Azuremen
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #16 · Fuji lens recommendations | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
(Not sure where your f/8 business comes from, but I’ll guess that you were thinking of a supposedly sharpest aperture. However if you were looking for “the sharpest aperture” on a cropped sensor camera, and using either of these lenses, f/8 would not be it, especially with today’s 40MP sensors. One might be tempted to point out that this is “simple physics.” ;-) )
Confirmation bias is a tough thing that afflicts quite a few buyers of photographic equipment. Testing our assumptions against reality is a useful endeavor. In the case I described, I started out thinking that some things were supposed to be true about these two lenses, based on claims in reviews and similar. But actually testing them didn’t bear out those claims, and I had to revise my starting assumptions.
Actually testing your gear and your assumptions (not to make sure you have the World’s Best Lens or locate Terrible Awful Flaws) is a great way learn the capabilities and qualities of your lenses, and then make use of that knowledge to make photographic decisions. The best tests are objective, hopefully done in a way that defeats confirmation bias. ...Show more →
I didn't ignore anything - a month is not much time in the grand scheme of things and doesn't change the fact you explained not of your process except you had a tripod. Please do explain your process, even go as far as to show us the comparison images.
I said f/8 because the overwhelming majority of your images are flat landscapes. I don't really care if peak sharpness is at f/5.6 or f/8 and it will very from lens to lens. If you have some source on peak sharpness for APS-C happening at a certain aperture, I'd love to see. If you want to argue it's a result of pixel pitch, then we'd see the same issues on many modern FF sensors and it would less a function of sensor size.
If you can't see the difference between the lenses in your test scenarios, congrats. I can absolutely see the difference in shooting scenarios I often find myself in.
I laughed at that one.
So, as a user of this lens for a dozen years and thousands of photographs in a variety of genres, I suppose I should thank you for sharing with me how I should and should not use this lens and that, apparently, I”m not the kind of photographer it was intended for.I’m sure that your deep acquaintance with my photography and photographs informs this logical position. ;-)
If you can't tell the difference between the 1.4 and 2 WR, then why bother with the slower focusing, more delicate, unsealed, more expensive lens? Why not sell it, buy a 35/2 WR, and pocket the extra money? That is the point I'm making.
I've shot thousands, if not tens of thousands of photos, with both the 35/2 WR and 35/1.4 of the better part of a deacde. I'm not saying one is inherently superior, I'm saying they have different qualities. If you're shooting them stopped down, the images produced do not showcase these differences.
It ain’t just “simple physics,” especially when we’re talking about “magic” lenses. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. In photography, that pudding is photographs, not “physics.”
YMMV.
Yeah, knowing how to use your gear and execute a creative vision obviously matter. Knowing what gear to select to achieve that look also matters. If you want dreamy portraits, you shoot a large aperture lens that has abberations and thus glow. If you want crisp product shots, you grab short telephoto and flash kit and stop down. If you want a lo-fi point and shoot aesthetic, you grab a normal-wide, diffusion filter, and small hotshoe flash.
What you seem incapable of grasping, despite what countless other people have, is that optical designs of lenses have tangible impacts on how photographs are rendered. As an example, the 35/2 can not produce this rendering - the focus fall off, the abberations, the bokeh, the corners coming into focus as a result of field curvature.
|
