tek9 wrote:
24-70 seems to be my main lens these days - used 14-30 only a couple times during the 10 day trip.
[/url]
Yeah when I got my 16-35 Canon I used it a lot (way too much) then realized it's more of a specialized lens and you need the right subjects to make it shine
tek9 wrote:
24-70 seems to be my main lens these days - used 14-30 only a couple times during the 10 day trip.
Great shots!
When I travel I rarely take a UWA unless specifically taking landscape shots. Even street shots with UWA can be very difficult to compose. Yet some photographers gel great with UWA's
Are any of you previous Sony users? I am contemplating doing a full switch over to the Z system, but I'm curious how this lens compares to the Sony 16-35 f/4 lens.
40Driggs wrote:
Are any of you previous Sony users? I am contemplating doing a full switch over to the Z system, but I'm curious how this lens compares to the Sony 16-35 f/4 lens.
I went through several Sony 16-35 f/4 and was never happy, I don't think I ever had a great copy because I have seen where that lens can be excellent. The last Sony I had was the A7RII before switching over to the Z6, couldn't be happier. I just recently purchased the 14-30 and wow, what a lens. I have never been a big zoom fan in the past, but the 14-30 and the 24-70 f/2.8 Z lenses have won me over. I hardly touch the primes anymore (though they are also excellent). The 14-30 is tack sharp and has a great rendering to it as well. Below are some shots taken this past weekend
MarcPec wrote:
I'm trying my best to get the 14-30 out more but find my keeper rate is so low
It's a very nice 'keeper. I find that in my photography UWA is used rather occasionally, but it's there when I need it. It also took some time and practice to get used to framing UWA photos in an interesting way.
A few from the other day, just testing on different subject matter to see how it performs. Some were tested at extremely slow shutter speeds handheld to see how it performed and what effect it had on the image using IBIS.
St James Church, Sydney. Z7 + 14-30 f4S, 1/5s f/8.0 at 14.0mm iso220.
St James Church, Sydney. Z7 + 14-30 f4S, 1/5s f/8.0 at 14.0mm iso560.
St James Church, Sydney. Z7 + 14-30 f4S, 1/5s f/8.0 at 14.0mm iso720.
Sydney Mint. Used as a coin mint in the early days of settlement.
Could someone remind me as to the supposed flaws in this lens?
I am trying (real hard like) to pixel peep the posted images here, corners, foreground, "micro contrast", full on resolution, LA CA A BAA BAA BAA, and I'm seeing nil to complain about.
The flaws are mostly two things: sample variation (anecdotes indicate it could be worse with this lens than other Z lenses so far) and the corners. Oh, and some people really don't like the design decision to rely on software correction of distortion and vignetting.
In particular, the corners at 14mm and infinity, even stopped down. I think there was some expectation that by f8 it'd be fantastic across the entire frame at every focal length. That isn't the case for the 24-70/4, so it certainly wasn't my expectation. My copy--not a golden one--has some other slightly soft corners that come and go throughout the zoom range. Completely to be expected for critically testing a zoom, honestly. I just did some real world testing to confirm that by and large it won't concern me in real world shooting--I think there's some inward field curvature, which shows up badly in stress tests but is masked in most shots.
Everything else is great. Great color, with aberrations well controlled. Great sharpness over ~95% of the frame by f5.6. Great contrast. Spectacular flare resistance, the best I've ever seen from an ultrawide zoom.
In fact, comparisons to my 24-70/4 raised more questions about the midrange's performance than the ultrawide's (W shaped field curvature at 30mm!).
A BAA BAA BAA, and I'm seeing nil to complain about.