Gunzorro wrote:
I can't say that I like any single type of lens rendering in your collection more than any other lens, whether this Lensbaby (my favorite for your work from amongst the Lensbaby types), or the Russian Monocle, or the "straight" VC 35 and 50. Each does something different, and in your hands the subject matter stays the same, only the window you look through changes. The blurry and B&W seem older or from unspecific times, but never come across as contrived or cute. Sometimes romantic, sometimes nostalgic, yes, but others show isolated and grim subjects (like the discarded detritus of our consumer civilization -- crumbling buildings, boats, homes). You make it clear right away that you are interpreting places you know well and gravitate to, not trying to gain compliments. Hence, your work is clear and insightful, not morbid or cloying.
I think all three types of lenses suit you well and you should just keep following your Muse. If you find you really don't care for some effect or lens, don't let fan pressure make you go on despite your inclinations.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try to satisfy your fans, or try new gear, as long as it satisfies you first as the condition of your art.
Welcome to the wacky world of being an artist!
And thank you for sharing with us all here on the FM forums!
Thank you, and those who contacted me privately, very much for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts! It means a lot and is very helpful. Btw. hope no one thinks that I was fishing for compliments. I have struggled with this lens ever since I got in December (some of you may remember that I beta-tested it for Lensbaby and got to keep it afterwards). One day I love the effect, the next day I wish I had used a normal lens. So I leave Burnside at home and immediately miss it. So strange. I'll continue using it and with time hopefully learn exactly when the effect works and when not.
Back to photos!
HelenaN wrote:
Thank you very much Ronny! Yours are absolutely stunning as always.
To my surprise almost all sets I have posted taken with the Lensbaby Burnside have gotten lots of likes. I have been meaning to ask (not just Ronny): Do you like the photos because of the lens, or in spite of it? I mean, do you think that the special look adds to the photos or would you like them as much or more if I had used a normal lens?
The reason for asking is that I'm still very torn myself. I have never had such mixed feelings for a lens before. Strange and a bit frustrating, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. Privately if you prefer. ...Show more →
Lovely, lovely images (as always).
It would be very interesting to hear you say more about your own feelings about the lens and how you think it has affected each of the pictures and made each different from how it would be with a normal lens.
I had dinner first and it took longer to get there. I only managed to get a few keepers from this famous windmill complex. This was captured at about 9:15PM at a wind still evening, which is very seldom in Holland...
Some recent pics from a day trip on a Steam Train and Riverboat cruise on the Connecticut River which originates in Essex, Connecticut. The building is the Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, CT taken from the deck of the Becky Thatcher Riverboat.
DavidBM wrote:
Recently purchased from George’s for 1675??
(Wait I see the SSM this is A mount?)
Yes, this is the (more Zeiss than Sony) Sony/Zeiss A-mount Planar 50/1.4. It cost $1052 after a 10% eBay rebate — the same seller currently has it listed for$1999. Not surprisingly its AF speed with the LA-EA3 adapter can’t match that of the FE 55/1.8 but its rendering (though not so evident in this scene) frequently more than compensates. Rather like an AF version of the ZE/ZF Planar 50/1.4 but better wide open at close distance.
Gunzorro wrote:
I would like to thank Danny Burk again for selling me this Zeiss ZE 25/2 lens. It really suits my needs, and may compel me to buy the Loxia 25 in the future. Thanks!
Oh, I found another track between the trees!
(PS -- I re-thought, and decided to go with a slightly denser tone, instead of the original "bright" rendition.)
Zeiss ZE 25/2, MC-11, a7R2, LR
I'm glad it went to a good home - you've already used it more than I did in the entire year that I had it!
HelenaN wrote:
Thank you very much Ronny! Yours are absolutely stunning as always.
To my surprise almost all sets I have posted taken with the Lensbaby Burnside have gotten lots of likes. I have been meaning to ask (not just Ronny): Do you like the photos because of the lens, or in spite of it? I mean, do you think that the special look adds to the photos or would you like them as much or more if I had used a normal lens?
The reason for asking is that I'm still very torn myself. I have never had such mixed feelings for a lens before. Strange and a bit frustrating, so I'd appreciate your thoughts. Privately if you prefer. ...Show more →
Helena - You have a knack for finding wonderfully appropriate compositions for each of your lenses, IMO. In fact, I had that exact thought when I was looking at your Monolens images a few minutes before coming across your question. Speaking only of the lenses and their effects, I like your other lenses more than the Burnside, but your subjects and compositions bring out its best aspects. I say "keep using the Burnside" when you feel it's the suitable choice, and if you can't decide, perhaps try identical compositions with it and your other 50mm and then compare the results.
Another infrared from Shiojiri Japanese Garden, Mishawaka, Indiana. A7R, 12-24/4 at 12mm.
Do the tilted trees on the outer sides bother you? Typically I don't like this effect, and I'd thought about returning to the park with a Canon 17mm tilt-shift to reshoot a stitched version with roughly the same composition. After a few days, I started to think that their tilt gives additional weight to the main tree. In short, I'm undecided. Thoughts?
