountain, and it was the one thing the wife wanted to see but we didn't have enough time to do a special day-trip to see it.

Wife starts back and I stay to try and catch a glimpse of the mountain.  I push for the time we have before needing to be back at the bus, then start jogging back.  I'm the last person I recognise and they don't wait for you for long because the ship has to sail.  Wife is only a little bit of the way back, and had taken a wrong turn and gotten lost and just found her way back to the path.  As she was on the mend from some minor surgery couldn't walk quickly, let alone run, time is now against us completely, but oh my god where are the kids?  I thought they were between us and the bus (the route was pretty easy to remember so not really worried) but wife is freaking out and the bus needs to wait for her and if the kids aren't there then we're completely screwed.  I run back to the bus, trying not to worry and most concentrating on wishing I was fitter, to discover the clueless kids are back at the bus and are fine, and even though we're late back to the bus, so is half the group.  I visit the facilities and try to freshen up considering I'm now half drenched in sweat and we have a long bus ride back.  Wife wasn't the last one back, and all stress was unnecessary.

Get back to the boat and realise that the mountain is now uncovered from clouds, in full view of the jetty, and by going on board and going to an upper deck you get a great view.  I then proceed to take video in 2 minute increments as the light changes in complete comfort, kicking myself for worrying.

I also like this shot, which I think was the Helios, but I can't really remember.

I tell you what - those gardens we went to were just spectacular - you could be walking with a camera, trip and accidentally hit the shutter, and you'd still be likely to get a good shot!

[webrunner5]

Wow now that shot is just spectacular.

[kye]

6 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow now that shot is just spectacular.

We spent a long time in those gardens and it was a really interesting thing from a composition perspective.  The trees were showing autumn colours, but in patches, so getting a good composition was pretty easy, but getting a great one was really tricky.  I spent a long time trying different angles, and even moving the camera a little left, a little up, etc.  Some compositions were a matter of cm here or there, especially if you were framing something with something else, which the types of trees seemed to lend themselves to.

That last shot was a straight out rip-off of another photographer who had been standing there for a couple of minutes with a tripod and just left as I was walking up to the spot so I saw the composition immediately.  I suspect a highly skilled individual could have extracted a dozen or more images of that standard or greater, but you know what they say....  good artists copy and great artists steal.  So that shot makes me a great artist!! ???

Also, the wife took some absolutely spectacular images from that park with her iPhone - whatever the hell the iPhone colour science was doing was absolutely bang-on for that situation.

I've got it in the back of my mind to go through and find some nice shots where we took similar compositions and try and match the Apple processing with my GH5 shot in Resolve.  I think it would be a real learning experience because her shots just looked amazingly saturated, clean, contrasty, but not artificial, which is something I haven't been able to achieve.

[Zach Goodwin2]

Those are some good pictures kye.

[webrunner5]

9 hours ago, kye said:

Also, the wife took some absolutely spectacular images from that park with her iPhone - whatever the hell the iPhone colour science was doing was absolutely bang-on for that situation.

I've got it in the back of my mind to go through and find some nice shots where we took similar compositions and try and match the Apple processing with my GH5 shot in Resolve.  I think it would be a real learning experience because her shots just looked amazingly saturated, clean, contrasty, but not artificial, which is something I haven't been able to achieve.

I Totally agree. Like Apple or not, the CS on a newer iPhone is just amazing OOC. You are going to have one hell of a time using a "Real" camera to match one. And the iPhone happily just goes on banging them out left and right, nearly perfect every time. It is maddening to try and top one. And the AF is just crazy good also. And the XS, Max have Stereo recording in them to boot. Of all the pictures I took with mine to Florida I don't think one of them was the cameras fault if bad. On paper if I composed right, and didn't have my finger in the way of the lens lol, they were All Keepers on paper. Amazing to be honest, and frustrating to boot. If they just had a Zoom, and were a bit better in low light, but my XS is surprisingly pretty good in low light for a phone, I am not sure I would take a 100mp Phase One over a iPhone if it had those features.. 

I know I was kidding Ironfilm about his boom operating, but if they get Cine cameras as good as a damn iPhone is now there is going to be a hell of a lot of people out of a job.?

[thephoenix]

 

[JordanWright]

Stills taken from video on the P4K... Loving Braw. The first is the Tok 28-70mm 2nd is the Helios 58mm.

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, JordanWright said:

Stills taken from video on the P4K... Loving Braw. The first is the Tok 28-70mm 2nd is the Helios 58mm.

That first one could be a movie poster. Really good! Is that a frame from 4K BRAW? Which flavor? Do you notice a big difference in IQ with BRAW over ProRes?

Any chance you have an ungraded frame from that shot? I’d be interested to see how much you pulled down the blacks. 

[JordanWright]

Thanks! Yeah both from BRAW. to be honest I never shoot ProRes anymore unless I'm shooting an interview or something like that. Here are both without the grade... there not exactly the same frame but it should give an idea about the contrast!

[BTM_Pix]

On 4/20/2019 at 7:08 AM, mercer said:

Have you ever used the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8? I didn’t even know the lens existed until the other day. From the Flickr pages, it seems like a decent performer for its size and price. 

No, I have what their APS-C standard zoom, the 17-50mm f2.8, and it is a bit flimsy in terms of build and noisy for AF but optically it is really very good.

The used price of their lenses versus the performance of them makes them a real bargain.

 

[Geoff CB]

Another video test of the Tamron 45mm 1.8

[BTM_Pix]

Picked up a cheap used copy of the already cheap Fujinon XC 15-45 mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ.

I have the companion one to this lens the 50-230mm which I think is a great value so I was hopeful for this one too.

It didn't let me down particularly but it being a power zoom is a bit of an acquired taste and its an underwhelming f5.6 at the (shortish)long end but its small, light, has OIS and covers a great range for reportage.

Both lenses as a kit work well with something like the X-T20 here as a compact, lightweight stabilised travel kit (particularly if you add in a faster prime to compliment them) that are cheap enough used that you won't cry yourself to sleep over some mishap befalling them on your travels.

Top two rows are the 15-45mm and the bottom row is the 50-230mm.

 

[BTM_Pix]

Back to M mount with the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 

[mercer]

Messing with some older clips from my Canon 35mm f/2. I think my older copy was sharper.