Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Lenses

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
8 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yeah a 50mm equivalent isnt very popular ;)

Not in this day and age to me they are. I have like 15 lenses. None of them are a 50mm or equivalent. Sure 20 years ago it sort of was in favor. A 35mm, 50mm is to me a total waste of space in a camera bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked 50mm with 35mm film but that was probably because there wasn't much choice and the 50s were maybe the best lenses optically as well as being the fastest and cheapest (primes).

Changing to digital and most cameras were now APSC and I still liked the 50s and near 50s as they were now more of a nice portrait lens (and the same with them on M43).

Going FF digital, I now had a LOT more choice of focal lengths so didn't use normal lenses anywhere near as much and by now, many other lenses were optically better than the old legacy normals as well so while I still had a heap of them and still liked them, I preferred others more now.

After getting the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, I have pretty much settled on that as being all I need in a normal lens and have come to really like normal again just because of that lens.

I guess it now just comes down to liking a particular lens rather than a focal length.

While that new lens looks massive,  if it works great for its users, I can see it getting a large and or cult following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, I have to agree with Mattias on this one. In FF, 35mm and 50mm are my favorite focal lengths... I could film an entire movie with either focal length if I was forced to use only one lens. And for aps-c,  24mm and 35mm FF lenses are fairly inexpensive and they both equate to 35mm and 50mm respectively. Logical choices IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 10:05 AM, jonpais said:

A dissenting view to Lens Rentals, in which Lloyd Chambers criticizes the increasingly common habit of companies publishing charts showing MTF results without distortion correction applied, claiming that lenses can never achieve the same results with correction enabled, that certain lenses actually require correction in software (Fuji X in Adobe Camera RAW for example) and that correction actually hurts micro contrast.

The benefits of such software correction are obvious: cost reduction and the ability to design smaller, lighter lenses. The problem as I see it is when using lenses relying on software correction on a body without such software, like the P4K.

We are seeing some manufacturers allow disabling in-camera vignetting and diffraction correction and perhaps in the distant future a fn button can disable them all. But I still see Lloyd’s rant as a bit of a tempest in  teapot, since most if not all manufacturers’ charts are nothing more than idealized computer generated models based on fairy tale conditions. Which is where Lens Rentals comes in...

Really they should test them both with and without the corrections, but that would be too much work I'd wager!

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Idk, I have to agree with Mattias on this one. In FF, 35mm and 50mm are my favorite focal lengths... I could film an entire movie with either focal length if I was forced to use only one lens. And for aps-c,  24mm and 35mm FF lenses are fairly inexpensive and they both equate to 35mm and 50mm respectively. Logical choices IMO.

35mm equivalent is a very good walk-around focal length, so if you want flexibility but want the benefits of a prime then it's a good choice.

Yesterday I stood in line for the Pantheon behind a guy with a 6D, a 50mm prime and no bag (so potentially no others lenses). I have no idea what images he took, but my 24-240mm zoom was still not wide or long enough for many shots so I guess we were all shooting with the wrong focal lengths!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kye said:

Yesterday I stood in line for the Pantheon behind a guy with a 6D, a 50mm prime and no bag (so potentially no others lenses). I have no idea what images he took, but my 24-240mm zoom was still not wide or long enough for many shots so I guess we were all shooting with the wrong focal lengths

Yup, you must’ve been... or there aren’t “wrong focal lengths.”

Maybe he wasn’t looking for the same shots you were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think like a lot of gentlemen of a certain age, I have an attachment to 50mm as its what we all had as our standard lenses when we got our first SLRs and used them to shoot dinosaurs roaming in the local park.

I'm sure Google has a way of generating EXIF from any image so when they tire of snooping on us electronically and invent a way of physically sifting through our cupboards and drawers undetected they'll scan all those negs and slides from latter part of the 20th century and we'll find that about 75% of pictures were taken on a 50mm.

I never really bought into the 50mm being closest to what the eye sees - or at least concentrates on for want of a better expression - but its not totally far off.

I suspect its probably even less so now though for people who have grown up looking at the world through a 28mm equivalent on their iPhones as they have developed a wider (yet simultaneously narrower ;) ) viewpoint of what is standard.

Anyway, a couple more from the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 at narrower apertures to balance out the previous glowfest examples of shooting it wide open.

 

7artisans2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we’ll have to await the reviews, but I expect the Fuji 33mm f/1 to have stellar performance along with an equally stellar price tag. But after lugging around the 90mm f/2 and 50-140mm f/2.8, it was a joy to pick up the 35mm f/2 WR ($350.00) and 50mm f/2 WR ($400.00) which weigh just a few ounces, are built like little gems, and feel right at home on the X-T2. 

I shot this with the 35mm f/2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think like a lot of gentlemen of a certain age, I have an attachment to 50mm as its what we all had as our standard lenses when we got our first SLRs and used them to shoot dinosaurs roaming in the local park.

I'm sure Google has a way of generating EXIF from any image so when they tire of snooping on us electronically and invent a way of physically sifting through our cupboards and drawers undetected they'll scan all those negs and slides from latter part of the 20th century and we'll find that about 75% of pictures were taken on a 50mm.

I never really bought into the 50mm being closest to what the eye sees - or at least concentrates on for want of a better expression - but its not totally far off.

I suspect its probably even less so now though for people who have grown up looking at the world through a 28mm equivalent on their iPhones as they have developed a wider (yet simultaneously narrower ;) ) viewpoint of what is standard.

Anyway, a couple more from the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 at narrower apertures to balance out the previous glowfest examples of shooting it wide open.

 

7artisans2.jpg

WOW!!! Those look fantastic. Nice color too!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, you must’ve been... or there aren’t “wrong focal lengths.”

Maybe he wasn’t looking for the same shots you were?

There aren't wrong focal lengths of course, only tools for a job.

I've been told many times that shooting with only one prime is a great way to focus yourself and really learn how to see what the camera sees before holding it up. I can also totally understand if someone really likes the feel of a certain lens and just wants to use that. 

I did my fair share of street photography, much of it with the 14mm F2.5 m43 lens and have shot enough now to also be able to 'see' a range of shots that are possible with a zoom lens, and frequently would walk into a place, shoot half a dozen or more compositions in my head before rejecting all of them and not bother to do anything with the camera even though it is in my hand.

In my case I'm looking to tell the story of the event or trip and so I really want to be able to capture anything I can see, unfortunately that would require something like a 10-600mm lens which is obviously out of the question. I can crop into the footage to extend the long end and also the viewer will also unconsciously crop when they see the bit of the frame with the action in it. I can also extend the wide end of the lens by panning or tilting which in a way creates a reveal, but if you're at the top of a mountain it's still a bit like looking at the world through the mail slot.

8 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I think like a lot of gentlemen of a certain age, I have an attachment to 50mm as its what we all had as our standard lenses when we got our first SLRs and used them to shoot dinosaurs roaming in the local park.

I'm sure Google has a way of generating EXIF from any image so when they tire of snooping on us electronically and invent a way of physically sifting through our cupboards and drawers undetected they'll scan all those negs and slides from latter part of the 20th century and we'll find that about 75% of pictures were taken on a 50mm.

I never really bought into the 50mm being closest to what the eye sees - or at least concentrates on for want of a better expression - but its not totally far off.

I suspect its probably even less so now though for people who have grown up looking at the world through a 28mm equivalent on their iPhones as they have developed a wider (yet simultaneously narrower ;) ) viewpoint of what is standard.

Anyway, a couple more from the 7Artisans 50mm f1.1 at narrower apertures to balance out the previous glowfest examples of shooting it wide open.

 

7artisans2.jpg

You're probably right, but definitely hilarious! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Alex T
      I'm looking to swap my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses for the equivalent Canon mountable Zeiss ZE lenses.
      Each of my lenses comes with 16:9 adaptors (which adapt the lenses to EF bodies, with de-clicked aperture and AF confirmation). 
      I have the following ZF.2 lenses: 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/2.0 (Makro Planar), 100mm f/1.4 (Makro Planar).
    • By kidzrevil
      Excellent condition Nikkor 28mm f2.8 ais. No scratches,dirt,oil or fungi. 
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/292167203393 



    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Another gem from my contax lens set
    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Contax zeiss 28mm f2 hollywood for sale. Item is in great condition you can buy it off my eBay 
    • By Anamatis
      I'm really considering making a big upgrade to the URSA, but I've already invested in a fleet of Canon FDs. I've been doing some research on FD to PL mounts without a lot of luck. I know ARRI make an FD adapter to the ARRI mount (PL??) but besides that seems there's zilch out there. Some talk about machining the lenses to fit the new flange but I was hoping someone here knows of something...
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...