It's been a couple months since I made a decision to sell my cherished Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses and replace them with more current AF Sony Zeiss and Sigma optics.
As I age I'm getting a little more "fumbly" with my cameras and lenses. 'Ol Shaky I'm becoming... and... my eyes aren't what they used to be... further... I have little to zero patience working the little buttons that enlarge a scene so I can accurately manually determine the point of focus.
Looking at the Toy Closet and considering how I actually use cameras and lenses I find I'm torn somewhat between APS-C and Full Frame formats. Yet there is a useful division between the two formats. I see I use zoom lenses for the most part on APS-C and used my old Nikkor fixed focal length lenses on Full Frame.
Couple this with how I feel about the current state of the various digital sensor sizes as they relate to something I knew quite well, film photography. It looks like I found a Way Forward. From what I wrote in a prior entry -
"... here's a thought that ... I've had ... for some time, now. In a fair approximation, digital sensor output to film equivalents (in terms of image quality) -
- 1inch sensor == medium format film
- APS-C sensor == 4x5 inch film
- Full Frame sensor == 8x10 inch film..."
The Way Forward, or perhaps more properly said, the Great Rationalization became -
- Image Stabilized (IS) zoom lenses for motorsport and travel on APS-C
- IS is useful to this increasingly Shaky Old Guy
- Zooms are flexible where "sneaker zoom" is less practical
- Add a silent shutter body to the kit for shooting in quiet situations
- Retain three fixed focal length AF Sigma DN Art lenses "just in case"
- Three fixed focal length lens system for use on Full Frame
- Emulate my old Large Format film approach in digital
- Use a tripod (where possible) to keep Old Shaky at bay
- Shoot at low ISO and with wide angle lenses at small-ish apertures
With one part of the Great Rationalization being to emulate my old Large Format kit, I settled on equivalent focal lengths. Why? Because my most successful images for 30 years or more were with that set of focal lengths.
Late in my Film Phase I replaced the 90mm and 150mm lenses with a single Schneider 110mm XL f/5.6. That works out to be 30mm on Full Frame digital, but no one makes one of these. So I returned to my earlier kit. Besides, I've gotten used to shooting 24mm on the digital short end of things.
I settled on a 24mm/35mm/55mm three lens kit.
Why not consider other lenses than the ones I ended up with?
To begin with, I don't need fast wide angle lenses. For the kinds of images I make I've been using f/4 as the widest aperture for years (Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 SEL OSS). It's been more than sufficient. Fast Sigma 24mm and 35mm f/2 or larger opening lenses would be wasted on me.
The 50mm Sony f/1.8 tests OK, but I wanted something with stellar performance wide open. I was looking for something better than the beautiful Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AiS I once owned. If I wanted the old/early Nikkor-S "look", I'm keeping one "just in case." Further, I couldn't afford any of the faster 50mm Sony or Zeiss offerings.
Another lens I considered was the Sigma 65mm f/2. I nearly bought one, but missed the opportunity by an hour. The next opportunity that came up was a 55mm I ended up buying. I'm sure the Sigma is a really nice, if not a little heavier than the 55mm. I rationalize not getting the 65mm Sigma by saying I never fell in love with 240mm on 4x5, which is that equivalent in digital.
What about zoom lenses for Full Frame Sony?
There are a brace of new and potentially interesting lenses coming on the market these days. I'm thinking of Sony and Tamron's new 20-50mm/20-70mm lenses. And there are of course many zoom lenses in f/4 or f/2.8 that have been around for a long time. What keeps me from getting serious about any of them are two things.
First, I have two zooms for APS-C that serve me very well. I have a wonderful 16-70mm ZA f/4 OSS. Its rendition is better than some fixed focal length lenses I've used over the years. And I have a 70-350mm OSS G-Master that I use for motorsports and birding. It's a nice, sharp, and very useful. The only downside is the rather obvious pin-cushion distortion that requires correction in processing.
Second, there's no competition when it comes to size, weight, and ease of use. Have you ever picked up a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom from any manufacturer and hefted it while holding a little fixed focal length "pancake" lens in the other? If you have, you'll know the other reason I don't consider Full Frame zooms. I might change my mind someday. But for now, No Way Jose.Here's how it settled out -
Sigma 24mm DG DN f/3.5
I found one at a very good price out of Germany. It's used but came in LN condition.
Why this lens?
- This matches the perspective of my old 90mm Schneider Angulon f/6.8 and Super Angulon f/5.6 lenses on 4x5 inch film
- I don't use narrow depth of field when shooting wide angle
- This is quite nearly a "Flat Field" optic
- It's scream'n sharp from wide open clear across the field
- It's light and small
Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8
This one I picked up from a guy here in Paris. He'd used it to shoot a little fashion video, but the focal length wasn't what he liked, so it reportedly sat unused for several years.
Why this lens?
- This matches the perspective of my old 135mm and 150mm lenses on 4x5 inch film
- I don't use narrow depth of field when shooting wide angle
- This is quite nearly a "Flat Field" optic
- It's scream'n sharp from wide open clear across the field
- It's super small and super light (I'll call it "pancake"-like)
- The resolution is a nice "meaty" Zeiss sense of "fat" sharpness
Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8
I bought this lens from a guy here in Paris who has moved on to the new Sony 50mm f/1.2 FE.
Why this lens?
- This matched the perspective of my much loved 210mm Schneider Symmar-S MC f/5.6 that I used for decades on 4x5 film
- I do use narrow depths of field sometimes when using longer focal lengths
- Out of Focus rendition is glorious
- It's scream'n sharp from wide open clear across the field
- This is a substantial lens that fits nicely on the Full Frame body
- The resolution is a nice "meaty" Zeiss sense of "fat" sharpness
From the first "click" and "pixel peep" I was smitten with this older, slower "standard" focal length lens.
When I say that the Zeiss labeled Sony lenses have a resolution that is a nice "meaty" Zeiss sense of "fat" sharpness, I know I'm opening a Big-'Ol-Can-O-Worms.
All I can say is that after staring at lens charts, comparisons, my images by "Pixel Peeping", etc, that after awhile I've had this sense of how lenses make resolution. I can't fully describe it, except to say that some lenses feel "thin" and others feel "thick", "fat", "meaty."
In my case, Sigma lenses are brilliantly sharp for such wonderfully small money. Except, they sometimes feel "thin" in terms of resolution/sharpness. I wish I could quantify it, but I've yet to find a way to do that.
By comparison, Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses, and now these Sony Zeiss feel "meaty", "fat" in terms of resolution/sharpness. I know. I know. It's strange to use these terms and phrases. What can I do?
Can I see this in practical work? Normally no. Not really. By the time I get to actually making a photograph, image lighting, composition, and processing become more important than chasing "Pixie Dust." Knowing what I think I know, sure, I think I can see something if I look really really closely. I fear it might be Confirmation Bias or Wishful Thinking or Hopium that skews my looking so I try not to put too much into it.
There it is, in all its glory, and paid in full, absolute truth in advertising, my Great Rationalization effort.
In a future post I'll perhaps share a few results that show I'm really enjoying working with these new tools.
No comments:
Post a Comment