I don’t think correcting the vertical tilt is the same as saying distortion. Not really an issue with the lens when you’re asking for a normal lens to be a tiltshift
Thanks for the another thorough review, pretty cool shots btw! Especially, the sunset shot, at 47:20, looks spectacular, even on UA-cam!!! I'm still waiting for this lens to be available in my country, so it's really helpful to see this type of content beforehand. I think the distortion is acceptable, considering it is a wide angle zoom for the bigger sensor. I wish the flaring would be controlled better, but hey, it's not too bad either. How about the focusing speed on 100S? 20-35 obviously doesn't have the LM, but I'm just curious how much worse it actually is? GF50 for example - is pretty darn quick, but the GF80 1.7 on the other hand was hunting a lot from what I've tested, hope that, the wide nature of this lens benefits in this case. What's your experience? Didn't use the GF23 extensively yet, but seems like the GF20-35 would be more versatile for the street and landscapes, as well as some environmental portrait at the 35 mm end. Keep up the good job, man, cheers from Ukraine!
Thanks so much for the comment Asomok! Also take the flaring from my video with a bit of a grain of salt because I never brought around the lens hood. Typically i don't bring them around, I find for the most part they are not needed, but some examples in this video def prove that mindset wrong! Unfortunately I didn't really do any AF tests with the 20-35, nor any video work. I could have sworn I recorded an intro segment with the 20-35, but I just checked. But once I pick up this lens, I will def do a few tests for sure. The 50 is what I recorded the talking head shots from this video with. Pretty good AF! The 80 was ok in a studio setting ( I have a portrait video where I show the tracking), but I didn't have it long enough to really form a full opinion on the AF. Thanks for taking the time and for this discussion!
Thanks for such a detailed review! You are lucky to live in such an amazing location - some beautiful cityscapes there. I have the 23mm and as I shoot a lot of interiors/architecture I think the extra width of the 20-35 will be a big help. I’m curious about why you’re shooting so much at f4? I tend to stop down to f11 or so…the lens is sharper with way more depth of field, better sunstars on lights, and you get longer exposures to blur water etc. without ND filters. Not a criticism, but I just wondered if there’s s specific reason for shooting at f4?
Thanks so much for taking the time to leave a comment! No criticism taken! I think ultimately I prioritize a long shutter due to shooting a lot of water fronts and trying to make people disappear. When I get my hands on this lens I will try shooting at a higher f! Might be a bit of a flaw, I tend on shooting wide open a lot.
A lot of your images with this lens probably highlight a lot of the problems if you're shooting landscapes. Generally you're not shooting landscapes with big tall buildings in front of you now I know landscape Photography shouldn't be just resorted to wide-open vistas of planes and beaches and so forth but the reality is most landscape. Photography is that so using this lens for cityscape style photography is always going to be a compromise. I don't think it's a really fair way to assess this lens, I would love you to take this lens out to a country area where there is no big tall buildings and then shoot this lens and see what you get and it would be completely different as I have shot this lens, and my photos don't have that warped distortion in them because of what's in the scene I think what you put in the scene will largely be warped because this style of lens really isn't suited for that style of Photography in cityscapes. In my opinion you can get away with it but you're gonna have to manipulate a lot.
I think I complained a decent amount, but honestly, I am very pleased with the results! I guess you could say outside of the studio I shoot city landscape 😁. Unfortunately I didn't take this lens any non-city trips, but I should be headed to Hawaii next year. So Thanks for this idea, I may do a review part 2! Feel free to add me on IG, i'd love to see some of your landscape work! Interesting prospective based on your feedback. I didn't consider the city might not be a great subject for this lens!
Im a bit confused to be honest. Why would you take all of those horrible angles with this lens? For example the Ghostbusters shot. And then complain that you'll get "triangles" when correcting the distortion? Thats simply not how such a lens should be used. Or you can, but then you're not getting many good shots, and you're not using the full potential of the lens. This isn't a tilt shift lens. If you try to use it like one, yeah sure, you'll lose lots of pixels. But that's on you then.
@@MikeBanom did you ever hear of being able to take criticism? Because as a UA-camr, you definitely shouldn't let a post as harmless as mine, get to you like that. It absolutely was constructive criticism. You are using the lens in a strange way. Those angles don't make much sense. You are demonstrating this yourself. You have to correct the photos, and in the process lose a lot of pixels. You are also mixing up vertical tilt and distortion, and I am not the only one to notice that (strangely enough you "loved" the other comment mentioning it). It's not a tilt shift lens. No one should expect it to perform like one.
@nikolai_art So I'm not one of those stubborn people stuck in my ways, thinking that I have learned all I could learn. I love learning, I love having conversations with people. When you open with insulting me, describing the shots as 'horrible angles' followed by that i'm 'not getting many good shots'… do you think you are opening yourself up to have a great discussion? You make valid points, but you don't need to sling insults while doing so.
I really like the real life approach to this review. I like doing architecture photography and have the same problem with perspective fix on my non tilt shift, ultrawide lens. From what I’ve seen, this channel puts a real life, practical spin on the average clinical, studio review videos that are informative yet also repetitive. The beauty of photography is there is no set ways to use a certain lens/camera and it’s up to the user to express their vision with the tools they have. Some people might not appreciate diversity, but thanks for putting your unique take on this lens out there @mikebanom!
Check this out next:
Best way how to organize your photo accessories:
ua-cam.com/video/91Lwi-ekipk/v-deo.html
I don’t think correcting the vertical tilt is the same as saying distortion. Not really an issue with the lens when you’re asking for a normal lens to be a tiltshift
Valid point!
Subscribed. Great video. Super helpful and great images. Looks like a fun lens.
Thank you so much Ely!
Thanks for the another thorough review, pretty cool shots btw! Especially, the sunset shot, at 47:20, looks spectacular, even on UA-cam!!! I'm still waiting for this lens to be available in my country, so it's really helpful to see this type of content beforehand. I think the distortion is acceptable, considering it is a wide angle zoom for the bigger sensor. I wish the flaring would be controlled better, but hey, it's not too bad either. How about the focusing speed on 100S? 20-35 obviously doesn't have the LM, but I'm just curious how much worse it actually is? GF50 for example - is pretty darn quick, but the GF80 1.7 on the other hand was hunting a lot from what I've tested, hope that, the wide nature of this lens benefits in this case. What's your experience?
Didn't use the GF23 extensively yet, but seems like the GF20-35 would be more versatile for the street and landscapes, as well as some environmental portrait at the 35 mm end.
Keep up the good job, man, cheers from Ukraine!
Thanks so much for the comment Asomok! Also take the flaring from my video with a bit of a grain of salt because I never brought around the lens hood. Typically i don't bring them around, I find for the most part they are not needed, but some examples in this video def prove that mindset wrong!
Unfortunately I didn't really do any AF tests with the 20-35, nor any video work. I could have sworn I recorded an intro segment with the 20-35, but I just checked. But once I pick up this lens, I will def do a few tests for sure.
The 50 is what I recorded the talking head shots from this video with. Pretty good AF! The 80 was ok in a studio setting ( I have a portrait video where I show the tracking), but I didn't have it long enough to really form a full opinion on the AF. Thanks for taking the time and for this discussion!
@Mike Banom Thank you for the answer! Keep it up!
Thanks for such a detailed review! You are lucky to live in such an amazing location - some beautiful cityscapes there. I have the 23mm and as I shoot a lot of interiors/architecture I think the extra width of the 20-35 will be a big help. I’m curious about why you’re shooting so much at f4? I tend to stop down to f11 or so…the lens is sharper with way more depth of field, better sunstars on lights, and you get longer exposures to blur water etc. without ND filters. Not a criticism, but I just wondered if there’s s specific reason for shooting at f4?
Thanks so much for taking the time to leave a comment! No criticism taken! I think ultimately I prioritize a long shutter due to shooting a lot of water fronts and trying to make people disappear. When I get my hands on this lens I will try shooting at a higher f! Might be a bit of a flaw, I tend on shooting wide open a lot.
Love the church view!
It was quite a view!
A lightweight 70-140 would be nice
For sure. I kind of want something a bit wider than 20mm though, if I got my wish.
A lot of your images with this lens probably highlight a lot of the problems if you're shooting landscapes. Generally you're not shooting landscapes with big tall buildings in front of you now I know landscape Photography shouldn't be just resorted to wide-open vistas of planes and beaches and so forth but the reality is most landscape. Photography is that so using this lens for cityscape style photography is always going to be a compromise. I don't think it's a really fair way to assess this lens, I would love you to take this lens out to a country area where there is no big tall buildings and then shoot this lens and see what you get and it would be completely different as I have shot this lens, and my photos don't have that warped distortion in them because of what's in the scene I think what you put in the scene will largely be warped because this style of lens really isn't suited for that style of Photography in cityscapes. In my opinion you can get away with it but you're gonna have to manipulate a lot.
I think I complained a decent amount, but honestly, I am very pleased with the results! I guess you could say outside of the studio I shoot city landscape 😁. Unfortunately I didn't take this lens any non-city trips, but I should be headed to Hawaii next year. So Thanks for this idea, I may do a review part 2! Feel free to add me on IG, i'd love to see some of your landscape work! Interesting prospective based on your feedback. I didn't consider the city might not be a great subject for this lens!
Im a bit confused to be honest. Why would you take all of those horrible angles with this lens? For example the Ghostbusters shot. And then complain that you'll get "triangles" when correcting the distortion? Thats simply not how such a lens should be used. Or you can, but then you're not getting many good shots, and you're not using the full potential of the lens. This isn't a tilt shift lens. If you try to use it like one, yeah sure, you'll lose lots of pixels. But that's on you then.
You ever hear of constructive criticism? What you wrote isn't it.
@@MikeBanom did you ever hear of being able to take criticism? Because as a UA-camr, you definitely shouldn't let a post as harmless as mine, get to you like that. It absolutely was constructive criticism. You are using the lens in a strange way. Those angles don't make much sense. You are demonstrating this yourself. You have to correct the photos, and in the process lose a lot of pixels. You are also mixing up vertical tilt and distortion, and I am not the only one to notice that (strangely enough you "loved" the other comment mentioning it). It's not a tilt shift lens. No one should expect it to perform like one.
@nikolai_art So I'm not one of those stubborn people stuck in my ways, thinking that I have learned all I could learn. I love learning, I love having conversations with people. When you open with insulting me, describing the shots as 'horrible angles' followed by that i'm 'not getting many good shots'… do you think you are opening yourself up to have a great discussion? You make valid points, but you don't need to sling insults while doing so.
I really like the real life approach to this review. I like doing architecture photography and have the same problem with perspective fix on my non tilt shift, ultrawide lens.
From what I’ve seen, this channel puts a real life, practical spin on the average clinical, studio review videos that are informative yet also repetitive. The beauty of photography is there is no set ways to use a certain lens/camera and it’s up to the user to express their vision with the tools they have.
Some people might not appreciate diversity, but thanks for putting your unique take on this lens out there @mikebanom!