Lenses for Sony

VidThreeNorth · Aug 17, 2024

I mentioned my Tokina 16.5 - 135 mm F3.5 - 5.6 zoom (in the Coffee House, I think). I'll post a couple of pics "here" from my Sony a6400. V3N02048b-1stepC81 is the 135mm end. I'll try to get something at the 16.5mm end later. I did take a couple, but I didn't like them. This picture gives the impression of pretty good sharpness and detail in the leaves of the trees, but really, it turns out about 1-2 pixels per leaf, which is what I'd call "false detail". This is a Canon EF mount with autofocus and auto aperture, with all the auto working fairly well on a Sigma MC11 adapter. This picture was slog2 with some adjustment. File "V3N02048c-Detail.JPG" has some adjustments (increased saturation) and is saved at highest detail. Leaf detail in particular is better preserved. As I wrote above, the lens is pretty good.

VidThreeNorth · Sep 5, 2024

Another video project (time-lapse) with my Sony a6400 using my Canon 50mm F1.4 FD lens through my Sigma MC11 mount adapter. The autofocus is not as fast as a native lens, but I am noticing that it is actually, quite fast. I wish I could measure the response time, but I don't have a way to do it accurately.

"240905 Toronto Night-Morning Time Lapse Sony a6400 with Canon FD 50",
length 4:47, posted Sept 5 ,2024,

""

VidThreeNorth · Sep 7, 2024

Tokina 16.5 - 135mm F3.5-5.6 on Sigma MC11 FHD Video Capture Test

Auto focus did not work during recording. Exposure was +1 in order to lift shadows. Recording was Slog2 with saturation +5. There is no doubt that this lens is good for Full HD. The scene was moderately overcast. I am hoping to make a quick 4K test tomorrow (or at least "soon"). Hopefully it will be a truly sunny day. Clip length is about 3:05.

Tokina 16.5-135mm Zoom on Sony a6400 FHD:

VidThreeNorth · Thursday at 2:33 AM

I was going to post a UHD (4K) video test for this lens along with captured frames, and I realized that while valid, I might as well post stills lens test pictures. So I decided to make some brick-wall pics instead. That would have been a good idea, but I botched the first V3N02087 (16.5mm) picture. But it was not a horrible botch, so I'll post what I got and I might re-do the 16.5mm again later. The problem was that it auto-focused on the plant in front of the wall, instead of the wall itself. '2083 was at 45mm and '081 was at 135mm. Those were focused at the wall.
[2024-09-12 10:20 Looking at 2087 again, I think that the focus might be on the wall. There seems to be that much depth of field]
Sharpness and detail are easily adequate for UHD (4K) video. Linearity is acceptable (slight pin cushion at 45mm).