I might have posted this before: Dodgeball league - slight vignette added and a miniscule fraction of motion blur added (in looking back at it, there's little difference between the final and the RAW)
f/1.4 @ 1/400th, ISO 1600 on a 40D
Single-Point, One-Shot AF (because I don't trust the tracking on my body for squat and have plenty of blown frames to prove it) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/3634442519_99be5d8fbd.jpg
Actually, the first two is the exact reason I have a love/hate relationship with the lens. I hate how the lens looks when shot wide open or close to wide open that up close. Almost has a soft focus look to it and while it may look nice it's a bit frustrating when that was not the intended look. The problem is, you don't have a choice...it always comes out that way.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Actually, the first two is the exact reason I have a love/hate relationship with the lens. I hate how the lens looks when shot wide open or close to wide open that up close. Almost has a soft focus look to it and while it may look nice it's a bit frustrating when that was not the intended look. The problem is, you don't have a choice...it always comes out that way.
Actually the same appears to be happening with my "alternative" Nikkor 50/1.2 AI-S.
But I miss having AF for when things are too fast for (me and) MF. I'm seriously thinking of selling the Nikkor and getting the 50L regardless of its handicaps, but the 24L2 is first on that list.
I always find my 35L a bit wide and really want to get the 50L but the review keeping me afraid from buying, i always feel the will make a mark II one and fix the problem with focus shifting, thats the problem it think.
