Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
  

1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?
  
 
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
That's like saying my I use my 100-400 at 400 all the time.


Well, if you say so.



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:24 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I don't only shoot my fast lenses wide open, but that's why I buy them - to shoot them wide open. I paid a big premium to get my 50/1.2L, 58/1.2, 85/1.2L II, and 200/1.8L. It would make no sense at all to not shoot them wide open at least some of the time. OTOH, they're all killer sharp at smaller apertures. It's just that I don't reach for one of them when I plan to shoot at f/2.8; that's what f/2.8 lenses are for.


Oct 08, 2013 at 08:27 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


OntheRez wrote:
(H*ll, I don't think there is even agreement as to its spelling. My understanding is that it is taken from the Japanese word for blur.) Correct me if I'm wrong but...


In photography it has come to have its own meaning, divorced from (what I understand to be) the original Japanese meaning. In photography, at least among photographers speaking and writing in English, the term has come to refer to the quality of the out of focus elements of a photograph that are not the primary subject, and which are most likely background, with a further implication that this material is so defocused that it functions more like visual abstraction.

As I understand it, a common understanding of the original Japanese is that the term means something a bit different and arguably broader, namely the unfilled space in a frame that is not the primary subject. More or less... ;-)

jcolwell wrote:
I don't only shoot my fast lenses wide open, but that's why I buy them - to shoot them wide open. I paid a big premium to get my 50/1.2L, 58/1.2, 85/1.2L II, and 200/1.8L. It would make no sense at all to not shoot them wide open at least some of the time. OTOH, they're all killer sharp at smaller apertures. It's just that I don't reach for one of them when I plan to shoot at f/2.8; that's what f/2.8 lenses are for.


Man, talking sensibly like that is going to get you nothing but grief in a photography forum. ;-)

dan



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:43 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #4 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


OntheRez wrote:
(H*ll, I don't think there is even agreement as to its spelling. My understanding is that it is taken from the Japanese word for blur.) Correct me if I'm wrong but...

gdanmitchell wrote:
In photography it has come to have its own meaning, divorced from (what I understand to be) the original Japanese meaning. In photography, at least among photographers speaking and writing in English, the term has come to refer to the quality of the out of focus elements of a photograph that are not the primary subject, and which are most likely background, with a further implication that this material is so defocused that it functions more like visual abstraction.

As I understand it, a common understanding of the original Japanese is that the term means something a bit different and arguably
...Show more

I'm OK with both meanings.

In my normal vocabulary, it pretty much matches your description of the OOF aspects of a photograph.

In the broader sense (with which I was not familiar), I figure it's worth noting that Zen embraces five basic elements; earth, water, fire, air, and space...



Oct 08, 2013 at 08:50 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


gdanmitchell wrote:
...Man, talking sensibly like that is going to get you nothing but grief in a photography forum. ;-)


That's OK. I'll just sit still until it passes.




Oct 08, 2013 at 08:51 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
I don't only shoot my fast lenses wide open, but that's why I buy them - to shoot them wide open. I paid a big premium to get my 50/1.2L, 58/1.2, 85/1.2L II, and 200/1.8L. It would make no sense at all to not shoot them wide open at least some of the time. OTOH, they're all killer sharp at smaller apertures. It's just that I don't reach for one of them when I plan to shoot at f/2.8; that's what f/2.8 lenses are for.


Actually I take my fast lens with me even if I think I'll be stopping it down. There just might arise an occasion for a wide open shot...nice to have that option. It's always better to take it with you and not use it to than need it and not have it.

But then if I know for sure I will be shooting say only landscapes, my fast glass stays home.



Oct 08, 2013 at 09:22 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
Actually I take my fast lens with me even if I think I'll be stopping it down. There just might arise an occasion for a wide open shot...nice to have that option. It's always better to take it with you and not use it to than need it and not have it.

But then if I know for sure I will be shooting say only landscapes, my fast glass stays home.


Me too, on both counts.

All I was saying earlier was that I don't need fast 24mm and 35mm lenses anymore.



Oct 08, 2013 at 09:26 PM
cgarcia
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Ok, I agree that "enough" background blur may require close enough focusing with the 35mm... but it is the aperture what matters for a given distance, so F1.4 is F1.4 (even in wide angle) and the same effect can not be achieved with slower lenses (except by going even more close, which is not the same shot). The focal length only changes the working distance and the perspective, never the DOF... thus a wide blurred background requires a wide angle fast lens, which is full of sense.

I think that every lens has its own place and reason:

35mm F1.4: relatively heavy, shallowest DOF and useful in low light (specially when as sharp as the sigma)
35 F2 IS: lightweight, useful in low light, upon the recent reviews a tad "worse" at F2 than the sigma at F1.4
Tamron 24-70 IS: even deeper DOF, but optically approaches the 35 F2 IS abilities (plus the zoom!) in a heavy package.

I see the 35 F2 IS as the jack of all trades: I admit I was very tempted by it but, despite the sudden price drop, I finally picked the sigma 35 to maximize the DOF creativity instead of a weight/DOF average compromise (IS would be a must for video, though). I personally valued the DOF above the low light ability, but that is another welcome feature. The sigma is a sharpness machine for the most demanding users just starting from F1.4; the 35mm night shots wide open at moderate ISO have aceptable fringing, while retaining enough DOF, when required, if focused far enough (ok, near objects and bottom corners may turn a bit soft here -only due to DOF!- but too high ISO could get an overall worse pic).



Oct 08, 2013 at 09:49 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I think there is a flaw in your understanding of the effect of aperture on background blur at different focal lengths. This is a bit tricky to explain in text, but I'll give it a try.

f/1.4 is, indeed, f/1.4. But the effect of f/1.4 is not the same when the focal length varies.

Imagine that you are shooting some subject and you want this primary subject to fill half the width of the frame, leaving the rest of the frame for out of focus back ground elements. Obviously, using a wide lens (let's say 24mm) you'll have to move much closer to your subject than if you use a long lens (let's say 100mm) if you want the primary subject size to remain the same.

But when you do this, the background is going to be a lot different in the two frames. A much larger area of background will be included in the 24mm shot, and a result is that not only do objects in this background area appear to be much smaller, but the OOF aspect of the background also appears much smaller. With the longer lens you are essentially "looking more closely at the OOF background," and the smaller background area in the frame will seem more out of focus.

(This is why using a long lens will generate a more OOF background and why we say that a wide has greater DOF.)

Sorry I don't have the time or inclination to knock together the example images that would show this. I'm hopeful that if you think about the text description you might make sense of it. Alternatively, you could simply try the experiment - use two different focal lengths at the same aperture; move the camera position so that the primary subject fills the same portion of the frame with both; then compare what you see in the background areas of the image.

Take care,

Dan

cgarcia wrote:
Ok, I agree that "enough" background blur may require close enough focusing with the 35mm... but it is the aperture what matters for a given distance, so F1.4 is F1.4 (even in wide angle) and the same effect can not be achieved with slower lenses (except by going even more close, which is not the same shot). The focal length only changes the working distance and the perspective, never the DOF... thus a wide blurred background requires a wide angle fast lens, which is full of sense.

I think that every lens has its own place and reason:

35mm F1.4: relatively heavy,
...Show more



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:18 PM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #10 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


gdanmitchell wrote:
I think there is a flaw in your understanding of the effect of aperture on background blur at different focal lengths. This is a bit tricky to explain in text, but I'll give it a try.

f/1.4 is, indeed, f/1.4. But the effect of f/1.4 is not the same when the focal length varies.

Imagine that you are shooting some subject and you want this primary subject to fill half the width of the frame, leaving the rest of the frame for out of focus back ground elements. Obviously, using a wide lens (let's say 24mm) you'll have to move much closer
...Show more


Dan thanks for the reply. I was in the middle of typing something similar but it's complicated to type out on an iPhone.



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:25 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
Dan thanks for the reply. I was in the middle of typing something similar but it's complicated to type out on an iPhone.


Oh, man, I cannot imagine trying to explain that using an iPhone email message! ;-)

Dan



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:27 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


gdanmitchell wrote:
With the longer lens you are essentially "looking more closely at the OOF background," and the smaller background area in the frame will seem more out of focus.

(This is why using a long lens will generate a more OOF background and why we say that a wide has greater DOF.)


The biggest difference is the amount of backround blur, which is contingent on the absolute physical aperture size rather the relative aperture represented in the f/stop ratio. Bob Atkins has a nice article about it here.



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:32 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


snapsy wrote:
The biggest difference is the amount of backround blur, which is contingent on the absolute physical aperture size rather the relative aperture represented in the f/stop ratio. Bob Atkins has a nice article about it here.


For those who want a practical and intuitive understanding of this, I recommend simply doing the little test I describe and then looking at the background to see the effect. :-)

(Or look at the photographic example at the end of the linked article.)

Dan



Oct 08, 2013 at 11:49 PM
WayneTk
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


The 35/1.4 (whatever brand) is still the best environmental portrait lens out there. It gives the shallow depth of field look for portraits but gives a wide enough field of view to put your subject into a place, albeit a very blurry one. I'm mostly thinking of a professor in his/her lab, an author in his/her study, wedding couple in their venue.




Oct 09, 2013 at 01:10 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


WayneTk wrote:
The 35/1.4 (whatever brand) is still the best environmental portrait lens out there. It gives the shallow depth of field look for portraits but gives a wide enough field of view to put your subject into a place, albeit a very blurry one. I'm mostly thinking of a professor in his/her lab, an author in his/her study, wedding couple in their venue.


It can be a very fine tool for environmental portraiture in certain circumstances and for certain approaches to a shot... but "the best environmental portrait lens?" There are many ways to produce an environmental portrait, and using 35mm the way you describe is among them - but quite a few other lenses (even, heaven forbid, zooms!) can be used effectively for this genre.

Dan



Oct 09, 2013 at 01:51 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Some people have even said that the Leica Summicron-R 35/2 is the best environmental lens...

I'm good with the 24-70/2.8L II for all of the tasks that I previously covered with the 35L. Including "environmental portraits".



Oct 09, 2013 at 01:54 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


gdanmitchell wrote:
It can be a very fine tool for environmental portraiture in certain circumstances and for certain approaches to a shot... but "the best environmental portrait lens?" There are many ways to produce an environmental portrait, and using 35mm the way you describe is among them - but quite a few other lenses (even, heaven forbid, zooms!) can be used effectively for this genre.

Dan


Zooms typically don't give you that shallower DOF along with a wider angle of view that make the fast 35mm unique. Sure...just about any lens can be used, but if you are after a wide perspective to include a close up with the subject along with a hint of their environment...then I don't believe a slower zoom will achieve this.

Best is always subjective with no right or wrong answers, but the 35mm FOV has been historically used for these environment portrait shots.



Oct 09, 2013 at 01:56 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #18 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Add to that a lens speed of f1.4 and you have a great documentary tool - which may have been Wayne's point.


Oct 09, 2013 at 02:26 PM
ScooberJake
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


This is why I like 35mm at f/1.4. I just love that wide and fast look. Sure, you could shoot these portraits at 85/1.8 and they would look great. But they would be very different!

And you could make a similar comparison for a street scene. You can make excellent photos of some details in a street scene at 85mm. But I often like the context provided by shooting wide. When you can take your time and draw attention to your subject in a wide shot with comp and lighting, great. But that isn't always possible. In those cases, a wide and fast lens is indispensable.

I love the wide and fast look. If you don't, great! Sometimes the best decisions you can make are that you don't like a certain look, or that you don't want to take certain photos. That frees up your time and money to focus on the photos you want to make, and the gear you need to make them.

jasonpatrick wrote:
I'm loving the Sigma 35 1.4. Here's my two sons. Taken today.

http://jasonpatrick.smugmug.com/photos/i-LpR3Tdr/0/XL/i-LpR3Tdr-XL.jpg
http://jasonpatrick.smugmug.com/photos/i-TQcKPvj/0/XL/i-TQcKPvj-XL.jpg




Oct 09, 2013 at 02:58 PM
mttran
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?

Paul Mo wrote:
Not wasted.

I am a bit old school in that I'll try and let light, shutter speed, or ISO, take care of things rather than IS.

Related to this, I am all for low noise sensors but there comes a point when the light has gone and there's no colour, little contrast, it's dark - go home.


+1, there is no waste light in term of photography, the more the better. Now, where can I find 1.0 one in these range



Oct 09, 2013 at 03:01 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password