I'm willing helpNO WORRIES! I am willing to recycle for free all big white EF lenses![]()
![]()
I'm willing helpNO WORRIES! I am willing to recycle for free all big white EF lenses![]()
![]()
I shoot film as well and 28mm is a perfect "everyday wide" for me. The Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 is the one I take on walk-around street shoots (paired with a 50mm) and to parties. I find 24mm a little too wide where 28mm looks wide but not unnaturally so.I actually had this a long time ago and it was nice on aps-c , but is kind of in no man's land for FF IMO. The 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is better if you want a super light FF landscape lens (altho worth the extra weight for IQ and sealing of the 16-35 f/4L IMO anyway) and the 35mm f/2 IS USM is faster with a more popular focal length for general wide usage on FF. I am not sure what I would use the 28mm to shoot on FF.
When I do "everyday/street" its either the 35mm f/2 IS or the 50mm f/1.2L depending on the location. I agree the 24mm gives too much perspective distortion for everyday, which makes it more suitable for landscape. I also find though even 35mm gives a little more perspective distortion than I'd like sometimes for everyday/street, so 28mm is out of the question for me in the everyday/street category.I shoot film as well and 28mm is a perfect "everyday wide" for me. The Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 is the one I take on walk-around street shoots (paired with a 50mm) and to parties. I find 24mm a little too wide where 28mm looks wide but not unnaturally so.
I imagine you might even pay the shipping!
I'll go further. I will pay $1000 for the 1200mm big white--the one that got discontinued years ago, so surely it's utter trash that needs to be disposed of!
Seriously, there seems to be this notion that the lenses instantly become worthless when they are discontinued. Maybe if you are the sort who must have the latest and greatest (perhaps even basing your sense of self-worth on it), but not, objectively speaking.
In fact the lens I am most likely to buy next is an EF lens, and given what I plan to do with it, an RF version would be next to useless, even if it existed, which it doesn't.
Can you tell we why you are shooting film ( in 35mm format)? I was doing a lot of scanning ( 35mm Kodachrome slide, 35mm negatives and 4X6 Photos). I found out that nthe Kodachrome gives me the sharpest ( about 20 Meg pixel) and excellent color. The color negatives (Kodak color) give me about 15 Meg resolution, while the 6X4 photos give me about 10 Meg Pixel , both give me less color defintion. May be I do not have a good lab for the film development and enlargement ??I shoot film as well and 28mm is a perfect "everyday wide" for me. The Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 is the one I take on walk-around street shoots (paired with a 50mm) and to parties. I find 24mm a little too wide where 28mm looks wide but not unnaturally so.
My lab provides 35mm scans at about 3600x2400 (8mp). I don't know much about scanners but they use a "converted Noritsu V30SM C41 Processor".Can you tell we why you are shooting film ( in 35mm format)? I was doing a lot of scanning ( 35mm Kodachrome slide, 35mm negatives and 4X6 Photos). I found out that nthe Kodachrome gives me the sharpest ( about 20 Meg pixel) and excellent color. The color negatives give me about 15 Meg resolution, while the 6X6 give me about 10 Meg Pixel , both give me less color defintion. May be I do not have a good lab??
My film shooting is almost exclusively 120 MF film. I shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x12(pinhole on this one), and 6x17 on a view camera.Can you tell we why you are shooting film ( in 35mm format)? I was doing a lot of scanning ( 35mm Kodachrome slide, 35mm negatives and 4X6 Photos). I found out that nthe Kodachrome gives me the sharpest ( about 20 Meg pixel) and excellent color. The color negatives give me about 15 Meg resolution, while the 6X6 give me about 10 Meg Pixel , both give me less color defintion. May be I do not have a good lab??
It's a win - win for CanonWow, they can't wait to get rid of the EF lenses.
I always try to catch your film posts as I enjoy reading about it, and your enthusiasm for it. I wish I had the wear with all to set up a darkroom and try some of the medium format stuff you do.My film shooting is almost exclusively 120 MF film. I shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x12(pinhole on this one), and 6x17 on a view camera.
I shoot these mostly due to the unique perspectives...especially the 6x17 panoramic camera. There's not a digital camera in the world right now that I know of that can shoot that per shot.
I can throw filters on there and do long exposures that are simply not possible with multi-shooting and stitching with digital.
I"m about to soon venture into 4x5 which, and I may be wrong on this, still has a bit of an edge over most common digital cameras....certainly it seems to me to have a look that isn't really reproducible on digital.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVEs me some digital, but film is fun too.
I'm working now to try to get an old 35mm film camera custom fixed to open up the film gate so that it shoots panoramic that is actually a bit wider than the old Hassy/Fuji Xpan used to shoot on film....I"m pairing it with a Mamiya Press 50mm lens.
And of late, I'm having fun mixing the two worlds....old vintage lenses are amazingly fun (to me) to adapt to digital mirrorless cameras.
New lenses are great, but sometimes can be described as "clinically" sharp....vintage lenses often are not and can give you some artistic looks many find desirable.
Film gives looks too.....
There's plenty of reasons that plenty of people still like film...it seems to be gaining popularity even.
I'm even looking into YouTube videos showing cyanotypes....platinum paladium printing....very artistic and interestingly enough...the PP printing from what I hear is one of the longest lasting archival methods of creating prints there is.
Those need a negative....either film or maybe printed negative from a digital capture.
Ugh...ok, sorry....rant mode off.
Anyway...lots of interesting areas of photography out there.
cayenne
Interesting.Platinum-Palladium printing can't be cheap! Platinum is on a fire sale right now at a mere $1200-$1300, much lower than gold, but palladium broke through $3000 an ounce today. (All prices USD.)
Interesting.
I've not looked into the costs of the chemicals, etc.....and it appears to be a little pricey from the videos, but I didn't get the impression that it was cost prohibitive.
Ok I found a starter kit here for $248:
Bostick-Sullivan: Na2 Platinum/Palladium Kit For Digital Negatives
It really looks interesting as a process....and you can even do it to your digital shots, but using your printer to print out a negative onto what appears to be similar to sheets of plastic used on old overhead projectors back in the day.
C
OH thank you!!I always try to catch your film posts as I enjoy reading about it, and your enthusiasm for it. I wish I had the wear with all to set up a darkroom and try some of the medium format stuff you do.![]()
Per the link I set :How many can you do with that starter kit?
Interesting on the lens. Let us know what turns out with that one.I decided to check on prices for the TS-E 24mm last night, and discovered that it is apparently backordered. I don't know what if anything that means. It is a good thing, because it was a weak moment for me, and I might have made an impulse purchase.
I can't think of any other lens that would be of any use to me, and I wouldn't use it a lot. The money that I didn't spend on traveling over the last year is just sitting there in my checking account, so I probably wouldn't miss the money for one impulse buy. My iPad is getting long in the tooth and the battery is getting old. It might be the best candidate for an impulse replacement, given the $190 trade-in from my old one, 3% cash back, and extended payments I won't notice. I don't do anything with the iPad that needs an M1 chip, and the battery is not an issue until I start traveling again. Maybe that's an old guy thing, not particularly needing or wanting anything I don't already have.