« on: July 26, 2014, 11:24:35 AM »
I've been attracted to the Zeiss lenses on a number of occasions, but, regrettably the truth is I've never been that good at manually focusing, even in the days before AF
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.
Even better!Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....
Could I suggest the following layout.....
Add C1-5, and I'd be happy.
Yes! (but make it six, just in case)
Such a thing might even take the steam out of my desire for a Fuji.
anybody see anything wrong with this approach? any other suggested paths?
I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive ☺️
Cool shots, especially this last one. I really like the lighting. Using a 17mm for portraiture is quite challenging to say the least, but you kept the camera nice & level, so they turned out really well. You must have been quite close to the actress!He he, I got a few strange looks, when I came crawling across the floor. But the fun was to use the T&S on something as active as this and not just tripod mounted, live view architecture and interior shots. Phenomenal lens!
I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.
Hey there Sporgon, thanks for trying. Both wrong.
Long time lurker and first time poster, i registered just to chime in 2 cents-
I understand PDB's stance (a objective stance on things)- but there comes a point when 1+1 no longer equals 2; where having all the settings exactly right doesn't guarantee you an awesome shot. A sharp, perfectly exposed one, yes. but breathtakingly beautify, no. The more I shoot, the more I realize i'm good enough to bump up against the technical limits of my ability (and gear)- but unable to transcend my "technical" style. Whenever I do happen to take a jaw-droppingly great shot, though, more often than not it's with the 50L.
for what it's worth, I saw Standard's photographs and immediately pegged the first one (the tabby) as a 50L shot. Not all photographs are distinctive enough to distinguish lenses, but IMO that one is. The last pic of the siamese cat has the same 'feel', but still noticeably different.
This was my basis for starting this thread:
Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.
Recently, I have invested lens average lens, 35mm f2 IS, 40mm and 85mm 1.8,
I also have tried 24-105, 16-35 f2.8 and 24-70 2.8. I used to have 28 1.8.
looking at the pictures taken from these lenses. I always go back to the pictures taken by 50 1.2 L. Even at smaller apertures, the 50 1.2 L produces the wow effect (not all pictures, but most of them).
To be honest, i have not personally tried ef 50 1.4. only look at pictures on line.
Thus I post this thread and see how people like the 50 1.2 L.
Have I got a poor copy?
Thanks for any thoughts.