Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '나주안마〖카톡: LD868〗{kra25.c0m}출장미인아가씨출장연애인급Y⊙☇2019-01-23-18-48나주⇡AIJ⊙출장만남출장최강미녀출장샵예약포항┈출장코스가격☞콜걸추천☴나주'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Sony Alpha Forum

  • News and General Discussions
    • Sony Alpha News & Rumors
    • General Discussions about Sony Alpha
  • Sony Alpha Full Frame
    • Sony Alpha Full Frame Cameras
    • Sony Alpha Full Frame Lenses
  • Sony Alpha APS-C / Sony NEX
    • Sony Alpha APS-C and NEX Cameras
    • Sony Alpha APS-C Lenses
  • Sony A-Mount
    • Sony A-Mount System
  • Sony Alpha Post Processing
    • Sony Alpha RAW Converting and Image Editing
  • Adapting Lenses
    • Legacy Lenses
    • Adapters & Speedboosters
    • Showcase Adapted Lenses
  • Showcase Sony Alpha Photos
    • People
    • Nature & Wildlife
    • Landscape & Travel
    • Architecture
    • Misc
  • Sony Alpha Video
    • Sony Alpha Video Discussion
    • Video Showcase
  • About the Sony Alpha Forum
    • About the Sony Alpha Forum
    • Newbie / Self Introduction

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

  1. BD007

    South Africa sep 23

    Pictures from South Africa. Several trips into the Kruger national park and some images from Maholoholo wildlife rescue. Injured animals are rehabilitated and sent back into the wild if possible. The animals on display in the cages are either too injured or used to humans to be allowed back into the wild. They are cared for by the volunteers and live the rest of their days in the large pens.
  2. In conclusion (at ~40 mm focal length): the 18-105 is soft at F/4 but sharpens up a lot at F/8, even into the corners. The 16-55 is sharp at all apertures all the way into the corners, with higher contrast at F/2.8 than the 18-105 at F/8. Some chromatic aberration at F/2.8 but this is mostly gone by F/4. My 18-105 definitely seems sharper than yours, especially at F/8.
  3. If the 18-105 is too bulky, then so is the Tamron 17-70. Quality wise however, definately pick the Tamron over the Sony Zeiss 16-70, which is a compromised and dated design and similar in quality to the 18-105. I was in the same boat as you for a while (also had the 16-50 kit lens and 18-105 f/4), and went with the Sony 16-55 F/2.8 G. Happy with the choice as it's more compact than the Tamron 17-70 and vastly better quality than the Zony 16-70. In your case however, the omission of stabilized optics might be a dealbreaker. Did you consider the tiny but decent Sigma 18-50 f/2.8?
  4. Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
  5. That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  6. 146 megapixel panorama of Moscow Full size Sony ILME-FX30 + Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS
  7. Good to hear! You'll surely appreciate the smaller size of the Zony compared to the Tamron. What puzzles me a little bit is that in your initial post, you said the 18-135 is too slow in the 24-35mm range, and that this was the main reason to look for a new lens. Yet the 18-135 is F/4.0 at 24mm and F/4.5 at 35mm and now you've settled for an F/4 lens. With the Zony you've practically gained negligible aperture speed at your relevant focal lengths. Why switch?
  8. As the title itself suggests, I am torn between the two options. The camera is a 6300 and the need is for a do it (almost) everything lens for some business trips on airline hand luggage in which I am limited to one camera and one lens since I will do some landscape and urban shooting in the spare time between business commitments. I will not use it for videos. I have the Sony 18-135 and the 15-50 kit, but they are too slow around 24-35 mm, which are the focal lengths I use the most. I can live with /f 4, as long as sharpness widen open is acceptable. The price difference between the two lenses is marginal, basically zero for me, because the Sony 16-70 is slightly more expensive but I don't need to buy additional filters, as I can use the 18-135 UV and polarizer. I have tried the 18-105 G /f 4 Sony but it was disappointedly soft and too bulky.
  9. Yes that's indeed quite surprising... Back in the days when I was looking for a replacement for my kit lens I also considered the Zony 16-70 f/4, but was turned off by the poor reviews and €900 price tag. €499 is a good deal! Apparently there's strong copy variation, so let's hope yours is decent. I chose the 18-105 because optically it was on par with the 16-70 but with longer zoom range and 40% cheaper. I'm quite confident your 16-70 will be much better than your copy of the 18-105. Please do post your findings!
  10. Evening fireworks in honor of Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow. Heavy cloud cover made it frighteningly beautiful. FX30 / 1/50s / PZ 18-105@45mm / F4 / ISO800
  11. Hello friend, coincidentally I have the same problem as you. You found a solution to the error of the 18-55mm Sony E lens?
  12. Yes, I agree, the improvement is not so significant compared to the 18-135 mm that I already have. It is the price to pay to have a compact size and stabilisation. In the end, this lens will allow me to work a little more comfortably beyond 24mm, but not that much. Which could be a benefit because when travelling for business, I spend most of my time inside during the day, so my pictures are condensed in the early morning and late afternoon space. For dailight shooting, I am perfectly happy with the 18-135 mm. Actually, my decision was a take or leave one, as the offer was out for a few hours only. So, now that I have checked it and verified that I did not get a lemon (seems that sample variability affects Sony more than other brands), what I am planning to do is to test it on the field. If it meets my needs, happy days! If not I can always sell it and buy one of the alternatives minimising the economical loss, given the price I paid for it. My next business trips will provide the answer.
  13. No, the adaptors don't exactly work like extension tubes (well technically they do, but that's irrelevant here). All they do is bridge the difference in flange focal distance between two camera systems so light is still focussed on the sensitive plane. For example, your Bronica SQ has a flange focal distance of 85 mm. Nikon F has a flange focal distance of 46.5 mm so a Bronica SQ to Nikon F adapter is exactly 38.5 mm thick. Sony E has a flange focal distance of 18 mm, so a Nikon F to Sony E adapter is 28.5 mm thick. Stacked, these two adapters are 67 mm thick, which is the same as a Bronica SQ to Sony E adapter should be: 85 mm - 18 mm = 67 mm. You don't loose light, you don't reduce working distance, everything should be just fine.
  14. Thanks! The 18-105 mm /f4 was PERFECT lens for my needs but a HUGE disappointed. I bought it with the camera, then I brought it with me on a trip. To my disappointed, all pictures came out slightly blurred, like the lens was slightly out of focus. Stepping down was not solving the issue. The kit lens was definitely better, to my surprise. Thinking that I got a lemon, I went back to the shop where I bought It (luckily, I has bought both the camera and the lens in a brick and mortar store). We tested the lens on another camera and it was the same. Then we tested other copies of the same lens that the store had in stock and all showed the same lack if sharpness. All pictures slightly out of focus. In the end I returned the lens and used the money to buy other equipment. I must admit that it was a perfect lens for video but it is not what I use my camera for. Actually this was confirmed by the shop owner, most buyers of the 18-105 mm are interested in its video capabilities. I will have a look at the Tamron, the Sony 16-55 is almost double the price, at least here, so I will keep it out of the picture, at least for the time being. The Sigma also looks as an interesting option.
  15. Ok here goes. Did some testing on an appartment building close to my home. Weather was sunny with slight overcast. All images shot at around 40 mm (I had to guess with the 16-55, which turned out to be slightly wider than the 18-105). Camera on tripod with 2 sec self-timer, steadyshot off, Aperture-mode, ISO 100. I refocussed for the corner shots to compensate for field curvature and subject plane not exactly at right angle to camera axis. Scene is not ideal due to slight differences in object distance, but the depth of field seems to make up for this even at F/2.8.
  16. I realize that being new to the forum, I'm late in the thread. I sold my 55-210 and now use Tamron's 18-300. Yes, people say it's soft at 300mm but I don't see it so much. (I also don't do wildlife.) Plus it doubles as a great macro lens. As for price, it's comparable to the 70-350. It's the ultimate walk around lens, in my opinion. The attached image was taken with my Sony a6500 and Tamron 18-300mm at 180mm, f/20, ISO 6400, 8s shutter. I was about a foot from the tree.
  17. Thanks Pieter for the comparison. Actually what surprised me, it was just not my copy of the lens but all the 18-105 mm ones that the shop had in stock. The owner of the shop was ready to replace mine with a "good" one but it was simply not possible. And we excluded a camera issue as the behaviour was the same with another camera (a 6500 if I remember well). I guess it was a whole batch that was affected by the lack of sharpness issue. Needless to say, the shop owner was as puzzled as me. Coming to my initial question, in the end I went for the 16-70 mm /f 4 Sony Zeiss. While surfing online, I found a flash offer on an e-commerce website at 499 Euro, shipped, which is at least 100 Euro less than the Sigma, i.e. the cheaper of the pool. It was a take or leave, so I took it. I hope to get performance at least as comparable to the kit lens, which would be fine for my planned purpose.
  18. Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.
  19. For middle zoom APS-C I'd say the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8. For wide angle, there aren't any good new stabilized APS-C lenses. If you really need optical stabilization, I guess your best bet would be the Sony 10-18 F/4, but that one is pretty dated.
  20. As Xkaes and I have already pointed out, all that matters for your old Bronica SQ lenses to work properly on a Sony E-mount camera is that the distance from the mount flange to the photosensitive plane (flange focal distance) is exactly similar to your Bronica SQ setup, which is 85 mm. Since in an E-mount camera, the distance between the mount flange and the sensor is 18 mm, the Bronica SQ lens needs to be moved outward by 67 mm for it to be able to focus properly. Be it 1 or 2 or 3 adaptors and/or extension tubes or bellows stacked together makes no difference, they just need to be 67 mm in total height. Any more and you loose light intensity and reduce working distance (loose infinity focus, gain close focus). Any less than 67 mm and you gain light intensity and increase working distance (loose close focus, gain focus beyond infinity). The adaptor does not make your lens 'think' anything, all it does is move the lens to the exact position from the photosensitive plane as it was designed to work at.
  21. My photography master used to say that the best lens is the one that works best for you, because it will allow you to take your best pictures. Said by a man that used the same camera and single focal lenght lens from 1945 to early 2000s, when he passed away. Glad that the 18-300 mm fits your needs, like my 16-70 mm (which does 95% of the job) + 55-210 mm (which I use when I need telephoto, 5% or less of the situations) fits mines.
  22. I have never been able to get clear shots while manually focusing any camera, as I am unable to see clearly enough on the small screen (I use 1.25 reading glasses). Most of the time, I can get pretty clear pictures. On the days that I photograph items, I will take anywhere from 90 - 130 pictures. Out of those, I will probably have 10 or so that are not in focus. As far as the AF micro adjustment, the article says not to do it with aftermarket lenses, which is what I use (it's a Sigma 18-300 1:3.5-6.3 DC). By aperture, I am presuming that is changed with the wheel just underneath the shutter release button. I usually have it on 0, but have adjusted it to 1.0 for some shots. I may be completely wrong on what that wheel is actually adjusting. I keep the camera in the Program Auto mode (maybe I can try Auto mode). Steady shot is turned off. As for A-mount lenses, I have at least 12 lenses. Some of them may not be available in E-mount (I originally came from a Minolta Maxxum 400Si 35mm camera).
  23. I couldn't agree more. I have some Nikon SRL equipment but it is not used that much because of bulkiness and inconvenience when travelling with public transport. I will give a try for my intended use and come back with my impressions. What I can already say is that, when used wide open, the 16-70 mm is better than the 18-135 mm across the frame. They become almost equivalent around /f 8, with the 16-70 mm a touch better. So, more than the benefit of a faster lens, it seems that I gained the benefit of a lens that gives me better quality wide open. On an OT basis, I learnt how to take pictures from my father and from the owner of the small newspaper and photography shop in the village I was born. My father gave me an old 35 mm camera and taught me the basics of exposure. Since I had no exposimeter, by the age of eight I was shooting Kodachrome 64 by eye with pretty good results. The shop owner taught me the basic rules of composition and what, 50 years later, is for me the main lessons. Equipment does not matter as long as it does the job and more often than not you can overcome the limitations of equipment if you know what you want to achieve. He was always telling me that the picture has to speak for itself and the message is not which kind of equipment you used. This person took pictures of the village and the surroundings for nearly 60 years, from 1945 till his death using the same camera and the same 35 mm lens (only lens, a dog lens for modern standards), and the pictures, mostly black and white, are the backbone of the history of the village in that period of time. When I bought my first reflex with hard earned money in the '80s, his reaction was something like "nice camera, now show me the pictures". With today's technology we tend to me carried away by equipment and forget that "the picture has to speak by itself".
  24. The 70-350 mm is a good lens, although a bit slow. Much better in terms of image quality than the 55-210, which has its reasons to exist, i.e. occasional use when you might need a telephoto zoom but you don't need 300mm and you do not want to carry a heavy and bulky telephoto lens on your shoulder all day long just to take a couple of shots. I'd recommend that you go for it, if you are not in a hurry, you can monitor prices online and jump on an offer that fits your budget. I also saw it on Amazon at reduced price as a Prime offer last week. For product photography, the choice is much broader. It very much depends on what you need, i.e. where you want to improve over the kit lens. My choice has been the 18-135 mm F3.5-5.6, which offers better quality, especially on the 20-40 mm range, which I use the most, and 135 mm reach which comes handy if I travel with one lens. It is a little soft at the long end and of course you lose something at the wide angle side compared to the kit lens. All in all it is a great travel lens, does a little bit of everything and comes at a reasonable price. I tried the 18-105 F4 but it was fantastic for video but useless for pictures. All my pictures came out soft. Since I bought it in a brick and mortar shop, I returned it. Believing it was a lemon, the dealer made me test another copy. We ended testing all the ones in the shop, about 10 of them and all of them were soft, much worse than the kit zoom and basically useless for stills. I walked away with the 16-70 mmm F/4, which is a gem but is out of your budget. If you want to go for primes, instead, then the answer becomes more and more complicated.
  25. This is a video I shot with a Sony A6700 camera using the S-Cinetone picture profile. This is the original, unedited footage. In the video, I used the 18-50 kit lens and the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 lens.
×
×
  • Create New...