it's nice to see more with the nikkor 55/1.2, most of the previous nikkor shots on the thread have been with the 50/1.2 i think. now if we can just get more noctinikkor shots...
the solitaire wrote:
Koen, excellent work with the Canon 55mm f1,2.
As for the car, shame on me! My favorite brand of car and I couldn't place the detail you photographed
I am quite positive that the dog you showed is a Tervueren or a mixed breed with a large pool of Tervueren genes. That old-german Shephard looks nice too. They are a bit more bulky then the Belgian shephards. Especially the two we have.
My girlfriend does most of the training with our two.
Thanks! Excellent pictures of your beautiful dogs again and I'm sure you are right about the breed!
About the car: I'm not into cars that much, but I really liked how it looked in this low evening sun!
Some more unedited pictures of it with the FD 55 1.2 Asph wide open:
And one of the front, there wasn't a lot of room to take a nice overall picture, but I post this mainly as a comparison with this lens at f/5.6, as you can see there is some slight glow wide open, but that is mostly because I overexposed the middle of the frame about half a stop, usually there is very little glow or loss of contrast at f/1.2 and the overall contrast in this picture is almost the same and so is the amount of detail captured at 24Mp, so if you want dreamy, better skip this one!
I posted them at 1024 px again this time, because 1600 px seems a bit too big, before I posted I thought they would be the same size as post p.88 #5 for example, sorry for that.
So what is the best size, the only guideline I could find somewhere said 800 px, but that was an old post and it seems awfully small?
Excellent bokeh play with the 55 Koen. Especially the last few photos show the potential of that Canon FD lens. The Nikon version, which I use, has to do without the aspherical element, so I guess the Canon will do better with small lightsources at dim light.
I prefer 1024 pixels wide for this forum. For me at least that offers the most convenient viewing size
Koen Nhz wrote:
Thanks! Excellent pictures of your beautiful dogs again and I'm sure you are right about the breed!
About the car: I'm not into cars that much, but I really liked how it looked in this low evening sun!
Some more unedited pictures of it with the FD 55 1.2 Asph wide open:
And one of the front, there wasn't a lot of room to take a nice overall picture, but I post this mainly as a comparison with this lens at f/5.6, as you can see there is some slight glow wide open, but that is mostly because I overexposed the middle of the frame about half a stop, usually there is very little glow or loss of contrast at f/1.2 and the overall contrast in this picture is almost the same and so is the amount of detail captured at 24Mp, so if you want dreamy, better skip this one!
I posted them at 1024 px again this time, because 1600 px seems a bit too big, before I posted I thought they would be the same size as post p.88 #5 for example, sorry for that.
So what is the best size, the only guideline I could find somewhere said 800 px, but that was an old post and it seems awfully small?...Show more →
Some photos taken with the 55mm f1,2 Nikkor wide open. Heavy post processing to pick up details on the car however make th ebackgrounds look a bit busy
Koen Nhz wrote:
I posted them at 1024 px again this time, because 1600 px seems a bit too big, before I posted I thought they would be the same size as post p.88 #5 for example, sorry for that.
So what is the best size, the only guideline I could find somewhere said 800 px, but that was an old post and it seems awfully small?
yeah, 800 pixels was from long ago. there is no real size guide for this forum, i always think something that fills most of a standard web browser screen is optimal. with that assumption i've been going with 1280 wide and 1024 high for vertical images. i've been thinking of increasing that though with the increased prevalence of high resolution monitors and people viewing on ipad like devices. i think 1400px wide shouldn't be an issue for most people, height wise i'm not sure what a good cut off would be.
the solitaire wrote:
Excellent bokeh play with the 55 Koen. Especially the last few photos show the potential of that Canon FD lens. The Nikon version, which I use, has to do without the aspherical element, so I guess the Canon will do better with small lightsources at dim light.
I prefer 1024 pixels wide for this forum. For me at least that offers the most convenient viewing size
Thanks! Nice shots from the Corvette! I actually like the more vivid bokeh (from PP), but that's not everyone's taste I guess
I don't know exactly how the Asph remains it's high contrast, it does have quite pronounced coma wide open, so point lights aren't that good, actually the fine detail isn't that good outside the image center (except at MFD) but contrast always remains high enough throughout the frame which makes it look sharp enough wide open in almost any situation.
@ sebboh and the solitaire: thanks for the answer regarding the image size: That's what I thought, around 1280 px looks best on my laptop for me, but unfortunately that's not an option in Flickr so 1024 px it will be for now
Some more pictures from last weekend, all with the FD 55 1.2 SSC Aspherical wide open (I'm only 99% sure about some shots, but quite a lot of the time I double check the aperture ring after I took it and zoom in on screen when it looks too sharp for f/1.2 and every time it's at the expected wide open aperture ) and unedited unless otherwise mentioned:
Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm/1.2, the first two with the Canon 500D close-up lens.
I hadn't used the Rokkor since last summer and had forgotten that it's quite usable wide open for close subjects. For things further away it's still sharp, but very "dreamy". Also, as others have mention bokeh gets smoother at f/2. I have discovered that there is a "soft" stop between f/1.2 and 2 which is a nice middle ground where you still have a wide open look with vignetting etc., but less haze. These are all f/1.2 though.
Very nice lens and I'd use it a more often if it weren't so heavy.
