I'm impressed: Sony FE 28mm f/2 + Sony 21mm Ultra-Wide Conversion
- Thread starter Dylan777
- Start date
drjlo said:I'm reading reports that the 21mm conversion is not so hot, but I would love it if that wasn't true, seeing the price of the Sony FE 16-35
FE 16-35 is a good lens. I just didn't like how it fits on a7 body.
I'll do little more shooting with this combo this weekend. The 28mm itself feels great on a7s, almost like the FE 35mm f2.8, just a bit longer. However, I now prefer wider and a stop faster. With the coversion attached to the 28mm, I do feel some weight starts leaning to the front.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
I went back and forth for quite a while between Sony FE16-35 and Canon 16-35 F4L IS, the latter with a bit better IQ at 35mm end and cheaper and the former with native AF speed on my Sony A7r.
Surprisingly, the size difference isn't much (well, more after introducing lens adapter), so portability advantage wasn't so huge with Sony lens.
I ended up getting the Canon 16-35, which is a tremendous lens, which I can use on my Canon body as well. AF on Sony A7r is as slow as usual, which I expected, but heck, Sony does have nice manual focus aids, and I'm happy I went with this lens..
Upvote
0
drjlo said:
No doubt the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an excellent for $1k.
I took this camera to a friend house for small little party. It was fun to shoot @ 21mm.
Below is A7s + 21mm coversion, ISO8000 with 10NR applied in LR. I'm crossing my fingers on 1Dx II beats A7s in high ISO
Attachments
Upvote
0
Dear Sirs!
Both are very good lenses for this price. If you have the possibility, try the new 35mm Loxia from Zeiss. And as an highlight, the 55mm Sonnar, both from Zeiss. Excellent lenses for the A7r.
I was able to shoot with this lenses for two weeks, when I was travelling with some friends.
And I am really really impressed, how good the A7r performs. Marvellous picures, a lot better than my own shots with the 6D and 5D3.
On my Canon Cams my new 16-35 4.0 performs visibly better than my older 15-35 2.8. The 4.0 version of this lens was an good choice. I will sell the older 2.8 version.
But - as an hobby photographer with low/medium experience - a switch to Sony for landscape and portrait will be an very urgent option. Canon does not sell something equivalent. I think I need the better IQ of the A7r - and as I saw in the last weeks, I am able to shoot better pictures with the Sony Cam.
Both are very good lenses for this price. If you have the possibility, try the new 35mm Loxia from Zeiss. And as an highlight, the 55mm Sonnar, both from Zeiss. Excellent lenses for the A7r.
I was able to shoot with this lenses for two weeks, when I was travelling with some friends.
And I am really really impressed, how good the A7r performs. Marvellous picures, a lot better than my own shots with the 6D and 5D3.
On my Canon Cams my new 16-35 4.0 performs visibly better than my older 15-35 2.8. The 4.0 version of this lens was an good choice. I will sell the older 2.8 version.
But - as an hobby photographer with low/medium experience - a switch to Sony for landscape and portrait will be an very urgent option. Canon does not sell something equivalent. I think I need the better IQ of the A7r - and as I saw in the last weeks, I am able to shoot better pictures with the Sony Cam.
Upvote
0
xps said:
Well, I don't know about "urgent" need to change to Sony for portraits. I do shoot with 5D III and A7r, and I prefer Canon (if I feel like carrying larger setup) for portraits/events, mainly because it seems to require less careful pre-shoot setup and post-processing to get skin tones pleasing.
I will say the Canon 16-35 F4 IS on Sony A7r can produce nice landscapes. Shot at 16mm on A7r.
DSC00164 by drjlo1, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Similar threads
