Lenses thread

Thank you! I've always been skeptical about renting/buying used equipment because I fear scratches or something from the previous user(s). Have you had any problems like that?

-Gil

 

I don't have a single photo item that wasn't used, I refuse to buy new. Though I don't mind cosmetic issues as long as the price is representative of condition. I bought a 5dmk2 for $400 under market because it had some wear, I promise you that the pictures it takes are the same if I had bought a brand new one. And when I want something else I can sell my gear and not lose a cent on lenses and very little loss on bodies.

 

Interesting. And none of the lenses you've bought used have had any problems? (i.e. scratches on the glass, dust in the lens, grinding on zoom lenses, etc)

Thanks for the info!

-Gil

 

Maybe some dust, my 24-105mm has a very small nick in the front element, doesn't affect the image and it saved me another $100. The people that sell always do a good job with pictures and descriptions. I've never been surprised by what I got.

 

So I came here to say that after my first real shoot with my new 50mm F/1.8, I have fallen in love!!!! This thing is amazing; the clarity, sharpness, and DoF is unreal!!! Here are some images from the shoot...

High-res #1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/folkphotography/7618101036/in/set-72157630686430668

High-res #2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/folkphotography/7622566710/in/set-72157630686430668

High-res #3: http://www.flickr.com/photos/folkphotography/7625836282/in/set-72157630686430668/



-Gil
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It doesn't matter which camera or lenses i've got. I'm always happy....

See me? in 2006, clearly i've been a very happy soul.

I have a Nikon D7000 now and kit lens, my fave probaly would be primes. 1.4G primes... a lens that weights a little. Though, my brother uses Nikon and he shares with me all his lenses (i lost clue which one he has. Have to ask!!), i also have friends with high end equipment that i can borrow anything my heart desires.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mvtm/4501384118/

 

F430GB, those are nice sharp images of the subject, but there is something distracting about the pictures overall. I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps they are too bright, or have too much contrast, or the bokeh is not creamy enough and the blurs are too tight and the edges too hard, creating other distinct shapes for the eyes to focus on. I don't know, but I would try softening the background in photoshop to see if the results seem more natural.

 

There's a nice discussion here which helps in understanding the differences seen between the bokeh of different lenses. Study figures 6 and 9, and then we'll look at an outtake.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

So in 1, below, you see the ring effect, which in which unequal spreading of the out of focus light rays are concentrated toward the outer edge of the blur. This contributes to a more harsh bokeh than one that spreads it evenly, or better, slightly more concentrated in the center. Arrows labeled 2 show the angular effect of the 5 straight blade iris. This is less of an issue here, but is less desirable than a round aperture. (This becomes more of an issue for point sources in a darkly lit scene.) Lenses that have rings behind the focal plane have better looking spread in front, and vice versa. It is one of the many tradeoffs made by the lens designer trying to meet some set of objectives. Some tradeoffs are being re-evaluated due to the improved sensor resolution relative to film.

You can futz with photoshop to soften it, but I wouldn't spend the time until I saw it printed. Actually, I would just not worry about it for now, go out and have fun, and see if this was where I wanted to take my photography. If so, I'd see if another lens with softer bokeh was worth it to me.

Nothing against this lens, it's a stunner for the price, and I have one (actually, Ashwin has it right now.)

As for the light, it looks overexposed a stop and there is absolutely no detail in the model's facial skin, which looks quite unnatural (though this might have been done on purpose since that is what some people like to see.)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wow, thank you! I love reading stuff like this, though it will probably take five passes for me to get it all straight in my head.

Yes, I think the issues you have highlighted identify the elements that contribute to the pictures looking unnatural. The bokeh is too harsh (dodge and burn tool might soften it up), the pictures are definitely overexposed (should be easy to fix in PS), and that skin is very unnatural with the lack of detail and the alabaster-like colour (tone adjustments, maybe?). Because of the lack of colour in the skin, and the brightness of the grass, I would also adjust the colour levels between the two to shift the focus back to the subject.

What brand lens is this?

 

I went to Gil's thread, and as it turns out I don't have this lens (I have Canon's, I found that Gil is on Nikon's system.) This is a 7 blade rounded aperture lens, which explains why there appeared more sides than 5 to the light spread. Can't explain why you can see the sides in the bokeh, unless it was stopped down a bit.

 

Sorry I'm late to my own party here, guys; hadn't noticed that this thread had been updated.

In regards to the images looking unnatural and the skin looking fake, that's because of a variety of reasons. In post, I really smoothed the skin to get rid of unwanted shadows, blemishes, and what-not. I did increase the brightness a bit in post as well; I figured the brightness and softness would come together to create a dreamy type of feel.

-Gil

 

It does seem to be the fashion these days, and I'm sure she loved it. Looks like you had some fun!

 

I really like the look of the smoothed skin, I generally am against lots of post processing, but this is the one area I actually like it.

edit: excuse the poor white balance in the first shot, it's fine in LR, just not on fchat.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I love those shots; the lighting (especially on the second one) is incredible. FWIW, the WB on the first photo does not look "off" at all.

-Gil

 

Thanks, it was from a lighting workshop I attended, I really want to start doing more fashion/beauty (whatever you want to call it) photography more once I get my own place.

Looks like a bit of a yellow tinge on fchat that LR doesn't show.

 

85 on full frame and 50 on a crop give an excellent working distance for portraiture (head or head & shoulders.) You can get far enough back to flatten some, but not so far you need an excessively long studio space.

That said, from the equal shooting distance you have here, any background will be more blurred at 1.2 on the 85 vs. the 50.

 

I have the previous Tamron model, it's pretty damn good.

 

Remember when Lenses had that little fork sticking up to catch the aperture dial.

This is a new lens..still has it..
For 35 mm Diehards no Doubt

Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 AIS Manual Focus Lens 1435 B&H Photo

1.2 f stop must be phenom!
Image Unavailable, Please Login