georgms
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
leighton w wrote:
georgms wrote:
Dustin, thank you.
Regarding the fisheye vs "conventional" UWA-lens - sometimes an image will look more natural when shot with a fisheye, in many cases a rectilinear lens is the one to grab.
The mighty and as a zoom unrivaled 14-24/2.8 was my go-to-lens for the last 4 years, but lately I've felt I would shoot every picture the same way when using the 14-24.
Time to re-discover the joys of using a quality fisheye-lens or to play more with stitched panos.
The 20/3.5 or 24/2.8 should make a nice companion to your 14mm. Both lenses are fairly compact and will take a Cokin-P "slim" filter holder (or an over-built wide-angle filter) without vignetting.
The 20/3.5 is known for it's nice way to deal with backlight - the 24/2.8 is more prone to flare.
CGrindahl wrote:
I appreciate this observation Georg. Even with the best lenses we can at times get into a rut. That was my experience with the wonderful kit of L lenses I owned when shooting Canon. I started with rather pedestrian lenses and noted the improvement as I invested in better glass. That was certainly rewarding and I was generally pleased with what all of those lenses produced. But when I stumbled on the Nikon MF lenses after buying a D700, I experienced something quite different and extremely satisfying. Exploring with lenses that have a bit of character adds zest to life. I appreciate, of course, that for a pro, you need the money shot in order to get paid. If the latest and greatest gets you there will a minimum of hassle, that is not a bad thing. But your presence on this thread tells me that you're having fun with these wonderful older lenses. That we can buy then without breaking the bank makes such play more available to more photographers. All good, in my opinion.
And I'm loving the work you're doing with the 16 f/3.5. Shooting with a fisheye really demands thoughtful consideration of one's subject. As you note, it is not suited for every occasion, but where it works, it does quite delicious things. Your work with the lens demonstrated that wonderfully. For Ray on a DX camera, it can make a wonderful wide, but on FX it becomes very evocative. Great fun!
georgms wrote:
Thanks, Curtis! I have yet to try the 16/3.5 on the D7000. As stated before, I have to tame myself - overusing a lens with a unique rendering like the fisheye can lead to signs of fatigue on the viewers side ("oh, again a bent picture").
That said - the 16/3.5 will for sure pay for itself, while other lenses, like the PC 85/2.8D have to work a little harder ;-)
It's nice to smuggle an image taken with a 35 years old, manual focus lens on the sports-pages
...
I love this image, the photo of a photo and the equipment that helped make it. I like the B&W version better though. I sometimes wished that newspapers were more selected in the images they published. Simply meaning that I wished they would put a B&W in there once in a while. I remember when the big papers like the Washington Post first started using color images, they would have it on the front page only, everything else would be B&W.
Leighton, thank you! I have similar thoughts about the use of color vs B&W in todays papers.
Last week I wrote a wrap-up of photographers and papers technical equipment of the last 20 years, the workflows including darkroom-stuff and scanning&transmitting files. The B&W vs color-debate was an important part of my write-up. It took me forever and a night to go through old negatives with hand-written notes about developers and such detail, I've selected some examples in B&W and color, analogue and early digital, tried to remember funny anecdotes and after submitting my "essay" I got the reply: "oh, it's 7 times as long as needed.”.
It was a fun-trip in the time-machine, lot's of mostly good memories.
|
