Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,794   Online: 696
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    sidearm613's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    269
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    Because, at least in film circles, everybody raves about Leica and Nikon F-series. You don't hear ANYTHING about Canon EOS outside of digital circles (where EOS is EXTREMELY well-regarded and popular).



    Besides being somewhat noisy and not allowing for full-time manual focus, there is nothing wrong with micromotor autofocus. It is not less accurate. So if you can get around these issues, don't let the absence of USM deter you from buying a lens.
    Well, you heard it from me, I love my EOS camera. Not to discredit the F-series, which are great cameras, but I always preferred Canon, even when I was twelve and all I wanted was a d****** P+S.

    I do agree with you about micrometer AF. It works for me, and at the moment none of my lenses for my EOS system are USM anyways, so it had better work for me. I hardly ever autofocus anyways, so I couldn't care less, but when i actually have to autofocus, then for a second I see the brilliance of the USM.

    p.s. - At this point in my life, I can't afford to talk about Leica, much less own one.
    David

    A Holga is an ugly woman, a Brownie is a delicious treat.

    dromanophoto.blogspot.com/

  2. #22
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by sidearm613 View Post
    Well, you heard it from me, I love my EOS camera. .... I hardly ever autofocus anyways,
    Manual focusing on a camera designed and optimized for autofocus (and there's more involved than simply changing the focusing screen) seems an odd way of making one's life more difficult...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    30
    Thanks for all the input. I guess I'm surprised that no one other than Pentax ever made a wide angle soft focus lens in 35mm, and apparently the 28mm Soft is pretty uncommon. I'm also surprised that the only normal lens option is the 45mm Kenko. It's actually beginning to look like an easier task to assemble a wide angle & long normal soft focus lens set for my 8x10. . .

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228

    100 mm Sima Soft Focus + 1.4 Teleconverter = Something Amazing.

    Quote Originally Posted by nsurit View Post
    Oh, yes there is the Sima Soft Focus 100mm f2 soft focus + macro. Low tech and usually not very expensive when you find one. Bill Barber
    I would like to let you in on a little secret. Just between you & me, LOL.

    If you add a 1.4 teleconverter, behind the 100 mm Sima Soft Focus lens, something amazing happens.

    All of the flare disappears, but the image stays soft. Let me explain. Joan Rivers used to allow
    photography during her shows. You weren't allowed to use any flash, but if you weren't disruptive,
    it was O.K. This was at a nightclub / restaurant, called " Carlos' & Charley's ". It doesn't exist
    anymore.

    Now this was back in the day, before Ms. Rivers got the talk show on Fox.
    She had wrinkles commensurate with a woman her age.

    The lighting was normal performance spot lighting.

    With the Normal Lens, the images looked normal. With the Sima S.F. & the 1.4 Teleconverter, all of her wrinkles disappeared. It was amazing.

    After her talk show was cancelled, I was allowed to shoot her again. She had, had the first of her face lifts. So, the S.F., wasn't needed, anymore.

    For my money she looked better, without the face lift, but with the Soft Focus & 1.4 Tele.
    Last edited by Vanishing Point Ent.; 05-22-2009 at 12:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,763
    I have the Canon FD 85mm f2.8 S/F lens that are quite rare these days, and with soft lighting ladies of a certain age certainly seem to appreciate it .
    Ben

  6. #26
    kodachrome64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    303
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Softie View Post
    I'm looking to make up a 35mm kit around a few soft focus lenses. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any central listing of soft focus lenses produced for 35mm cameras. Furthermore, no manufacturer appears to have made a complete set of wide, normal, and telephoto soft focus lenses (Pentax seems to have come the closest with a 28mm and an 85mm).

    So I thought I'd ask and see if the community could list all of the known 35mm format soft focus lenses. I'll kick it off with Nikon:

    105mm f/2 DC
    135mm f/2 DC
    90mm f/4.8 fun fun lens
    Are the Nikon DC lenses "soft focus"? It was my understanding the "defocus control" only affected the out-of-focus parts of the picture, allowing you to vary the bokeh. Wouldn't you still need to put something in front of the lens for a truly soft focus effect?
    Kodachrome
    They give us those nice bright colors
    They give us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah.
    -Paul Simon

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,976
    Spiratone marketed the Portagon (f4, 85mm -- I think) in the 1980s. It was a T-mount lens, meaning that you bought the correct lens adapter for your camera body.

    The Portagon is a meniscus (one lens element) with plenty of softness and lots of chromatic aberration.

    Canon led the way in developing plastic-bodied cameras for the general consumer. They split their line into two groups (bodies and lenses): Plastic wonders for the consumer and more rugged gear for the pros. The plastic stuff probably was good enough for the amateur and is priced appropriately today on the second-hand market. Same goes for the pro-level gear.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,051
    Imagon 120 is the best as mentioned on page one. Hard to find, but it is a real soft focus lens. I searched 10 years and spent $1000. Worth it.
    Works the same on Nikon D700 as on film Leicas.

    Dreamagon, simply weird. Lens baby just moves the focus plane around.


    105 135 DC are not soft focus. They adjust where the zone of softness goes.

    Milnolta made a 85 2.8 soft decades ago.

    Nothing you can hang on a lens will make it soft focus, just blury. Softars are the best of this type. Use #1 for 35 mm.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Softars do not just make the image blurry.

    They overlay a sharp image (!) with the effect of spherical aberration.
    The sharp image doesn't go away because of it.

    In my opinion, Softars are better than the Imagon. And much easier to use


    But who nowadays uses soft focus? Are we on the brink of a revival?

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    26
    ^ If Spandex and leg warmers are making a revival, I don't see why soft focus couldn't? hahaha

Page 3 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