Lieutenant Z wrote:
Ben, this Piaggio Ape shot is outstanding. Did you enlighten the driver's face ?
Yes....... well, yes and no. The Ape was too bright, the white looked blown out, so I darkened the Ape, but then I had to bring the interior back up. So, I'm not sure whether, in the end, the interior is lighter than it was. It was a very bright scene, this was the only shot I got where the windscreen wasn't reflecting the sun right into the lens.
Ok, I would like a little discussion and opinions on this.
I have been mulling over for a while now whether or not to buy a long lens. I'm talking something in the 400 to 600mm range.
My only question is...will I use it enough to justify the cost. I have never used long lenses in the past and most of my images are under 100mm. I'm not a birder, nor am I into sports or wildlife. I just feel it would be nice at times if I had the option to go long.
For those of you that do own long lenses, do you use them more than a few times a year? How do you justify the cost? Thank you for any help in this.
bruni wrote:
Very funny Jim. I wanted the flares. I purposely shot into the sun to see how they would look. My favourite for flare is still the 20mm f3.5UD. I don't like these hexagons either, well, except the colour. I prefer this orange to the blue of the 20mm.
Ben - what aperture were you shooting to get the hexagon? I will try to replicate when I get the right lighting.
leighton w wrote:
Ok, I would like a little discussion and opinions on this.
I have been mulling over for a while now whether or not to buy a long lens. I'm talking something in the 400 to 600mm range.
My only question is...will I use it enough to justify the cost. I have never used long lenses in the past and most of my images are under 100mm. I'm not a birder, nor am I into sports or wildlife. I just feel it would be nice at times if I had the option to go long.
For those of you that do own long lenses, do you use them more than a few times a year? How do you justify the cost? Thank you for any help in this....Show more →
Cost justification went out the window with this hobby a long time ago
GeorgeBo wrote:
Ben - what aperture were you shooting to get the hexagon? I will try to replicate when I get the right lighting.
George
George - I think I was at f5.6. I stopped down because at f2, f2.8 there was too much glare in the lens and the flares were not as distinct. Looking forward to your results.
leighton w wrote:
Ok, I would like a little discussion and opinions on this.
I have been mulling over for a while now whether or not to buy a long lens. I'm talking something in the 400 to 600mm range.
My only question is...will I use it enough to justify the cost. I have never used long lenses in the past and most of my images are under 100mm. I'm not a birder, nor am I into sports or wildlife. I just feel it would be nice at times if I had the option to go long.
For those of you that do own long lenses, do you use them more than a few times a year? How do you justify the cost? Thank you for any help in this....Show more →
I am sure there will be as many varying opinions on this as there are shooting styles. But for me, I have bought and sold a number of long lenses. I have had the 400/3.5, 400/2.8, 500/f4P and sold them all at cost or near cost so nothing lost overall. I got rid of them because of the size and speed of shooting. I really wanted them to shoot birds down on the coast, so in the end I ended up with the 200-500 AF lens just for that.
I settled (settled may be the wrong word) on the slower but much smaller and manageable manual focus lenses for the purpose you are talking about. Have the 200/4, 300/4.5 and the 400/5.6 non-if. Great for adapting to just about anything and with the focus peaking/magnification, IBIS and high ISO performance of mirrorless cameras like your Fuji, I think they would be a great match.
If you need the extra speed from the big guns, then I would definitely plan on buying a stout tripod and gimbal mount too.
But the 400/3.5 and 500/4P are both great lenses. 400/3.5 is really not a bad size either.
GeorgeBo wrote:
Cost justification went out the window with this hobby a long time ago
So true George....any kind of justification went out the window a long time ago.....lol.
Leighton - I have a 200mm, a Canon f2.8 L lens. It's sensational and I hardly ever use it. Maybe a couple of times a year. I also have a Canon 135mm f2, and a Nikon 135mm f3.5. Hardly ever use those either. Of course, I used them when I first got them, but like you, in my regular shooting I rarely go over 100mm. But that doesn't mean I don't love having them, and when I feel like it, or when I need it, then I can just reach for them. And I've learned my lesson about selling lenses, nothing would induce me to part with them. When the Christmas decorations go up in Rome I'll definitely reach for the 135mm f2, cause that's bokeh time. See just talking about them makes me want to use them. So I think you're absolutely right, it IS nice to have the option.
bruni wrote:
George - I think I was at f5.6. I stopped down because at f2, f2.8 there was too much glare in the lens and the flares were not as distinct. Looking forward to your results.
Ben - I just went out with the lens on my Df to try to catch the late afternoon sun. I shot with the sun in the frame to just outside of the frame. Got some flare but nothing hexagon or that color. I will try again with the morning sun tomorrow and see what I can get. May even go downtown for more direct light vs what is around my house (diffused by trees)
leighton, You are asking the easy question. Can you justify it? I think we all know how that dog hunts. However, you mention having "never used a long lens" - I just think I should mention that super telephotos (basically 500mm and up) are a different type of photography. I good tripod, and usually a gimbal are needed. If critical resolving is not required, then the reflex lenses are a good light weight solution.
Jim
EDIT I almost forgot - and a new truck to carry the gear.
leighton w wrote:
Ok, I would like a little discussion and opinions on this.
I have been mulling over for a while now whether or not to buy a long lens. I'm talking something in the 400 to 600mm range.
My only question is...will I use it enough to justify the cost. I have never used long lenses in the past and most of my images are under 100mm. I'm not a birder, nor am I into sports or wildlife. I just feel it would be nice at times if I had the option to go long.
For those of you that do own long lenses, do you use them more than a few times a year? How do you justify the cost? Thank you for any help in this....Show more →
leighton w wrote:
Ok, I would like a little discussion and opinions on this.
I have been mulling over for a while now whether or not to buy a long lens. I'm talking something in the 400 to 600mm range.
My only question is...will I use it enough to justify the cost. I have never used long lenses in the past and most of my images are under 100mm. I'm not a birder, nor am I into sports or wildlife. I just feel it would be nice at times if I had the option to go long.
For those of you that do own long lenses, do you use them more than a few times a year? How do you justify the cost? Thank you for any help in this....Show more →
I use a 200mm in my AF landscapes quite a lot, my go-to kit is the 24-70 and 70-200 for AF. For MF, I only have primes but the 180 is my longest and I love using it. There is a Colin's harbor scape way back at the1385 that is beautiful, akul has some fantastic landscapes photos with the 200 f4 and the 105, #1432 pbraymond using the 180. For longer lens, I would use it for specific photos and it would not make it to the everyday carry pack as the weight is already cumbersome for me. The 400 to 600 range would convert me into a bird/wildlife and used for specific landscapes. Just my opinion as related to me, your mileage may vary.
Baltimore waterfront on glass plate. This was J. Lane's ISO 25 dry plate, with Tachihara 4X5 and Nikkor-SW 90mm f8. The plate was developed in HC-110, dil. B.
Ben, I like the ghosts of Rome and the low carbon 3-wheeler. George, I have seen ghosts run amuck with the 20 UD (in a pleasing way), good to see one can do that with the 35 O also.
Leighton, liked that last holdout, it really seems quite stubborn. Good luck with the hunt for the long lens. If you don't want to go too long, the 300 4.5 is a great choice and inexpensive. The 400 5.6 I have used for walk around birding, its really light for that focal length, and has great optical quality. Are you considering even longer?
saph wrote:
Baltimore waterfront on glass plate. This was J. Lane's ISO 25 dry plate, with Tachihara 4X5 and Nikkor-SW 90mm f8. The plate was developed in HC-110, dil. B.
Samy has entered the room…
Casually walks in and drops the dry plate bomb…
Great job. I love your expansion of everything film and beyond
Thank you all for the great feedback, it's exactly what I was looking for. After the info on what is needed to shoot something like a 500/4P, I think I need to scale it back some. perhaps I need to start with a shorter FL such as the 300mm or maybe even the 400 5.6 to see how much I'd shoot with them, and then reevaluate sometime down the road. Not to mention the cost savings.
Samy - I'm with George, it's really impressive that you've strayed into dry plate.....and it's fun to see the emulsion artefacts in the sky. Well done. I honestly don't know how you manage to lug that Tachihara around.
leighton,
I just remembered - your Fujifilm X-S10 is an APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) sensor. So, a 400mm lens is effectively a 600mm lens, because of the crop factor. You can still get the 600mm reach, without it weighing a bunch, or costing so much.
Jim
leighton w wrote:
Thank you all for the great feedback, it's exactly what I was looking for. After the info on what is needed to shoot something like a 500/4P, I think I need to scale it back some. perhaps I need to start with a shorter FL such as the 300mm or maybe even the 400 5.6 to see how much I'd shoot with them, and then reevaluate sometime down the road. Not to mention the cost savings.
Samy,
Well done - that is dedication. I had a client with a box of a couple hundred 4x5 glass negatives and only a couple had any damage after 120+ years. They were all shot by a 1890's era camera called the "Vive" manufactured in Chicago.
I'm assuming J. Lane is providing good even emulsions, so I thought I would point out that the streaks are likely from agitation. When I did soup 4x5 I ran into some of this, and had to modify how aggressively I did my agitation.
It still amazes me that literally at the infancy of photography they had such high quality lenses, and fine grain plates/film. It really hasn't moved forward much other than just being more convenient now.
Jim
Baltimore waterfront on glass plate. This was J. Lane's ISO 25 dry plate, with Tachihara 4X5 and Nikkor-SW 90mm f8. The plate was developed in HC-110, dil. B.
GeorgeBo wrote:
Funny you mention the eye AF. I used it for the first time this past week and wow it works great!. I picked up the 40mm (you should see Colin’s work with it over on the AF thread). Amazing stuff. Looks like the 28SE is finally getting ready for release. I got an in stock and soon shipping notification from Nikon yesterday. That kit should come in really handy for street and for general family shooting for the upcoming holidays.
Yeah, the videos that I watched about eye AF in the ZFC made it look more than sufficient for that type of shooting. It's actually kind of exciting as a feature, especially if the animal eye AF works with the dogs.
I'd seen Colin's fairground shots awhile back, but you guys are making it look like a million bucks in the AF thread. I need to check in on that thread more often. But yes, the 40 is definitely an instant buy whenever I do make the jump. Hopefully that 28 is just as good!
But to bring it back to MF, I picked up what is apparently a later version of the Nikkor-S Auto 5cm f/2 this morning. Can't beat this kind of build quality for $30. Only halfway through the test roll, but I'm hoping that the image quality just as good. Shot with the 35-200 and D3s.
