Hi everyone,
I'm currently working out the details on a deal for a 17-40 f/4L, which will complete my basic PJ kit (I also have a 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L, which I shoot on a 1D).
I'm settling into my photojournalism, and want to get back into artsy photography.
Anyway, I want a wide prime, preferably manual focus, with good bokeh. By good, I don't mean creamy, but a bokeh that will allow OOF city lights to have definite shape and color without being harsh. This lens should make skin tones look nice and smooth. If it matters, I'dd most likely be using this with Portra 400VC.
I have my 1D and an ELAN 7, but I'd preferably be using this lens on the ELAN. Anything around 35 or 40mm would be great, and I'm willing to look outside the Canon system, as long as finding an adapter won't be too hard.
Maximum budget is about $200, but I'd like to spend around $125.
Well, you won't get a 35mm f/1.4 for that budget. There are a few 35/2 that would fit, including the Canon AF model, SMC Pentax, SMC Pentax-M, and Nikkor AIS. One of the best 35's (period) is the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8, and you might be able to find one in [E] condition for around $175; add $25 for an adapter and you're within budget.
Unless you're shooting wide open, the bokeh of city lights will be dominiated by the shape of the diaphragm. Assuming you will shoot wide open, then you might want to consider how much DOF you need for the shots you plan to take. If you want the DOF to vary over the face of a subject (e.g. sharp focus on the eyes, with blurred nose & hairline), then the faster - the better (and you might want to increase your budget). If you want the subject to be all or mostly in focus, with a nicely blurred background, then the Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8 is hard to beat - it's also very sharp when stopped down for landscapes & etc.
17-40L is an excellent lens. I use it a lot for the "artsy" stuff. Have you considered selling the 50 1.8 for the 50 1.4? Much nicer lens and the bokeh is wonderful at 1.4. Your not going to get much for $125. You need to up your limit. Maybe by selling the 50.
Hmm, I don't mind city lights taking the shape of a lens's diaphragm, but I'd rather not have so little DoF that lights are starting to bleed together. That distagon 35/2.8 actually sounds great for my purposes.
I really don't want an AF lens here. I'd rather shoot manually, which I think will help my photography progress. If that's what I'm doing with a lens, I see no reason to pay extra for an AF mechanism which I won't be used.
I was under the impression that it will be hard to achieve shallow DoF at f4 in the 17-40 focal range. Am I wrong? I certainly wouldn't mind that!
Anyway, might I just be better off trading the ELAN for a rangefinder? Would that make manually focussing much easier?
The Zeiss 35 f2.8 is an awesome lens for the money, and its size and smooth focus ring make it a pleasure to use. To be honest, I would say it craps on the Canon 35 f2 optically. The Olys adapt well too, and are even cheaper and lighter, although they sometimes suffer from slight distortion or wide open fall-off. The Oly 35 f2 has strange cup-shaped highlight bokeh towards the edges which purists won't like. The Oly 28 f2 is great but has noticeable barrel distortion if you shoot people. The Zeiss 35 f1.4 is fantastic if you get a good one, although you need to really like manual focus, as Canon's 35L is excellent too. Why not try an Oly 28 f2:
Are there any rangefinders I could fit the Zeiss 35/2.8 on?
For rangefinder use you would be better off using a rangefinder lens. I believe there are quite a few Zeiss and Leica models knocking around as well as great Cosina-Voigtlanders. I am not an expert, but I would say be careful of lenses which sacrifice presence for the sake of low contrast and bokeh. Nuff said, or the Leicaphiles will be after me :)
As much fun as a rangefinder would be, I want to spend $400 max on the camera+lens, which probably isn't feasible. I guess I could also get a focussing screen for the ELAN, which is pretty small and quiet anyway.
I mean the feeling that what you are looking at is actually there and real. I think there are a number of ingredients which comprise it. Sharpness helps but realistic light and shade (contrast), and low distortion seem to be critical. Realistic light and shade may be equivalent to what is called '3D effect' but others may disagree. It is easy to forget when you start examining bokeh, richness of colour, chromatic aberration and so on, that the ultimate goal may be to present the viewer with an example of what might be called veridical photorealism. No amount of creamy bokeh can achieve that. So what I mean by presence is the feeling that one is looking at the scene with the naked eye.
"So what I mean by presence is the feeling that one is looking at the scene with the naked eye."
But a camera doesn't see in the way a human eye does and then one get's into selective exposure and what the photographer is trying to covey as opposed to what's really there; selective subject matter.
Photographic philosophy is a terrible thing to waste.
Sign me up for some "selective subject matter". I think this is what Freeman P. means by "interpretive". The other kind is "documentary". I try to do both.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. My current EF kit does very well for "documentary." I want to use this lens for "interpretive" work. That said, the ideal is to have subjects get a fairly 3D look and have the background have nice OOF dappled light. I'd like shots from this lens to have a romantic feel to them.
By the way, would a yashica t4 or contax t2 work well for this purpose if loaded with Portra 400VC?
Oddly enough, a distagon 35/2.8 at adorama is now $170 in EX-. Any idea where I could get one cheaper?
Will Kamin wrote:
Oddly enough, a distagon 35/2.8 at adorama is now $170 in EX-. Any idea where I could get one cheaper?
That's a good price, and Adorama is a good supplier. You could wait longer, but you might pay more.
P.S. ask if the glass is "mint", if they say no, than you could ask the same of KEH where they have one [EX] for $200. It's OK to be frugal, but nobody is happy if you're cheap.
