[stuartr]

Eric -- keep up the good work. Photography is a really rewarding hobby -- I wish I got into it in earnest at your age. Though I did not really embrace photography as a kid, my dad was an amateur (but very good) photographer taught me about different types of light, color, the rule of thirds and composition as a kid, and I really think it changed the way I looked at the world -- if not more artistically, then more aesthetically. He did not really talk about this from the perspective of a photographer, just as an observer of the environment. I think I really benefited from that different perspective.


Quote:

Originally posted by ipodstudio It's funny: Nikon have the almost identical AF 50mm f1.8, which is also dirt cheap (about $70 as well) and is tack sharp. Most Nikon pros I know keep one in their bag and many prefer it over the 4 times as expensive AF 50 f1.4...go figure...

It's much easier to make a sharp lens with a slow aperature. In any case, most well-made primes will be much better lenses than zooms -- it is a simple matter of physics -- they generally have far fewer elements. The light is traveling through less glass, so there is less room for aberrations and loss. I have a leica rig, and I use the 50 mm f/2 summicron, many consider it the sharpest consumer lens made -- I think it is also the second cheapest leica lens and the second slowest 50mm. it is certainly noticeably sharper compared to any of my other lenses. Slides just look more 3 dimensional and colors are more...well, real. I think voigtlander made a 3.5 heliar special edition awhile back that was supposed to be even sharper...However, there is definitely something to be said for super fast lenses. I think my favorite lens might be the Canon FD 85 mm f/1.2L...you can completely isolate out your subject, shoot by the light of a candle, and since it is a floating element design, its performance wide open is as good as it is stopped down. I think I will add digital to my arsenal when full frame sensors in the 10 megapixel range are available in a compact leica M mount and are more or less economical. I think it will be about 5 years. Until then the focal length multiplication factors and the gargantuan size of modern pro DSLR's is just too daunting. Excuse my curmudgeon-ness. It's just that I find people shy away from me when I point my admittedly intimidating Canon T90 with 85 mm lens (it is a 72 mm filter size with a large hood), and the T90 is still half the size of the D1s, EOS 1V or the D1X, D2H etc...those things are bigger than a hasselblad!

 

[ipodstudio]

I think my favorite lens might be the Canon FD 85 mm f/1.2L

...we seem to think alike. One of my favourite lens was Nikon's AF-D 85mm f1.4...for pretty much the reasons you described.
It's often the case that when you're knew to photography you tend to like to go wide, wide, wide but as time goes on you tend to prefer to isolate subjects more and shoot in an entirely different way. That doesn't happen to everyone, of course, but a large percentage from what I've seen.

 

[go_vtec]

Nice work! I'm not sure if you can save your file as raw format, but I found converting raw format to other type using a post image processing program worked better than most of camera's built-in processing. Of course, some cameras do not allow raw formats to be save (may be that is what you meant)?
Quote:

the sharpness and colors are determined by the camera's built-in lens and CCD (unless we're talking SLR digital).

Ditto for Canon. Most 50mm lenses are so darn fast and cheap, they make most excellent main lens (if you don't mind foot-zooming, they also make good backup lenses.... one of the reasons why pros carry them). It's kinda shame that most of consumers settle with more expensive, but horrible quality zooms without realizing how much these little guys can do for mere $70 bucks. Of course, Leica's 50mm lenses do cost significantly more $ and probably worth every pennies

Quote:

It's funny: Nikon have the almost identical AF 50mm f1.8, which is also dirt cheap (about $70 as well) and is tack sharp. Most Nikon pros I know keep one in their bag and many prefer it over the 4 times as expensive AF 50 f1.4...go figure...

[edit: formatting]

 

[stuartr]

Another great advantage of fixed lenses is that they teach you to compose in your head -- if all you shoot for six months is a 50 mm lens, you start seeing what will be in the frame without having to look through the viewfinder. For manual cameras, it also allows you to pretty much know where your focus will be -- these two things allow you to think more about composition, depth of field and shutter speed -- not to mention the fact that it makes you much quicker, giving you a better chance to capture an image that you want...modern auto focus may be very fast, but nothing is faster than prefocus.

 

[ipodstudio]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr Another great advantage of fixed lenses is that they teach you to compose in your head -- if all you shoot for six months is a 50 mm lens, you start seeing what will be in the frame without having to look through the viewfinder. For manual cameras, it also allows you to pretty much know where your focus will be -- these two things allow you to think more about composition, depth of field and shutter speed -- not to mention the fact that it makes you much quicker, giving you a better chance to capture an image that you want...modern auto focus may be very fast, but nothing is faster than prefocus.

Very true. I shot for a couple of years with a Leica M6 and had a 35mm Summicron almost permanently attached to it. I eventually added a 90mm to the kit, but I could do most of what I wanted with those two at that time. Great learning experience.

 

[AdamP88]

The Canon 85mm f/1.2L is high up on my list of dream lenses. Though it's a beast for a relatively short focal length prime, the sharpness and depth of field is just stunning. Unfortunately the $1500 price tag leaves it as only a dream for me now.

Apparently the 85mm f/1.8 is surprisingly close to the 1.2 in sharpness and image quality, and is roughly a third the price. I'm trying to decide whether to purchase that or the 70-200mm f/4L next.

As far as size of cameras, I agree that some of these professional digital SLRs are way too big and heavy. But conversely, for someone with big hands, small cameras can be a little awkward. I needed to add the battery pack/grip to my Rebel 2000 just to make it feel comfortable to hold. That said, when your camera begins to feel more like brick tied to your neck than an extension of your hands, then things are getting a bit bad (unless you're doing strictly tripod work). Not that I wouldn't want to own a 1Ds or D2H.

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamP88 The Canon 85mm f/1.2L is high up on my list of dream lenses. Though it's a beast for a relatively short focal length prime, the sharpness and depth of field is just stunning. Unfortunately the $1500 price tag leaves it as only a dream for me now. Apparently the 85mm f/1.8 is surprisingly close to the 1.2 in sharpness and image quality, and is roughly a third the price. I'm trying to decide whether to purchase that or the 70-200mm f/4L next.

Why not buy the FD version of the lens and a beater body? You can usually find the 85 f/1.2L for about 450-500 dollars used and an FTB or A1 body for a nominal fee (50-100 bucks). The lens is identical except for the lack of autofocus -- I hear it is extremely slow on this lens anyway. It might be something to consider. You can get the same lens for less than half the cost...

 

[stuartr]

You can see how massive the lens is here -- it is the lens on the F1. The hood is right next to it there, and makes it about 3 inches longer and a bit wider.

But, small depth of field can be fun. I took this with the 50 mm lens at f/1.2 and it is almost too much, so you can imagine how much more isolated it would be with the 85mm. I have actually taken pictures of people where their head is a little turned and one eye is in perfectly sharp focus and the other is blurred....

 

[kevin gilmore]

nature stuff huh??

http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/g9f20128.jpg

 

[mclaren20]

Is this the 50mm ya'll are talkign about?


If so, where can I get the damn thing, no one has it.

 

[Stephonovich]

In response to the 50mm posts... I've got a 1.8 50mm Canon FD lens I got from my grandpa. I'm planning on getting an FD adpator soon so I can use it on my EOS. No AF, sure, but it's not really a neccesity. It is nice for fast action shots with a big telephoto when you're snapping one after the other, though.

BTW, stuartr, I absolutely love that picture of the Cappa mug. What film did you use? Looks like 800 to me, or maybe a grainy 400, but that is freaking beautiful. Got anymore? A website, perhaps?

(-:Stephonovich

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephonovich In response to the 50mm posts... I've got a 1.8 50mm Canon FD lens I got from my grandpa. I'm planning on getting an FD adpator soon so I can use it on my EOS. No AF, sure, but it's not really a neccesity. It is nice for fast action shots with a big telephoto when you're snapping one after the other, though. BTW, stuartr, I absolutely love that picture of the Cappa mug. What film did you use? Looks like 800 to me, or maybe a grainy 400, but that is freaking beautiful. Got anymore? A website, perhaps? (-:Stephonovich

As per using FD lenses on EOS, I am fairly certain that it is not easily done. Canon never made a converter except for the huge telephotos (400mm+...you try to explain to a professional that he is going to have to spend another 5 to 10 grand per lens on new super telephotos just because the mount changed). For all other lenses, you can make an adapter and put them on the camera, but you will not be able to focus to infinity -- i.e., it is largely useless. Also, the adapter will probably cost 50 to 150 dollars, while a new EF 50 mm 1.8 is 69.95 at B&H as Mclaren 20 showed us. Unless you have thousands of dollars in super-telephotos, its probably not worth it to switch.

As for my photo, I am glad you like it. It was actually Ilford FP4 plus, which is exposed at ISO 125. The grain must be more from the wide aperature, close focus and the jittery caffeine hands than from the film. FP4 is a pretty sharp film -- here is another using it that will show you what I mean:

But anyway, I am glad you liked the shots. I have some more of varying quality at photo.net. Here It is certainly a learning process...

edit: sorry if I hijacked the thread. I just love talking photography as much as headphones, but the people at photo.net are such jerks...when I see people talking about it here I get all excited because people here are cool, intelligent and respectful. No one needs to flame anyone if the exposure is an iota off or they have taken a picture that somebody in the universe may conceivably have taken before...

 

[Stephonovich]

Ah... I thought the adaptors just changed some electrical connectors around. Apparently they must do more, or it'd work better. BTW, I was talking about generic adaptors, not Canon approved ones.

$70 ain't bad for a 1.8 lens. I'll definitely look into that one. 50mm is very nice to just be walking around with. Not so massive it snags on stuff and weighs you down, and plus, you can take a suprising amount of pictures with a 50.

Have you ever used Ilford Delta? I'm a fan of extreme contrast for most B&W. Tried some Kodak TMX and wasn't really impressed with it. Sure, it's insanely smooth and beautiful graduations, but unless you're doing portraits, I don't really see a need for it. My personal dream is to get some Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 and shoot a Symphony with it. Ever since seeing a few shots of a symphony in B&W I've fallen in love with it. The rich blacks of the suits, the light glinting off the brass... Add in the insane amount of grain, and it's just awesome.

Oh yes, I really liked the picture of the Pigeons on the boardwalk, and 'Ishikawa'. As I said, I'm a sucker for contrast

EDIT:

Yeah, the photo.net people are morons. Great pictures, but entirely too picky. It's kinda like the HA site of photography. Brilliant people, just too uptight. And I don't think it was a thread hijack, after all, it was about photography.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[go_vtec]

Quote:

Is this the 50mm ya'll are talkign about?

Yes... it's MKII version of EF 50mm f/1.8 lens. Original (MKI) version is more desirable since it has a distance scale, better focus ring and metal mount. They are optically identical though (just better bulit). Only problem with MKI is that it has been discountinued for some time and a mint used one cost around $100-130. Since I'm an old timer (I started photography around late 80's), I actually bought original version new and still use it (I also have 50mm f/1.4).

 

[eric343]

Kevin - Try running it through Auto Levels + Auto Contrast + Auto Color + Sharpen (in order) in Photoshop for better greens and browns. Where was that taken? I love the diffuse lighting, and the clarity of the flower is pretty amazing.

Stuartr - I love your use of black & white in those pictures! The insanely small depth-of-field really isolates that cup from the background, too...