Sony Distagon 35mm 1.4 for e mount
Jul 26, 2015 19:47:25 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I do not want to buy a Nikon adapter since I want and need to get lighter when I travel. Am 66 and have arthritic hands. in May, went to Iceland on a photo trip and took my d810, d610, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's. My hands were throbbing each night. Cannot travel with a load like that anymore.
Why do you want the weight of the 35 1.4 ?? ( instead of 2.8)
Jul 26, 2015 19:56:32 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
The 1.4 is a better lens and I am always into quality. I have thought about this a lot and do not know if the 1.4 is worth the extra weight and money
Jul 26, 2015 20:00:51 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
The other thought is that I would not travel with it, but would use it for family pictures and local shooting
Jul 26, 2015 21:42:13 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
The 1.4 is a better lens and I am always into quality. I have thought about this a lot and do not know if the 1.4 is worth the extra weight and money
What makes you think it is "better" than the 2.8 ??
Jul 26, 2015 23:11:12 #
imagemeister wrote:
What makes you think it is "better" than the 2.8 ??
Did you happen to see this, Mickey?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/sony-fe-35-match-up-is-more-more
Jul 27, 2015 00:14:48 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
Yes I saw this under lens rentals. The 1.4 appears to be sharper and gives me two more f stops
Jul 27, 2015 09:18:42 #
le boecere wrote:
Did you happen to see this, Mickey?
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/sony-fe-35-match-up-is-more-more
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/sony-fe-35-match-up-is-more-more
Thanks for this link ! :thumbup:
Jul 27, 2015 09:21:47 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
Saw the link. All the reviews I read about the 1.4 versus the 2.8 except for this one, the 1.4 has it way over. The only question in my mind is would I be able to see any difference myself. Probably not.
Jul 27, 2015 10:17:39 #
Jul 27, 2015 11:10:58 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
Do not want to wonder if I bought the 2.8 so just ordered the 1.4 from B&H
Jul 27, 2015 13:52:12 #
CHOLLY wrote:
Oh yeah; you'll see the difference. :thumbup:
Cholly, I don't yet have an opportunity to "hang with" an advanced photography crowd, so I'm askin'...
I'm assuming that most folks look at photographic images on a computer or tv screen (vs. enlargements on fine photographic paper). If that be so, can the typical viewer really see the diff 'twixt these two lenses?
Jul 27, 2015 22:32:16 #
Depends on who the typical viewer is.
If it's the photographer who took the image, then he/she will notice a difference as soon as they put the lenses on the camera.
Most Zeiss lenses have the ability to out-resolve contemporary lenses but you PAY A LOT OF MONEY for that ability. Additionally distortion is almost minimal and aberration is usually nonexistent.
And let's not even talk about the difference in the prints.
So while the average Joe on the street may not necessarily be able to tell the difference, someone who knows what to look for most definitely will. Quickly. ;)
If it's the photographer who took the image, then he/she will notice a difference as soon as they put the lenses on the camera.
Most Zeiss lenses have the ability to out-resolve contemporary lenses but you PAY A LOT OF MONEY for that ability. Additionally distortion is almost minimal and aberration is usually nonexistent.
And let's not even talk about the difference in the prints.
So while the average Joe on the street may not necessarily be able to tell the difference, someone who knows what to look for most definitely will. Quickly. ;)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.