Jim Schemel wrote:
Thanks for the info.Anyone have any night shots(with 58 f1.2) so i can see what the 'star bursts' look like.
-Jim
don't typically shoot stopped down at night with f/1.2 lenses, all that glass can be bad for flare. here's the only example i could find. not great, since i'm actually focused quite close (on the grass, but there are still a couple of stars) and the shot is at iso 6400: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/6278277294_4ca9c02038_o.jpg
LeadyGonzales wrote:
.. that's why you should have taken pictures in summer: to warm your soul in winter
- L.
I took more pictures this year than ever before, I've only processed 10% so far,
I have much to keep me busy this winter between work, family, friends, and processing.
thank you for the compliment, kind sir. I like yours as well, although it looks digital!
the film is not so nice though; Kodak Gold 400. And the scans were done by walgreens, so I didn't even bother to use photoshop. Just a bit of contrast in Picasa and pushed em out.
Actually I believe the last time I posted a picture in this thread it was on Portra 160. I like Portra about 1 followed by a million billion zeroes times better than Kodak Gold HOWEVER circumstances led me to pick up a 4 pack of Kodak Gold to test some film in my Leica. Well unfortunately I had to send my lens back but I had the film so I ran one roll through my SRT-101 and one through my OM-1. If only my little Konica Auto S2 hadn't gotten broken on the trip down from Boston =/ (the same is true of my desktop computer) I could run a roll through that.
Normally I shoot black and white, and now actually I am set up to process it myself. I just don't have a scanner or an enlarger right now so the only way I can post is to shoot C-41 and give it to Walgreens. Frankly that means no Portra as I don't trust them with it.
Well I already posted my best one but here are two more:
I realize it's a plant but I want to point out that normally it stands straight up -_- Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
I actually have some less than perfectly sharp shots on the roll because I was shaking the camera so hard lol. it was COLD.
I am always amazed at the performance of this lens at f1.2. Occasionally, usually after I havent used it for a while, I get crazy thoughts of selling it in my head. Luckily a bit of haze kept me from dealing it recently. I have been set back straight. WHAT WAS I THINKING?!
redisburning wrote:
thank you for the compliment, kind sir. I like yours as well, although it looks digital!
the film is not so nice though; Kodak Gold 400. And the scans were done by walgreens, so I didn't even bother to use photoshop. Just a bit of contrast in Picasa and pushed em out.
Actually I believe the last time I posted a picture in this thread it was on Portra 160. I like Portra about 1 followed by a million billion zeroes times better than Kodak Gold HOWEVER circumstances led me to pick up a 4 pack of Kodak Gold to test some film in my Leica. Well unfortunately I had to send my lens back but I had the film so I ran one roll through my SRT-101 and one through my OM-1. If only my little Konica Auto S2 hadn't gotten broken on the trip down from Boston =/ (the same is true of my desktop computer) I could run a roll through that.
Normally I shoot black and white, and now actually I am set up to process it myself. I just don't have a scanner or an enlarger right now so the only way I can post is to shoot C-41 and give it to Walgreens. Frankly that means no Portra as I don't trust them with it.
I am always amazed at the performance of this lens at f1.2. Occasionally, usually after I havent used it for a while, I get crazy thoughts of selling it in my head. Luckily a bit of haze kept me from dealing it recently. I have been set back straight. WHAT WAS I THINKING?!...Show more →
ha, nearly everything i post here is digital. my film shots tend to be of a more personal nature. i also pretty much only shoot b&w film, but having seen such wonderful shots with portra i finally broke down and got a couple rolls, and am quite taken with it. so expensive though, and the only roll i've shot seems to have been bad – nearly a quarter of the frames had what looked like a light leak (that moved around and exposed the edges as well) that i had never seen in any of my other rolls with the camera.
the lens is amazing and i'll never sell it, though periodically i wish it was as sharp as it's little brother (MC PG 50/1.4) wide open (only when i shoot digital).
Lots of nice images here! Can anybody tell me if there are different versions of the Rokkor 58/1.2 optically? I've seen different looking versions regarding the focus ring.
wfrank;
I have had both the newer rubber-gripped version, as well as the older metal-gripped version. In my opinion the older version is sharper wide open, otherwise the IQ is similar. That and the all metal version just looks cooler.
Some of the older metal-gripped ones had Thorium (radioactive) glass. There are some who say they had better IQ, but I cannot say for sure myself. I am also not sure at which point they stopped using the radioactive glass, but I am sure it was long before they went to the rubber grip.
Thanks for the information helimat. appreciated. Yes indeed the metal-one looks cooler :-). I'm thinking of getting one for the NEX 5N, but could use it on the 5D2 too I assume.
wfrank wrote:
Thanks for the information helimat. appreciated. Yes indeed the metal-one looks cooler :-). I'm thinking of getting one for the NEX 5N, but could use it on the 5D2 too I assume.
it needs a mount conversion (not just an adapter) to work on canon, but there are good reasonably priced kits that make it easy. many people find that their mirror hangs on the lenses rear element when it is focused on infinity though.
Thanks sebboh, did not know that. I guess if I were to do that I could use one of my current EOS-NEX converter which would be neat enough. Main interest is for the NEX, but it would be a bonus to use it on the Canon too. Do you know if there are any risks involved (apart from mirror) - I am thinking of offsetting the lens package or something, ie ruining the lens' qualities?
