rji2goleez wrote:
Now I need to find some time for some astro . . .
Bob I've had the time but we're 5 months of full on skies like this or worse. At least what precious few stars are there they seem round Last night in the wee hours by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr
Ot Have you had problems with this optics from f.6.3 upwards in afc the focusing does not make hesitations in the sense that it does slightly back and forth in the hook holding pressed af on or pre fire button?
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's not an easy focal length to use for sure, especially when shooting environment portraits. People's faces or body parts can't be too close to the edges and small camera tilts can make the human body look distorted. Gotta pay a lot of attention to the camera level as well.
However, with enough practice, it works quite well whenever the background is interesting. (Great for travel photography)
For landscapes, I find it to be a classic focal length. Wide enough, without too much perspective distortion.
Here is 24mm vs 40mm for the same subject. Which do you like the most?
Hi Fred, fist, love this photo!
I hope you don't mind if I took it to prove a point to myself and to extent to the others who were wondering the same thing (I would've done it myself but I don't have any 35/40mm lens available).
Point being that I don't really NEED a 40mm lens when I can just crop my 24 and have basically the same image.
I stretched the 24mm one to fill the 7952 x 5304 A7RIII max-pixel count and then superimposed the 40mm image (I suppose you moved a little between shots or tweaked the lines differently since the lines don't perfectly match between the two shots). The perspective is however identical, and the final output of the crop is 6473x4546 pixel, aka 29.4 Megapixels.
I think I can calm my GAS now, the cropped 24GM is definitely a perfectly-capable-enough replacement for a 35/40mm lens if you can accept a result with slightly fewer pixels/slightly higher noise.
I know this focal length is not popular for portraiture, but I have enjoyed using it with my daughter. She tends to get really close to the camera whenever I’m going to take a picture of her no matter what I do, so wider lenses work better for photographing her anyway.
Wittyphrase, that's an incredible portrait! I picked up this lens for the same reason. At 1.4 it's pretty unforgiving as I missed here by a few mm but liked the pop and rendering too much to give it up.
Thanks! That’s a great capture of yours as well. I’ve stopped worrying about eyes being slightly out of focus on casual pics like this. As long as she looks happy they’re keepers to me!
The wider FLs really help provide context I missed for her. When she was born I had my old Nikon crop body and all my lenses were 75mm equivalent or tighter. The pics were fine, but you can never tell what’s going on.
maiku wrote:
Wittyphrase, that's an incredible portrait! I picked up this lens for the same reason. At 1.4 it's pretty unforgiving as I missed here by a few mm but liked the pop and rendering too much to give it up.
