The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[timelessflight]

When I have 2 cameras I'll be much more prone to shooting primes.

At wedding ceremonies, I just dont see myself saying "oh hold that, I need to change my 35mm 1.4 L II to my 85 1.2 L II"

For portraits, I see a 135mm f/2 in my future

Oh Nikon needs to get it together and make a 135mm lens

 

[djyoung08]

When I have 2 cameras I'll be much more prone to shooting primes.

At wedding ceremonies, I just dont see myself saying "oh hold that, I need to change my 35mm 1.4 L II to my 85 1.2 L II"

For portraits, I see a 135mm f/2 in my future

Oh Nikon needs to get it together and make a 135mm lens

But they do have a 135mm

From what I understand, its an incredibly exquisite piece of glass....

EDIT -- I just realized its a "D" lens that those lenses don't work on the d3000 - d5000 cameras. My b

 

[HankHill]

That 85mm 1.4g lawd jesus!!!

I've thought about doing the 35mm/85mm combo and sell my 24-70 lens but man that would be tough to let that go.

I've had a 28-75 for 5+ years and was looking into getting the Tamron or Nikon 24-70 with vibration control/reduction. The size difference was too much for me when I held them (they're both about 2-3 pounds heavier and larger). Plus the 28-75 has close-focus/macro capabilities so it handled my midrage and detail shots. Didn't want to give that up and have to fill the void so I decided to keep it. Figured with the money I saved I can go for primes on both ends of the zoom.

 

[yung flip image]

That 85mm 1.4g lawd jesus!!!

I've thought about doing the 35mm/85mm combo and sell my 24-70 lens but man that would be tough to let that go.

Don't lol. I had a Nikon 24-70mm with Sigma's 35mm and 85mm 1.4 each. Sold the Nikon a little more than a year ago and I'm searching for another now. I miss using it as my main lens.

 

[dragicon]

^ agreed. I will preface it with "im not much of a prime guy", but I love having the versatility of a zoom. I've cut my kit down a lot over the years, and I can't imagine not having my 24-70.

 

[djyoung08]

24-70 is so nice

 

[dunksrnice]

Recent random work.



More on my blog as always.

IG - @dunksrnice
http://www.dunksrnice.net/2016/06/s010-ep193.html

 

[timelessflight]

24-70 is so nice

^ agreed. I will preface it with "im not much of a prime guy", but I love having the versatility of a zoom. I've cut my kit down a lot over the years, and I can't imagine not having my 24-70.

That 85mm 1.4g lawd jesus!!!


I've thought about doing the 35mm/85mm combo and sell my 24-70 lens but man that would be tough to let that go.

Don't lol. I had a Nikon 24-70mm with Sigma's 35mm and 85mm 1.4 each. Sold the Nikon a little more than a year ago and I'm searching for another now. I miss using it as my main lens.

You guys are the best!

 

[23kidd]

http://slickdeals.net/f/8830623-canon-refurbished-lenses-15-off

Refurbished canon lens, prices are decent if youre willing to buy refurbished.

 

[vapormercury]

went to some local camera shop today and tested canon 35mm 1.4 L mark 1 and yeah its definitely the lens i want
going to meet the guy that will be selling it on saturday, cant wait


----------------
Drop by Akmal Shihab, on Flickr
Antangin by Akmal Shihab, on Flickr

 

[eentegra]

im shooting zoom and primes right now. well not so much prime but i am contemplating on just shooting just primes....

i rented the 100mm f/2.8L this weekend for a wedding and damn.....

 

[vapormercury]

eyyo, so i was just seeing the result of the 35mm from the local store which i didnt buy.

i was center focusing in this pic with the focus point on the word in the middle of the lens

and heres the result

r

i think this lens have a front focusing issue dont you think? or is it normal? it looks like the sharp part was the webbing under the lens

what do you guys think?

shoot at f1.4 1/80 iso320

 

[djyoung08]

eyyo, so i was just seeing the result of the 35mm from the local store which i didnt buy.

i was center focusing in this pic with the focus point on the word in the middle of the lens

and heres the result

r

i think this lens have a front focusing issue dont you think? or is it normal? it looks like the sharp part was the webbing under the lens

what do you guys think?

shoot at f1.4 1/80 iso320

upload the full res to flikr or something. hard to tell w/ the res you posted.

 

[7th Chamber]

Yeah, I was going to say that I couldn't really tell from that image.

 

[djyoung08]

pulled the highest rest from NT and did a 100% zoom then cropped into the middle.

Part of the issue could have been your technique at shooting at 1/80. Looks like your above your subject shooting down.

You're shooting at f/1.4 at 1/80... its a tough shot to get to get those tiny letters razor sharp in the middle of the frame.

IMO if you bumped your ISO to 640 and your shutter speed to 160 you could have had a sharper result.

I just cant be sure the lens is 100% to blame in your issues since all your tests area always hand holding an extremely difficult aperture to shoot with.

 

[7th Chamber]

I mean it does look like the letters are in focus. And for this lens, I can tell you that if you're shooting at 1.4, it's not going to be tack sharp. That's part of the reason why the Sigma got so much praise and why the version 2 is now sought after; the sharpness was improved.

From The Digital Picture:

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Lens is slightly soft at f/1.4, but useable in my opinion. There is a noticeable improvement by f/2.0 (quite sharp). Some vignetting will be apparent to Full Frame and 1.3x FOVCF DSLR users until stopped down f/2 or so. Any distortion present is very minimal - FOVCF body users should notice none.

I can attest to the sharpness at 2.0

 

[djyoung08]

in any real world use, the image shot at f/1.4 is plenty sharp IMO.

Not like you would be printing that on a billboard w/ viewers up close.

Its plenty sharp for instagram bokeh accounts imo

TBH, you can probably get better results shooting the 35mm f/2 wide open than the 35mm f/1.4 wide open.

I think its easy to get wrapped up in having a HUGE aperture when in reality it isnt all that useful... especially with such a wide angle on a camera that can reach extremely high ISOs and have a very small noise penalty.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[vapormercury]

I mean it does look like the letters are in focus. And for this lens, I can tell you that if you're shooting at 1.4, it's not going to be tack sharp. That's part of the reason why the Sigma got so much praise and why the version 2 is now sought after; the sharpness was improved.

From The Digital Picture:
I can attest to the sharpness at 2.0

in any real world use, the image shot at f/1.4 is plenty sharp IMO.

Not like you would be printing that on a billboard w/ viewers up close.

Its plenty sharp for instagram bokeh accounts imo

TBH, you can probably get better results shooting the 35mm f/2 wide open than the 35mm f/1.4 wide open.

I think its easy to get wrapped up in having a HUGE aperture when in reality it isnt all that useful... especially with such a wide angle on a camera that can reach extremely high ISOs and have a very small noise penalty.

Just my 2 cents.

i see, when i was posting the post up there, i was using eos app on ipad that can transfer file, so maybe thats why it wasnt look so clearly
but heres the pic from flickr
IMG_0084 by Akmal Shihab, on Flickr

and i see its really sharp tbh when i see it in my pc, but just curious why does the lens still focusing to the webbing down the lens?

thanks guys

 

[7th Chamber]

It looks good to me on Flickr. As far as the focus, my best guess is that the lettering may be on the same plane as that sliver of webbing.

 

[djyoung08]

I mean it does look like the letters are in focus. And for this lens, I can tell you that if you're shooting at 1.4, it's not going to be tack sharp. That's part of the reason why the Sigma got so much praise and why the version 2 is now sought after; the sharpness was improved.

From The Digital Picture:
I can attest to the sharpness at 2.0

in any real world use, the image shot at f/1.4 is plenty sharp IMO.

Not like you would be printing that on a billboard w/ viewers up close.

Its plenty sharp for instagram bokeh accounts imo

TBH, you can probably get better results shooting the 35mm f/2 wide open than the 35mm f/1.4 wide open.

I think its easy to get wrapped up in having a HUGE aperture when in reality it isnt all that useful... especially with such a wide angle on a camera that can reach extremely high ISOs and have a very small noise penalty.

Just my 2 cents.

i see, when i was posting the post up there, i was using eos app on ipad that can transfer file, so maybe thats why it wasnt look so clearly
but heres the pic from flickr
IMG_0084 by Akmal Shihab, on Flickr

and i see its really sharp tbh when i see it in my pc, but just curious why does the lens still focusing to the webbing down the lens?

thanks guys

Because thats how depth of field works, my guy. Depth of field at f/1.4 is pretty shallow but at 35mm it isnt as shallow as a higher focal length... its just how the compression works at increasing focal lengths.

Having a shallow depth of field sets a single plane of focus, not a single dot necessarily where the only thing in focus is where the AF point was.. its everything on the plane of the autofocus point you selected.

so if you set up a lens right next to it, it would be sharp also. if you put a lens next to those two but behind or in front of it, it would be blurry.

You should probably understand how depth of field works before shooting at such a shallow depth of field and start pointing fingers at the equipment.

Not trying to put you down, im just saying.

 

[dragicon]

When you focus on an object, imagine that the focus spot generates a clear glass window at your focus point. This clear glass window will be parallel to your camera. If you are standing up, that window is going to rotate so that it is still parallel to your camera. You took a picture down onto the lens. This caused that window to be "angled backwards". This is why the webbing in front of the lens is in focus, because you are not level with the words. If you had squatted down or become level with the words ( exactly perpendicular to the lens on the table), then the window (which is parallel to the camera) would have been exactly "up and down". In that scenario, the In focus webbing on the table would have been the same distance as the words.

 

[vapormercury]

It looks good to me on Flickr. As far as the focus, my best guess is that the lettering may be on the same plane as that sliver of webbing.

Because thats how depth of field works, my guy. Depth of field at f/1.4 is pretty shallow but at 35mm it isnt as shallow as a higher focal length... its just how the compression works at increasing focal lengths.

Having a shallow depth of field sets a single plane of focus, not a single dot necessarily where the only thing in focus is where the AF point was.. its everything on the plane of the autofocus point you selected.

so if you set up a lens right next to it, it would be sharp also. if you put a lens next to those two but behind or in front of it, it would be blurry.

You should probably understand how depth of field works before shooting at such a shallow depth of field and start pointing fingers at the equipment.

Not trying to put you down, im just saying.

When you focus on an object, imagine that the focus spot generates a clear glass window at your focus point. This clear glass window will be parallel to your camera. If you are standing up, that window is going to rotate so that it is still parallel to your camera. You took a picture down onto the lens. This caused that window to be "angled backwards". This is why the webbing in front of the lens is in focus, because you are not level with the words. If you had squatted down or become level with the words ( exactly perpendicular to the lens on the table), then the window (which is parallel to the camera) would have been exactly "up and down". In that scenario, the In focus webbing on the table would have been the same distance as the words.

Lesson learned! yep i was facing kinda down for the focus and the confusion has been solved!

maybe im too paranoid of getting an used lens with a front/back focus issue again! hahaha

but this thread keep getting better and better for my knowledge in photography!
and overall im very happy for how the 35mm 1.4 L mark 1 perform so far even though i only spent a couple of minutes using it!

thank you all for the lesson!

 

[djyoung08]

It looks good to me on Flickr. As far as the focus, my best guess is that the lettering may be on the same plane as that sliver of webbing.

Because thats how depth of field works, my guy. Depth of field at f/1.4 is pretty shallow but at 35mm it isnt as shallow as a higher focal length... its just how the compression works at increasing focal lengths.

Having a shallow depth of field sets a single plane of focus, not a single dot necessarily where the only thing in focus is where the AF point was.. its everything on the plane of the autofocus point you selected.

so if you set up a lens right next to it, it would be sharp also. if you put a lens next to those two but behind or in front of it, it would be blurry.

You should probably understand how depth of field works before shooting at such a shallow depth of field and start pointing fingers at the equipment.

Not trying to put you down, im just saying.

When you focus on an object, imagine that the focus spot generates a clear glass window at your focus point. This clear glass window will be parallel to your camera. If you are standing up, that window is going to rotate so that it is still parallel to your camera. You took a picture down onto the lens. This caused that window to be "angled backwards". This is why the webbing in front of the lens is in focus, because you are not level with the words. If you had squatted down or become level with the words ( exactly perpendicular to the lens on the table), then the window (which is parallel to the camera) would have been exactly "up and down". In that scenario, the In focus webbing on the table would have been the same distance as the words.

Lesson learned! yep i was facing kinda down for the focus and the confusion has been solved!

maybe im too paranoid of getting an used lens with a front/back focus issue again! hahaha

but this thread keep getting better and better for my knowledge in photography!
and overall im very happy for how the 35mm 1.4 L mark 1 perform so far even though i only spent a couple of minutes using it!

thank you all for the lesson!

 

[danyosahn]

 

[dragicon]

A few from the airport yesterday