Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,931   Posts: 1,556,958   Online: 1005
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    Actually, you'll find that plenty of "adults" will shoot at f1.4 or 1.8 when they need to. It's surely better to have a softer image with limited depth of field than no image at all, if for whatever reason you can't use flash or faster film.

    I shot most of a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 at f1.7 for a party last year, the results had a '60s concert look (very popular with the Mod-inspired DJs) and meant that I didn't have to keep hurting people's eyes by firing a flash in a relatively dark room. They were grainy and a little soft but captured the atmosphere and looked pretty classy.
    Matt

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by LaChou View Post
    Please! To buy an 1.4 lens for using it wide-open?
    I have always thought people buy them because of an extra element they have.
    What kinf of focus will you get? Thats what teenage photogs do: shoot a normal lens wide open. Adult people buy themselves 135/2.0 to achieve the sought-for effect.
    Why would I buy a lens I cannot use wide open? The extra element is ostensibly so they work properly at maximum aperture. You have some funny ideas, I think.
    135 is a focal length I've found is either too long or too short. A 105 is as long as I use in 35mm.

  3. #13
    LaChou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ukraine Kiev
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    You see, the point of not using your lens wide open is deep. You must understand how the aperture works to see it. If you shoot wide open for whatever reason, you either don't undestand the meaning of the aperture, either you seek a "special look" you were talking about.
    The "special look" is OK with those, who like it. But I have a better method then shooting wide open.
    When I want to give my slides a certain old and a bit "washed out" look, I underexpose them and then overdevelop them a bit. They get pulled and acquire this particular uncontrasty look. Depending on the subject you shoot, It can be really great sometimes. It's a pity I do not have a scanner to show my work.
    I despise those, who create their own "reality", and especially those, who try to create wisdom of their own. This is "violation of concept". When one is unable to embrace what he perceives, he creates a smaller world for himself that he can embrace, and switches off the perception.

  4. #14
    LaChou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ukraine Kiev
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    There are lenses that "mean" to be shot wide open, like 300/2.8 for example. If you think a little, you will see that there is no point in having a 300/1.2 lens. So, when manufacturers construct a 1.2 lens for you, they actually "please" you at these apertures, but nothing more. When they make a 300/2.8, they are being seriuos.
    I despise those, who create their own "reality", and especially those, who try to create wisdom of their own. This is "violation of concept". When one is unable to embrace what he perceives, he creates a smaller world for himself that he can embrace, and switches off the perception.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,474
    The OM Zuiko 50/1.4 is beautiful when shot at 1.4
    - Bill Lynch

  6. #16
    LaChou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ukraine Kiev
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    Would you care to buy an aperture-free one? :-)))))
    I have a friend who likes disassembling lenses in his free time. The ones he manages to assemble can be sold relly cheap. :-))).
    I despise those, who create their own "reality", and especially those, who try to create wisdom of their own. This is "violation of concept". When one is unable to embrace what he perceives, he creates a smaller world for himself that he can embrace, and switches off the perception.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105
    Thanks but nobody answeered me really.There's no doubt that they did a comparison between these zuiko.which of these two glasses is technically better(contrast,sharpness,acutance,,,,)do someone help me?...i would to know only this thing...not the personal opinion.I know that all zuiko glasses are good/magnificent in some cases...but which zuiko 50 mm is better technically and objectively?I know that a magazine(i don't remeber the name) long time ago made a comparaison of these two lenses and won the 50 1.8. for its best performance,Did you rember this article?thank you very much
    regards

  8. #18
    LaChou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ukraine Kiev
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    42
    The sooner you try both of them, the sooner you will start thinking about something else.
    You actually got all nessessary information. THEY ARE BOTH JUST ZUIKOS.
    I despise those, who create their own "reality", and especially those, who try to create wisdom of their own. This is "violation of concept". When one is unable to embrace what he perceives, he creates a smaller world for himself that he can embrace, and switches off the perception.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    546
    Images
    1
    For example, if the answer was the 1.8, you would buy a 1.8 but there is always sample to sample variation. Magazines compare two specific lenses and one comes out on top; the next two samples may reverse the comparison. Buy one each, test them, then keep the better of the two. Tha way you know for sure you own the one that satisfies you.

    Years ago I recall reading the pros would borrow a number of samples, test them, and only keep the best, or, they would request the factory to measure and select for them. Decentered elements during assembly can make a huge difference!

    My own story: I once had two Contax Zeiss Planars, a 1.4 and a 1.7. Everyone raves about the 1.4. I tested both and the 1.7 was 10% better in lines resolved across the range, aperture to aperture.
    Last edited by Fred Aspen; 02-02-2013 at 08:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    -Fred

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    You can often find the f1.8 lens for relatively little attached to an OM-10 or similar. My advice therefore:

    Buy both, try them, sell the one you don't want. Assuming you pay reasonable amounts for them then you shouldn't lose any money.
    Matt

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin