Different compression so obviously there is quite a difference in the way the photo looks. I agree the 135mm suits the image of your wife better. I'm thinking the 58mm did a pretty good job with this scene considering it shows much more of the environment.
The 58mm 1.4 seems a lot like the 50L from Canon. Both lenses do not "test" well but once you get them and use them you love them. The 50L is MUCH sharper than the tests lead you to believe.
Jason, those two lenses are completely different. How often will you have this much space to use with the 135?
I did a comparison one time with my Canon 85 at f/1.2 and 200mm at 2.8 and two shots came out almost the same expect the background got “larger” on the 200mm, rendering pleasing results.
Same view here, your 135 shot has a much more compressed background but bokeh size isn’t THAT much bigger. I love the shots and comparison though!!
I use both, 58mm and 70-200VRII for weddings cuz both are completely different lenses. If i want less of the OOF elements in my background, I’ll use the 200mm at 2.8
An interesting take on a landscape. I think I like it. It has a surreal look to it. I used my 58mm in Colorado quite a bit and it was an amazing performer and very sharp. Used f/8 most of the time. It's a great all around lens.
Hardcore wrote:
Trying to use some of my portrait lenses for some landscapes. I liked the way this one turned out.
DontShoot wrote:
My kids looking at Half Dome in Yosemite
i sure hope you were the responsible parent and thats not a 50 ft drop right in front of them!
very nice capture. looks like theyre takin the scenes in...cant wait to do this with my little ones.
low325 wrote:
i sure hope you were the responsible parent and thats not a 50 ft drop right in front of them!
very nice capture. looks like theyre takin the scenes in...cant wait to do this with my little ones.
Nah, this is a gentle slope with trees and bushes right below. I like how the shallow DOF makes the scene appear "deeper" than it actually is.
