cyra wrote:
at the close distances you are shooting it might not really be that much of a matter. At 3 m it seems to be 6,5 cm of shift between the center of focus between 1.4 and 5.6, according to this test:
So at 1.4 you are just handholding and focusing by eye? Or do you shoot walking people with tripod and liveview?
Handholding and focusing by eye (and The Force). Tripod and, even worse, liveview wouldn't give me the speed or the possibility to compose as I want to. This is also my gripe with AF. No AF would help me capturing these at large apertures. It's simply doesn't know what in the frame I want in focus, no matter how intelligent (short of 'focus on the closest thing' which is seldom the case). A well damped and exact focus ring is essential for street photography. Zeiss MF is a positive thing, not a 'negative' as it is often portrayed to be. At least for me.
at 1.4 there isn't only shallow depth of field but also "focus uncertainty" due to the fact that the screen can't really resolve 2.8 as far as I read, probabely in this thread.
Very likely, but there are many uncertainties and after a few thousand shots you come to terms with them. Or your backbone does.
- do you prefocus and then burst-fire? Or do just keep adjusting and hit the button once when you think it is right? You seem to do tracking as well. Is that on single shots or on multiple exposures?
I do both, but as time goes by I've used the focus bracketing less and less. Sure I do a few takes on each subject if I got the time, but it's not essential. For me, that is part of the thrill; not knowing, but relaying on my own eye and hand.
Just wonder about the details of you technique, since you seem to be so good at it.
need to place myself at a busy corner in town sometime and try this!
Thanks and yes you should. Remember the good old days, with only MF, perhaps no exposure metering outside of sunny 16 and film that cost by the frame. They did it, so bloody well should we, right?! People speak of MF as if it's something magical, when it really is just looking through a viewfinder and snapping at the right time
Been trying to come to terms with the 2.8/21 in street environment. It's difficult to compose as it includes so damn much. Also, the dof includes so much of the backgound and the fov makes it really tine and distracting. Ad to that the contrast of the damn thing, it really exaggerates the shadows and highlights to potentially make them even more distracting (doesn't help it being a really sunny day).
I don't know if it is coated to enhance greens and darken blues, but It very seldom over exposes the sky but makes it a dark saturated blue, making the clouds nicely contrasted.
Anyway, here's a few, I'm not that impressed by them so far, but little by little I will learn to handle it. Or sell it.
Hi Rodluvan, 2.8/21 is a "landscape monster": it's created and optimized for that purpose.
You can use it in street photography also, but i think 2/35 would be a better choice in that environment...
Edgecrusher wrote:
Hi Rodluvan, 2.8/21 is a "landscape monster": it's created and optimized for that purpose.
You can use it in street photography also, but i think 2/35 would be a better choice in that environment...
Yeah, I guessed as much. It' makes it even more challenging to find out how that optimization can be utilized for effect in the city.
Day one with the zf21 blew my eyes out, it took in the whole street and cut through two city blocks and while it was an awful pic I looked like a kid that had just fired a bazooka
I see the 21 and 25 in reverse. I constrain the 21 in the viewfinder by the composition and make it look like the width of the 28. Everyone knows I'm keen for the 25 but I plan to shoot it as a wide and with more freedom in the framing. I said somewhere once that if I was in a tram I'd shoot to the other end with the 25 and if I walked to the other end I'd swap out to the 21. The longer the lens the wider the framing, otherwise the wides go all crazy and hundreds of innocent bystanders get shot.
Jim, both the B&W portrait and the broom are really nice.
The light was great the other evening, but it lasted less than an hour, so there was only time for a short walk in the neighborhood. The landscapes around town would have generated much prettier photos than decaying 60's buildings (which, somewhat embarrassingly, I have a soft spot for when it comes to photography ), but I do like the shadow of the cross in front of the church.
