« on: February 05, 2014, 06:39:34 PM »
That's me and my wife: tough guys.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money And the colors are not that well choicen...
This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic
Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.
I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.