Comments for Admiring Light Photography Reviews, Photos, News and Musings Fri, 22 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Review: Sony A7II by Jordan Steele Fri, 22 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 I have not used the A7r, but I don’t think there’s a major advantage to the R. In fact, the A7 I believe does a little Better than the R with adapted lenses. In any cases the native glass works beautifully.

Comment on Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 vs. Fuji XF 23mm f/1.4 by Aankondiging nieuwe Sony/Zeiss FE lenzen op 4 maart 2015 Fri, 22 May 2015 02:13:36 +0000 […] leuke vergelijking tussen de Sony/Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35mm F/1.4 ZA en de Fuji XF 23mm F/1.4 R (*klik*). 550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX […]

Comment on Review: Sony A7II by Y.W Thu, 21 May 2015 20:22:09 +0000 Hey Jordan,

Thanks for the nice review. However, I have a question regarding Sony’s sensor design. I noticed that A7r is equipped with individually optimized on-chip lens positions, which should improve corner image quality on WA and UWA lens. Somehow I think A7/A7ii does not have it. I don’t know how they are going to design lens. But if they are designing lens which work best on A7r, which means the same lens could perform worse on A7. Did you test the same lens on both cameras? Thanks.

Comment on Review: Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Distagon T* by Freddy Thu, 21 May 2015 14:18:59 +0000 Jordan thank you very much for your comment, I decided to go to the 35 f1.4 :)
Thank their stories so well made.
Good afternoon from Spain

Comment on Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 vs. Fuji XF 23mm f/1.4 by Jordan Steele Thu, 21 May 2015 13:16:47 +0000 I predominantly use Lightroom. I use C1 Pro 8 for some conversions if it’s the type of image that lends itself to that. I also use Photo Ninja for images where the watercolor effect can pop up in Lightroom, as it handles those images very well. Overall, Photo Ninja gets more detail out of the images than any of the other converters (I’m on Windows, so no Iridient for me), but the interface is clunky and I find it harder to get local edits and good skin tones out of it than I do in the other programs.

Comment on Review: Carl Zeiss FE 16-35mm f/4 Vario-Tessar ZA OSS by Jordan Steele Thu, 21 May 2015 13:14:49 +0000 It’s a lens that I think is a bit wasted on APS-C. First of all, its rather large, and you don’t really gain anything except probably a bit better corner performance at the wide end. The 16-35mm is great at the wide end and very good at the long end, but the long end sits where the 16-70 is also very good, and so I think the optical improvements are going to be pretty marginal. Factor in the much larger size and the extra cost and reduced range and I’d lean to the 16-70 every time. That said, if you shoot with both FF and APS-C e-mount lenses, the 16-35 could be sort of a ‘double duty’ lens in that case.

Comment on Waterfall Season by Jordan Steele Thu, 21 May 2015 13:12:45 +0000 I use screw-on ND filters (no graduated filters), so I’m not using any of the square filter systems. In areas where graduated filters would be useful, I generally take two images and merge them in post, as I find I get finer control over the image that way. I have used B+W filters on several occasions, but have been using the Hoya Pro1 and HD2 filters recently. I like the HD2 filters a lot, as they are really strong glass, have excellent coatings and the polarizer cuts less light than most (only around 1 stop).

As to the 10-24, my 14/2.8 has been sitting on a shelf since I got the 10-24. The versatility and extra width are more important for me, though the 14mm is a bit better optically.

Comment on Review: Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Distagon T* by Jordan Steele Thu, 21 May 2015 13:09:32 +0000 It’s really hard for me to comment on this, as I haven’t used the Loxia 35mm (I hope to shortly), and the Batis 25mm is not out yet. I do think the Batis 25 and the 35s are different lenses, and I wouldn’t consider them as for the same types of shooting. Between the two 35s, provided the Loxia is similar in optical quality (again, I haven’t used it), I’d lean towards that simply for size. However, if you’re after simply the best optical quality, I don’t think you can go wrong with the FE 35/1.4. I can’t imagine the Loxia would actually outperform it, and even if there was a very slight edge, you’re splitting hairs that would be essentially impossible to distinguish in a final image.

Comment on Review: Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar T* by carlos Thu, 21 May 2015 12:58:03 +0000 the cz ultron for the icarex system from the early 70s had a concave front element. that lens is supposedly very well regarded. i wonder if these lenses share similar designs. here is a link to that particular lens.

Comment on Review: Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Distagon T* by Freddy Thu, 21 May 2015 09:35:46 +0000 Good morning from Spain.

Congratulations on the review, high quality, as all you do.

Many doubts plague me.

I am a lover of old objectives with the corresponding adapter.

In these objectives I have the problem of infinity focus and loss of sharpness.

I understand that I may not be a native objective.

Loxia thought when I saw that wonderful,, fully manual focus omenaje old school.

Happy and saving money Loxia vine and on the market for 35 f1.4 mounts E.

Smoke made my head literally.

The party continues and appears BATIS.

I am a sea of doubt.

I want the maximum image quality.

I can not get to OTUS

Within this range below 2000 euros.

What do you recommend me?

batis 25f2

35 f 1.4

Loxia 35 F 2

Thank you very much for your work

greetings from Spain