It can produce that 3D effect, especially when shot with a full frame camera. Not as pronounced as Zeiss' 3D effect, but it's there nonetheless. Another fine characteristic that attracts a lot of viewers.
phillip ino wrote:
It can produce that 3D effect, especially when shot with a full frame camera. Not as pronounced as Zeiss' 3D effect, but it's there nonetheless. Another fine characteristic that attracts a lot of viewers.
I've seen the same look in the new 85G samples, it's not exactly Zeiss 3D, but it's still something. Lots of separation between the OOF areas an in focus areas.
I use this lens on a 5d as well as 40d. With the crop on the 40d, it serves about the same purpose as a 35mm1.4. Kind of like getting a twofrr. Though I often tend to use my 16x35 for versitility (and laziness), everytime I use the 24mm I wonder why I don't use it more.
phillip ino wrote:
It can produce that 3D effect, especially when shot with a full frame camera. Not as pronounced as Zeiss' 3D effect, but it's there nonetheless. Another fine characteristic that attracts a lot of viewers.
+1
Some people commented on the 3-d look in some of my posts with this lens in the alt forum.
It separates nicely the subject from the background and has little or no coma wide open.
It doesn't quite have the colors or microcontrast as a Zeiss lens but the colors are still very good.
I agree with Phillip, this lens is a blast to shoot street at night.
Ryan, congrats on getting this fine lens and nice first shots with it.
wayne seltzer wrote:
+1
Some people commented on the 3-d look in some of my posts with this lens in the alt forum.
It separates nicely the subject from the background and has little or no coma wide open.
It doesn't quite have the colors or microcontrast as a Zeiss lens but the colors are still very good.
I agree with Phillip, this lens is a blast to shoot street at night.
Ryan, congrats on getting this fine lens and nice first shots with it.
luminosity wrote:
It is not a true 1.4 lens on a crop camera. I truly do wish people would stop thinking this.
Dude you've got your physics backwards f/ stop is a fixed number, DOF changes with the size of the sensor or film. f/5.6 on a 4x5 view camera has extremely thin DOF, f/5.6 on a 1/7" PS has very wide DOF. It's letting the same light through on both camera's. Guys shooting 645 don't say 'Oh you guys with you f/2.8 lenses on 35mm need to stop saying your f/2.8 lenses are f/2.8 because they don't look like they do on our larger format.'
It's really misleading to thing of something not being f/1.4 because the sensor size changed, the important part, the light transmission stays the same. DOF is determined by aperture and the size of the recording medium. The rules don't say we have to numerically modify f stop based on sensor size. Now you could make up a system for doing that, but the system would be 'x=given depth of field at a fixed magnification for a given f-stop at a given sensor size'. It would be more similar to a t-stop measurement.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Dude you've got your physics backwards f/ stop is a fixed number, DOF changes with the size of the sensor or film. f/5.6 on a 4x5 view camera has extremely thin DOF, f/5.6 on a 1/7" PS has very wide DOF. It's letting the same light through on both camera's. Guys shooting 645 don't say 'Oh you guys with you f/2.8 lenses on 35mm need to stop saying your f/2.8 lenses are f/2.8 because they don't look like they do on our larger format.'
It's really misleading to thing of something not being f/1.4 because the sensor size changed, the important part, the light transmission stays the same. DOF is determined by aperture and the size of the recording medium. The rules don't say we have to numerically modify f stop based on sensor size. Now you could make up a system for doing that, but the system would be 'x=given depth of field at a fixed magnification for a given f-stop at a given sensor size'. It would be more similar to a t-stop measurement.
t-stop has nothing to do with DOF, just how much light really makes it though a lense.
In theory, a f/1.4 lense lets in half the light of a f/1 lense, but this assumes no losses in the glass or through reflections, which isn't the case in real life.
Zebrabot wrote:
t-stop has nothing to do with DOF, just how much light really makes it though a lense.
That's great, because my post never relates t-stop to DOF at all. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. He could make a new formula that's different from 'f-stop' that includes sensor size to figure given DOF.
Jammy Straub wrote:
That's great, because my post never relates t-stop to DOF at all. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. He could make a new formula that's different from 'f-stop' that includes sensor size to figure given DOF.
You brought up the story about how a new unit that might represent DOP might be like a t-stop- which makes no sense.
