[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif great shots.

Danke

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif But that's a Leica lens... Can't connect it to nikon body without using an adapter with an extra glass element. Voigtlander also has a 50/1.1 that is stunning, but, again, for Leicas. I've thought about switching to Leica but I can't justify the price. Moreover, I can't go shoot a wedding with a Leica.

It would help if Leica didn't make the digital body as expensive as a sports car.

 

[bigshot]

If I really need more than one lens on a shoot, I'd rather have it on a second body than have to change lenses. I once got gorf on my sensor changing the lens in the car. It's a real problem for me, especially when the Santa Anas are kicking in.

It's not that I'm opposed to changing lenses... I just don't want to have to do it while I'm shooting. I have better things to focus my attention on in that situation than equipment.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whenever someone tells me they want to buy a DSLR with a 18-200 so they don't have to change their lens at all, I just tell them what they need is actually a P&S superzoom.

Why go to the size & cost of a superzoom P&S without the benefit of a larger sensor? For around the same cost, you'd be better off recommending an inexpensive APS-C or 4/3's sensor DSLR with kit lens for all the technical advantages, plus the potential for upgrading if the photography bugs grabs them. Superzooms don't present any advantage any more.

 

[trevorlane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture: etc etc. Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly. Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!

Nice, love the campus pix! Man I miss being around there, especially the LC

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevorlane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice, love the campus pix! Man I miss being around there, especially the LC

Thanks!
LC?

 

[trevorlane]

Yeah, learning commons in the library basement

 

[rhythmdevils]

The carl zeiss 50 1.4 has bad bokeh? what is the world coming to. I'm going back to my hasselblad.

I think it's worthy to mention that shooting with primes is a better practice as a photographer, because you choose the focal length you want to use, then you move to find the right angle. Composing with a zoom leads to laziness and messy focal lengths with the wrong images. Like distorting faces when you don't want to, or telephoto landscapes when you don't really intend to. If you're forced to move, it gets you more mobile, and you're more likely to find a better angle, instead of just standing there, and zooming in with the subject centered or something. Zooms are also more expensive for any given image quality, and heavier, etc.

But for weddings, etc, zooms are pretty fantastic

edit: this is just my experience

 

[bigshot]

I'm just as aware of focal length and framing on a zoom as I am with a prime. It's just a matter of being accustomed to your tools. The image quality of modern zooms is just as good in practice as primes. Some zooms even outresolve primes and have better distortion patterns. It all depends on the particular lens design. The only generalization I've found that holds true is that the main advantage of primes over zooms is usually speed. And the main advantage of zooms over primes is always flexibility. At f/8 just about every modern lens is sharp, regardless of whether they are a prime or a zoom.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif The carl zeiss 50 1.4 has bad bokeh? what is the world coming to. I'm going back to my hasselblad.

Just a simple search on flickr reveals images like these:

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
autumn light on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

They look bad. They are not smooth at all. Serious outlining issues, no smooth transitions. That is not bokeh I can expect from a Zeiss lens. When I was researching what 50mm to buy I couldn't believe what I saw...

Their 85/1.4 is awesome though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif But for weddings, etc, zooms are pretty fantastic

Ya I shot wedding with primes only. Big headache. It is necessary for a few shots to blur out all the background crap, but it is crazy to shoot the whole thing without zoom. I have to buy 24-70/2.8 for that when I have the money.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The image quality of modern zooms is just as good in practice as primes.

[size=xx-large]LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size]

 

[chews89]

Wow I had no idea that there's so much activity in this thread

Thanks for the advice and information guys, really helped me a lot, I understand focal length now. And Towert7, those are some wonderful looking photos! I hope I'll be able to shoot photos as nice as that someday.

The D200 seller said that he posted my camera today so I should be receiving it tomorrow! I'm really excited. I'll probably be spending the entire long weekend shooting.

Btw, do you guys have any general tips/advice/words of wisdom on shooting for me? Anything that could help would be awesome. Actually I was just wondering, what time of day do you guys find the best time to shoot?

 

[screenpotato]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a simple search on flickr reveals images like these: on Flickr - Photo Sharing! autumn light on Flickr - Photo Sharing! on Flickr - Photo Sharing! They look bad. They are not smooth at all. Serious outlining issues, no smooth transitions. That is not bokeh I can expect from a Zeiss lens. When I was researching what 50mm to buy I couldn't believe what I saw... Their 85/1.4 is awesome though. Ya I shot wedding with primes only. Big headache. It is necessary for a few shots to blur out all the background crap, but it is crazy to shoot the whole thing without zoom. I have to buy 24-70/2.8 for that when I have the money.

Maybe you need to do more then a quick search...

I can't speak for the other images but mine was taken out of context. If I was shooting with my Hassy I would have had that effect too--jammed up against the subject of multiple jagged lines layered with ice bouncing light everywhere.

How about you take a more in depth search and look at some of the beautiful Bokeh this lens can produce when not being messed with.

That image is right beside 2 others with buttery smooth bokeh if memory serves.

...but don't take my word for it, check out the group for this lens series:

Flickr: ZEISS ZA, ZM, ZK, ZS, ZE and ZF Lenses - Official Tag Required

Great job finding images to suit your argument, I hope you aren't in journalism.

IMO this is a great lens with beautiful bokeh--but as with any lens this sharp be careful of where the light is bouncing from.

 

[dj_mocok]

I think good bokeh or bad bokeh really depends more on what and how you're shooting than the lens itself.
Sure some lens has awesome smooth bokeh, some has quite harsh, donut-type bokeh, but depending how you work it in your image, even the supposedly bad ones can look nice.

I actually don't mind the bokeh on the 1st picture (the one with the leaf) even with the donut ring and all.

 

[xkRoWx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't bokeh improve as the background gets further away from the subject?