Thanks for the samples guys. The lens looks great...sharp, and the falloff is smooth.
But the samples confirm that I'll definitely be sticking with the 35mm 1.4. 35mm just has that extra compression over the 28mm focal length, and the much lower perspective distortion means I can get more intimate with framing than with a 28mm.
eke2k6 wrote:
Thanks for the samples guys. The lens looks great...sharp, and the falloff is smooth.
But the samples confirm that I'll definitely be sticking with the 35mm 1.4. 35mm just has that extra compression over the 28mm focal length, and the much lower perspective distortion means I can get more intimate with framing than with a 28mm.
Back to my 20mm + 35mm combo on the wide end.
good now scram! j/k
what's your prime lineup.
I don't grab my 28 for compression. I grab it b/c I need a wide.
20/28/58 for me. I get all the compression I need out of a 58.
But I hear you. If you are in an existing relationship with a 35, you don't NEED to get this. They are all different anyhow.
I think folks switched to this b/c it's new. It's E. It's designed for the larger sensors. And GAS.
what's your prime lineup.
I don't grab my 28 for compression. I grab it b/c I need a wide.
20/28/58 for me. I get all the compression I need out of a 58.
But I hear you. If you are in an existing relationship with a 35, you don't NEED to get this. They are all different anyhow.
I think folks switched to this b/c it's new. It's E. It's designed for the larger sensors. And GAS.
Cheers
Ha. Right now I'm working with a 20 1.4A, 35 1.4A, 50 1.4/58 1.4g, 85 f/1.8g, and 135 f/1.8A.
I've always been tempted by 28mm, especially before I got the 20. I just can't make complete sense of the focal length. 35 was the goldilocks for me, because a step back makes it a wider angle, and a step in gives intimacy without completely mangling facial features. The images I'm seeing make the 28mm seem like there's a potential limit to how you can shoot, versus the versatility of the 35.
golfinz wrote:
You change up your editing tones/curves a bit? Looks like the greens aren't as de-saturated and skin tones look a little brighter. Love that set!
Thanks man. I did change it up a bit (and this is my newish way of editing)
Got sick of clients complaining about desaturated greens so i pumped them up a bit, as well as a few other things...
Gaaah, i can never be consistent with editing... But it's subtle changes, nothing crazy.
Depth of Feel wrote:
Your photos validate my opinion on this lens. Its trick is entirely in the compostitions. Well
Done!
I'd agree with that - I think the wider you go, the more critical composition is. This lens is really impressive no matter what, but it really shines when you play to its strengths. It maybe feels a little less "magic" than the 58G, but I think it's got something special all the same.
I'm currently editing a wedding where I shot all 58G/28G, and the differences between the 28G and 28E are pretty evident, IMO. Still need to do a bit of side-by-side comparisons for my own curiosity; but right now I'm leaning towards selling my 20G and 28G, and just rolling with the 28E. I rarely need wider than the 28, but the 20G is a great lens...
You are a great story teller, my man.
Kudos! Nice set for sure.
Were there times you wish you had something longer than 58?
Thanks man!
There were a few times where I needed (and used) my 85/1.4 and 180/2.8, but not often. Just bits of the ceremony when I wasn't able to get as close as I'd like without being obnoxious, and same deal with during some of the first dances. The majority of the time, I like being close, and even 85mm feels too far away. But sometimes you just need tighter framing, so having something longer is indispensable.
There were a few times where I needed (and used) my 85/1.4 and 180/2.8, but not often. Just bits of the ceremony when I wasn't able to get as close as I'd like without being obnoxious, and same deal with during some of the first dances. The majority of the time, I like being close, and even 85mm feels too far away. But sometimes you just need tighter framing, so having something longer is indispensable.
makes sense.
I'm transitioning myself.
friday's wedding,
three ff bodies
28/58
carrying two other glasses with me at all times 20 and 70-200E
assistant carries 1 of the bodies, and my 24-70E. and 50 1.8G.
I need to decide whether to sell or not, nikkor 85mm 1.4 (sad, love it, maybe just keep it)
Dj R wrote:
makes sense.
I'm transitioning myself.
friday's wedding,
three ff bodies
28/58
carrying two other glasses with me at all times 20 and 70-200E
assistant carries 1 of the bodies, and my 24-70E. and 50 1.8G.
I need to decide whether to sell or not, nikkor 85mm 1.4 (sad, love it, maybe just keep it)
Easy: replace it with the 105E. you already have a 58, having an 85 makes ZERO sense!
now a 20/28/58/105/70-200E makes better sense
I've definitely thought of swapping the 180 & 85 for the 105. I could probably do it, and the lens it self is 100% right up my alley. If I can snag a used one I probably will. For now, I shoot long infrequently enough that the 85/180 is a cheaper combo (and probably the same weight haha >_< )
Still gotta figure out what to do with the 35, which has been my bread and butter for a good 10 years now.
j/k
