Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Shooting the collection on A7(r) :)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Meyer Gorlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8 A7R

It's nice how 135mm lenses who used to be way to long on m43 suddenly are fantastic portrait lenses. No need for hunting expensive 75, 85 or 100m lenses, a cheapo 135mm will do the job Very Happy




Nice portraits.

Yes, indeed I find the working distance for 85mm and 135mm to be so much nicer on FF.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
pinholecam wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Can you spot the difference?

Samyang 2.8/14 @ A7R:

Voigtlnder Super-Wide Heliar 4.5/15 @ A7R:


Wink



Thats a very good showing from the Samyang 14mm.
Seems to me its one of the cheapest and good options out there (and widest) for a UWA on the A7 at this point.

The CV12 is very usable from the pictures I've seen, much much better than the CV15.



I'm waiting for some full sized samples from a friend to make up my mind if |I should get a CV 12mm Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to crash the 135 party Smile
Nikon 35/1.4 AI-S on the A7 with a cheap adapter from eBay...

@f2.8


@f2 (shot through a cafe window)


@f4


@f4


I don't tend to shoot wide open that often, but I've found the sweet-spot on this lens is definitely around f2.8 and f4


PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A7, Canon FDn 85 1.2 at 1.2-1.4 click pix for max res



1



2



PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sony A7 + Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2. All shots wide open:

From inside the car through dirty windscreen:






PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cyclop 85mm 1.5



PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow great shots up there, now we got a party goin on!

1937 zeiss 50/1.5 contax mount


DSC06985 by unoh7, on Flickr

Canon LTM 85/1.8 (lens found in a thread on this forum, then bought at FM)

DSC06835 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC06881-3 by unoh7, on Flickr

both on A7


PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta Rokkor-PF 55 f/1.7 only a little sharpening applied:



PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canon LTM 85/1.5 @1.5 ON A7

DSC07175-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

CV 50/1.1 @1.1

DSC07070 by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

awwww I wanna have a dinner party Sad


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8 at f2.8, a7





PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
wow great shots up there, now we got a party goin on!
1937 zeiss 50/1.5 contax mount


"I can't remember which button to push next!" Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great pictures! What an amazing thread this has turned into!!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:


It is called Photoshop.


Oh, you can do better than that, much better, with Photoshop. And if you use CornerFix, it will get even better.
But the thing is that I prefer to use a lens that does not need those corrections!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:

Oh, you can do better than that, much better, with Photoshop. And if you use CornerFix, it will get even better.
But the thing is that I prefer to use a lens that does not need those corrections!


Is it just me who prefers to see photographs that have been exposed correctly in the first place without resorting to Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture1 etc to make up for the shortcomings? I ca see a time coming when all we have to do is point our phone at something, dial in a program and hey presto, instant wonders with zero effort?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This time those little Konica Hexanon AR 40 f/1.8. I own it for a long time and was always curious how doest it perform on digital FF camera. So here we go.







PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrano wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Oh, you can do better than that, much better, with Photoshop. And if you use CornerFix, it will get even better.
But the thing is that I prefer to use a lens that does not need those corrections!


Is it just me who prefers to see photographs that have been exposed correctly in the first place without resorting to Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture1 etc to make up for the shortcomings?


No, as I said, it's not only you. I think the same.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arctures wrote:
This time those little Konica Hexanon AR 40 f/1.8. I own it for a long time and was always curious how doest it perform on digital FF camera. So here we go.


Wow! Looks good!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
cyrano wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Oh, you can do better than that, much better, with Photoshop. And if you use CornerFix, it will get even better.
But the thing is that I prefer to use a lens that does not need those corrections!


Is it just me who prefers to see photographs that have been exposed correctly in the first place without resorting to Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture1 etc to make up for the shortcomings?


No, as I said, it's not only you. I think the same.


Yes of course, I'm afraid I didn't word my reply adequately. There seems to be a trend to just snap away at anything and rely on computer programs to make something useful out of the results. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrano wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
cyrano wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Oh, you can do better than that, much better, with Photoshop. And if you use CornerFix, it will get even better.
But the thing is that I prefer to use a lens that does not need those corrections!


Is it just me who prefers to see photographs that have been exposed correctly in the first place without resorting to Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture1 etc to make up for the shortcomings?


No, as I said, it's not only you. I think the same.


Yes of course, I'm afraid I didn't word my reply adequately. There seems to be a trend to just snap away at anything and rely on computer programs to make something useful out of the results. Smile


Hmmm, interesting perspective. Without consideration to HDR, there are many situations where either a light or dark area will be poorly exposed. In the past we would guess how much to compensate in one direction or the other. I have made a habit of underexposing by 0.7 because I find the dark easier to correct than the light areas. I don't like blown out whites. Digital and software like Photoshop give us those abilities to correct for unintended and even intended exposure deviations. I don't at all consider it a lack of effort; on the contrary, it is a strategy for dealing with exposure challenges and limitations. But despite this difference in our approach, I like to control the exposure, as you folks do, and as such I never shoot in full auto mode, auto ISO, etc. And as we all know, my lenses are manual as well. Software is the darkroom and using it is a skill in itself.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With digital is ETR and that's all, folks. If you pay attention to not clip any RGB channel, PP and correcting the exposure is the easy part of the story - and you gain more details on the shadows also. Get the sensor full of data without clipping to have something to work with later, the more, the best,

[]s,

Renato


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point I'm trying to make, not that it's that important anyway, is that for some it's a case of snap away and do 90% in PP. For sure, error can be corrected but too often I see lazy pictures where the taker has relied on software to create a picture rather than their own intuition.Some of these examples are just unreal in their rendition.
Each to their own though, we're not going to move back to the old days of bracketing and finding correct exposure. Whatever floats your boat. Just as well slide film is more or less defunct. Confused


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Planar 50/1.4 @f4 without any PP:



PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Click pix for max res


Distagon 35 1.4 wo


1


2

Distagon 28 2.0 wo iso 3200




3
Canon FDn 85 1.2 wo



4
Canon FDn 85 1.2 at f2



PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Omar, what is the 28/2.0 Distagon version do you have? Is it Contax or Z? Just wondering how much differs Contax hollywood from modern Distagon 28/2.0 Zx.