Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mestre" data-source="post: 95139" data-attributes="member: 6032">Just had a chance to test the 16-35 VR tonight on a turistic site, although at this time noone was near <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />[ATTACH]22054[/ATTACH]Both shots were handheld, jus to test ISO and VR. There are a couple spotlights that make managing light a bit difficult but in the end the first shot was ISO 3200 and 1/25 while the second one was ISO 800 and 1/6 shutter speed.There is a light blur that can be a bad sign regarding flare but I must shoot in sunny conditions to see the impact. Both pics are just jpeg converted to 1400k to fit the forum, there is no PP in either pictures.[ATTACH]22055[/ATTACH]I don't see any big differences but please share your thoughts on this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mestre, post: 95139, member: 6032"] Just had a chance to test the 16-35 VR tonight on a turistic site, although at this time noone was near :) [ATTACH=CONFIG]22054._xfImport[/ATTACH] Both shots were handheld, jus to test ISO and VR. There are a couple spotlights that make managing light a bit difficult but in the end the first shot was ISO 3200 and 1/25 while the second one was ISO 800 and 1/6 shutter speed. There is a light blur that can be a bad sign regarding flare but I must shoot in sunny conditions to see the impact. Both pics are just jpeg converted to 1400k to fit the forum, there is no PP in either pictures. [ATTACH=CONFIG]22055._xfImport[/ATTACH] I don't see any big differences but please share your thoughts on this. [/QUOTE]

Verification