I love that someone like you such a high quality photographer would review this lens. Thank you thank you for reviewing the lenses that we not so professional photographers use!!!
great job as always. I'm a NIkon guy and love my NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR - Same deal. Great versatility and with the wide ISO ranges we get these days, low light is not an issue either. Also Kudos to Violet. a lovely range of expressions.
I bought this lens 7 months ago as a travel lens. In order to keep my kit simple, my plan was one camera, one lens. And, this seemed to be great for wide landscape shots as well as my portrait and telephone needs. I was shocked at how well-built it is and how sharp the images are. I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves.
Ok, the 2.5ft at 240 is pretty damn impressive!! The puddle shot, that was awesome!! Now, my question is even though it’s 6.3 at 240, aren’t we really “losing” about a stop of DOF due to the compression at 240? I mean compression has to play a role.
might be getting too nerdy for me... :) we are in essence losing 2+ stops right? 2.8 to 4 to 5.6 are 2 full stops... and then to 6.3... now of course we are talking stops of light, but no way the images look the same at 200m 2.8 and 200m 6.3... of course you will have great compression with both... but the DOF will look different for sure. imo
I bought this lens on a recommendation from Ken Rockwell's website. Super sharp and it was all I needed on a trip to London and Paris this summer, paired with an R6 mk.II
Gorgeous images with a lens that’s not your typical portrait lens. However, it’s not about the lens or camera it’s about execution of the concept you have in mind. And you did that beautifully!
ty ty. to your question... yes and no... this lens goes from 24 to 240... so you are losing quite a bit on both sides of the lens. there is a massive difference in a 24mm and a 70mm
Depth of field is a function of three different factors (f stop, focal length and distance to subject). You can get a shallow depth of field by zooming in and decreasing the distance to your subject. At 240mm and ten feet the depth of field is 0.18 feet at f6.3. At f4 the depth of field would be 0.12 feet.
Those images are gorgeous and have nice fall off. Lens have came a long way since I had variable F stop lens. They use to create lower quality images with lens problems, heavy light fall off going from center to the sides and were not durable in the long run. But I can't see anything wrong with your images.
I'm thinking of getting this one but for the current time, with the RF 24-105mm lens. What are your thoughts on this? I never had a camera before although I have studied Film Production (but unfortunately never worked as a filmmaker). I thought of getting a camera mainly for photos and videos to start working as a freelancer. Would the 24-105mm be a good start for me? Thanks in advance!
i think this would be a great place to start. i really did enjoy this lens and its cost effective too. and then as you grow - you can look to adding prime lenses, etc.
It's excellent for outdoor photography or even in a studio setting, but I am unsure about its performance in indoor low light conditions with f6.5. Perhaps with a higher ISO, it could compensate for this limitation.