[choka]

Bokeh depends on the lens. Those same scene, if you shoot with a nikon 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, you won't see those ugly harsh outlines on the circles. There will be a smoother transition.

I don't have a Zeiss 50, but if I am shooting those and want to reduce the harshness, I probably need to stop down. I would guess stopping down to f/2.8, although would give me a clearer background, the harshness would not be as much. This is purely a GUESS based on how I use my nikon 50/1.8 though, because that lens gives me similar junk on those kinds of scene and stopping down helps a lot.

On the other hand, on that scene, with a nikon 50/1.2, I will still have silky smooth bokeh.

Some people buy mirror lenses just to have donut bokeh. Nothing wrong with that. But for me, paying the big bucks, I'd rather have a lens that gives me smooth bokeh most of the time wide open.

And no I am not in journalism. I do CG research. I am the kind of guy who believes there is a lot of science in photography.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif [size=xx-large]LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size]

Agree... with one exception. Nikon 14-24/2.8. There is no lens on earth that is better than this one, yet. Not even close. The new 24/1.4 probably tops it, but it is no 14mm.

For other zooms, especially those super zooms? You really think they are even close to primes? I suggest an eye exam.

(those top-of-the-line zooms have very good quality. e.g., the nikon 24-70/2.8. You're talking about $1.8k here. Sharp as a prime, but they don't open up to f1.4, so it still can't replace primes when you need shallow depth of field)

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Ah, thanks!
As long as you have the desire to keep learning and improving, you'll be able to take pictures like that for sure! May take a few years...... it took me a few years..... but it'll happen.

I'm not sure if your camera will come with a photo guide, but if it doesn't the first thing I would start learning about is something called 'aperture' and how it effects the photo.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agree... with one exception. Nikon 14-24/2.8.

Yup, it's true. Nikon makes some phenomenal pro zoom lenses that are sharp as a tack (my old 35-70mm F/2.8 for example) and just as good as their prime equivalents at the same F numbers.


But to think a modern 18-55mm at 35mm and F/3.5 is going to be as good as a 35mm prime at F/3.5 is just crazy talk.

 

[jc9394]

I think the 24-70 2.8 is sharper than my old 35-70 2.8. But I still like my 50 1.2 better...

 

[bigshot]

There are plenty of zooms that outresolve the sensor when they are stopped down a bit. Even the $120 18-55 is as sharp as a prime at 35mm and stopped down to f/8. (If you don't believe me, go to DPReview and enter those settings and watch the charts flatline right on Nyquist.) The 18-200 has a problem around 135mm wide open, but if you know that, you just stop down in that range to f/16. At 35mm f/8 the 18-200 is functionally as sharp as any lens.

Honestly, sharpness is totally overrated. Contrast, distortion patterns, speed, chromatic aberration, bokeh, tendency to flare, size and weight, build quality, and to a lesser degree color rendition all matter much more in modern lenses than sharpness. Put your camera on sticks and shoot in the middle at f/8 and you won't be able to tell most lenses apart when it comes to sharpness.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even the $120 18-55 is as sharp as a prime at 35mm and stopped down to f/8.

Yes, but not at F/3.5.

Quote:

Honestly, sharpness is totally overrated.

Hey now, my preference is for a sharp photos (all else being equal).

 

[rhythmdevils]

my sensor prefers primes, when I don't give it what it wants it gets angry and hides details.

I've never really thought about bokeh before, but I agree the bokeh in those pictures is pretty bad, the image just becomes about the look of the bokeh, and nothing else. But I did find a lot of other images with nice bokeh.

What about the zeiss 35 f2? That's probably the one I get when I can afford it whenever that is...

 

[choka]

LOL

I can't imagine anyone shooting every single picture at f/8. That is not practical. I am mainly a landscape shooter. Even I don't do that. Carry a stick? Do that when you are going to the park with your family. Before you take every photo, oh, hold on, you need to put it on a stick and stop down to f/8 and... hey, where are the kids now?

People pay big bucks for the expensive zooms and primes because they can shoot at f/2.8 and still expect reasonably sharp images. Stop down a bit to 3.5 and they should expect the focus to be tack sharp. Those consumer zoom lenses? Oh I forgot, they start at f/4.5.

And why do you need large aperture? It is NOT entirely for low light situation! It is for the shallow depth of field so that (1) you establish very clearly your subject, and (2) throw clutter in the background out of the picture, e.g., you are shooting your kid and there is another kid in the background you don't want to see. If you are at f/8, that kid would totally be in focus. At f/2, that kid is blurred out. Later in your life, when you look at your pictures again, you don't have to ask yourself, which one is my kid again?

When you compose a photo you should think very clearly where you want the viewer to look at, ONE WAY to establish that is by depth of field. (let me make it clear here, there are other ways)

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif my sensor prefers primes, when I don't give it what it wants it gets angry and hides details.

Same here. But again, it is really a personal preference. Nothing wrong with wanting to use zoom lenses.


Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about the zeiss 35 f2? That's probably the one I get when I can afford it whenever that is...

Seems to me, except the 50/1.4, most other zeiss have pretty good bokeh (but please don't take my word for it. do your own research).

It is increasingly harder to manual focus on these modern day digital bodies as the lens gets wider though. I can MF very easily on my 90 and 105, but on my 50 it gets significantly harder (still doable). I can't imagine what I will feel on a 35.

On my F5 they are all easy. I love the split focusing screen.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I don't know if I can handle looking at lots of pictures examining bokeh

And I can't afford it yet.

But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses? Because everything looks farther away? And why doesn't katzeye make a split focussing screen for the D3. argghhh

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same here. But again, it is really a personal preference. Nothing wrong with wanting to use zoom lenses.

I don't really care that much about that last little bit of sharpness unless I'm shooting landscapes. I think in situations where I'm at f2, it is dark, and I'm often shooting moving subjects, and getting good focus is a much bigger problem then the sharpness of the lens. Even with a D3, focus in these situations is a nightmare. But, the nice primes do seem to autofocus much faster than the 24-70 f2.8 I have.

For me, shooting with primes is more about the practice as I said before.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow I had no idea that there's so much activity in this thread

Yep. I have no idea why am I talking about taking photos on a headphone forum.

Oh, because my boss reads the photo forums so I can't post there at work. LOL.


Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

Instead of here, may be you should check out photo.net, dpreview and fred miranda. Excellent people over there.

Also, may be go to a library and get a book to read about aperture and shutter speed. After that, read a book on composition. It is always great to go shoot with someone who has experience and see what they are shooting. Follow their footsteps for a while and then begin asking yourself, are those the best angles to shoot that thing? Can you improve the composition? Different people will tell you different things. Take everything with a huge grain of salt, and then draw your own conclusions.

 

[bigshot]

The trick is to know how your lenses behave at different settings and under different conditions. Then you can choose the one that works the best with the fewest compromises. The Nikon 50 1.2 is a fine lens. But shoot wide open with it in a bright, contrasty situation is going to give you MUCH worse results than any setting on the 18-55 VR. Wide open with bright highlights with the f/1.2 prime will give you foggy contrast, softness all over and tons of chromatic aberration.

A prime does not always mean better image quality than a zoom. It's a different tool with different abilities. You should use the best tool for the job, not just use what you might (incorrectly) believe automatically has the best image quality. Once you know the peculiarities of the lenses in your bag, you can get great images out of any lens.

No one stops down all the time, and no one shoots wide open all the time. You do what works for the shot. For most general daylight shots, there is absolutely no advantage to shooting with a prime over a kit zoom- but you'll sacrifice a great deal of versatility in focal length. The time to use a prime is in low light or for portraits with narrow slivers of focus. That's where they perform better than zooms.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses? Because everything looks farther away? And why doesn't katzeye make a split focussing screen for the D3. argghhh

I don't know. I guess my eyes are bad? I think it is because everything are so much smaller when it is a wide angle lens, making it harder to determine if things are sharp or not.

The bigger question is, why doesn't Nikon make split focusing screens anymore.