aboutthelight
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Official 800PF image and discussion thread | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
aboutthelight wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aboutthelight wrote:
DGettisNC wrote:
aboutthelight wrote:
I think there is a fundamental difference on how I view these boards compared to others. Same goes with photography in general I guess. Seems like I am the odd man out and I am perfectly fine with that.
A photo taken with this lens belongs on this board. Sure. But this whole you have to get used to a lens argument is totally bogus. If you have had every long Nikon lens what is so different about this lens that takes getting used to? I have never picked up a lens and thought oh man this is just too light or too sharp and I don't know what to do with it. Come on, that is just an excuse to publish average work and blame it on the gear. I get initial excitement, I get lack of time, but that is not an excuse for poor images either. Viewers learn nothing from viewing dime a dozen grab shots with high end gear other than that the photographer did not take the time or make the effort to do the proper work in the field. Sorry but everything else is just an excuse.
Most people have not been fortunate enough to obtain a copy of this lens and shoot with it. What I am sure they would want to know is how sharp it is, how quickly it autofocuses, how the weight and balance play in the field during real use and maybe how it compares to some other lenses like a 500PF or 600F4 or even lenses from other manufacturers as well. And Since Steve Perry has been brought up the reason his reviews are so well respected is because that is what he talks about. And he backs it up with proper field work and technique.
With regards to that Burrowing Owl above I think the background is nice and not at all the PF type background that I am saying people need to avoid and be sure to shoot with more distant backgrounds. The goose shot background with the Sony is awful but that is why I said it is a problem with all long lenses and even worse with the PF lenses. If you don't get low, or get a shot with your subject in more pleasing environments and did not do the proper work than a $13,000 lens will produce crappy results as well.
Yes, people need to get low and keep an eye on their backgrounds, distance to subject, distance to background, etc. That is universal.
But again, this thread is simply about images/discussion of the lens, not showing off what people think are their best wildlife shots. And you also kind of answered your own question with your 1st post on page 10 - "eagerness to use the lens"
Also, if everyone only posted what they consider "perfect" shots on these types of threads, then how would the people that are interested in it or researching it know where that lens has limitations or weaknesses? Would you prefer everyone find that out only after purchasing it? If I am interested in something and am doing my research, I dont only want to know the positives.
I just went through the 1st 12 pages of the Sony 600/4 thread and there are definitely some images with not-very-pleasing backgrounds/OOF rendering as well (even very "PF-ish" if I may say). And there are some not exactly sharp images.
And there are some that look great too.
Thanks for the response and I understand and respect your point re the purpose of the thread. Don't fully agree but that is OK and not relevant. I think you missed the point a bit about the lens. We all know the limitations of this lens. If you owned or have shot the 300 or 500PF (I had both) then you will know what you are buying. A super sharp, super small, super light lens that does not perform the same in all situations as it's much more expensive counterparts. And it should not perform the same for the price you are paying. So what does that mean, it means that you can't shoot it the same. It is even more important to pay attention to your background distance and your shooting angle. You are limited to PF lenses that are less forgiving in certain situations and 6.3 which makes it even less forgiving. As Chris has said not all lenses at the same focal length have the same rendering.
And this is in no way a Sony vs Nikon thing. Yes there are plenty of examples of images in every thread on FM that could use some improvement. I pointed George to my IG page when I was challenged to his childish duel and there are images posted there with both Sony and Nikon. I doubt you could tell which image is from which manufacturer unless I specifically state it.
I think you have missed two basic points. First, some of the images in this thread are not the best work of the photographers and they were posted because the lens is new and they were excited to post images with it. Sure, they could have culled more but this lack of culling and posting less than optimal images happens with every new lens. I don't think it says anything about this particular lens that some or even most of the images aren't that strong. Second, you seem to misunderstand that an 800 f/6.3 lens actually has very shallow depth of field and has only a tiny bit more depth of field than the fastest lenses available at this focal length. In that way it is very different from other PF lenses. You have repeatedly put it into the same category as the 300 PF and 500 PF, but those lenses have a whole stop more depth of field than the fastest lenses available at those focal lengths, whereas the 800 PF only has a third of a stop more depth of field than the fastest lenses available at 800mm. That is a notable difference and I don't think it makes sense to put it in the same category as other PF for that reason.
From my perspective the first point I raise makes your whole critique invalid. Over time we will no doubt see stronger images even from the very people who have posted so far. That is to be expected and to make a global judgment of a lens from the relatively few images posted so far is in my view a rush to judgment and likely very misleading.You of course can make that judgment and no one will stop you, but it is also true that some of us won't see anything persuasive in this judgment nor see it as sound or well thought out.
Here is exactly what I said to start this "Are people really happy with the performance and sharpness of this lens? I would think it would be on par with the 500PF and 300PF in terms of sharpness and ease of handling. When viewing on my 5k imac many of the images posted seem to have very unflattering backgrounds and I am not blown away at all with the sharpness either. Maybe just some growing pains with the lens or eagerness to use and post so not shooting in optimal conditions? Hope I don't sound too much like a bozo but for $6,500 I would want better results than what I am seeing. Hope there is not too much hate flowing after this but just being honest"
I raised the issue of growing pains and eagerness to post with the new lens because it is obvious that there are less than high quality images being posted. I also raised the issue that the lenses should be equally as sharp and easy to use as the 300 and 500 PF but that I was not seeing similar results as some of the great images posted in those threads.
With regards to depth of field I have never said that an 800mm lens will have the same DOF as a 300 or 500mm lens. That would be absurd. What I said is that these lenses are particularly susceptible to jittery backgrounds when the subject is too close to the background and people should remember this when out shooting and pay attention to their shooting angles and distance to backgrounds even more because they are shooting with a PF lens. Again I owned the 300 and 500 and shot them in particular situations with careful considerations to the backgrounds and its distance from my subjects. Of course 800mm and 6.3 is different than the others but it is still a PF lens so there are limits to the advantages you mention.
Let me be clear I think that this 800PF is an outstanding lens that will deliver world class results and is incredibly light and hand holdable. In the same way that the 300 and 500PF are benchmarks for affordability and ease of use. Groundbreaking lenses that no other manufacturer has come close to replicating. However after 10 pages of images that look particularly poor in my book I was wondering what others thought or found who were lucky enough to own and shoot this lens. I could never judge a lens that I have not used but I can judge the images I have seen and that is why I asked what I asked and how I asked it. I have owned and shot 600f4's from Canon, Nikon and Sony. I have used them with and without converters thousands of times. I am very well aware of how the focal length and the fstop effect the final product.
I did not nor would I critique this lens, I asked those who own it if they were happy with it because the results being shown were less than stellar. I don't know how to say this any other way 
And what I was saying is that it is too early to make any judgments and your questions are premature, IMO. You talk about ten pages of images, but in reality we are talking a small number of photographers that have not had long to use the lens. We will learn more with time, but those ten pages don't tell us much of anything, IMO. Your characterization of the the results as less than stellar doesn't take into account that with this lens as with every new lens when people don't cull the images as much as normal and are eager to post examples, it is to be expected for such early examples with a lens that there will be many examples that are less than stellar, so IMO you make way too much out of those ten pages as they aren't a sufficient justification for your questions.
The second error you make is the clear equating even in the post above of the 300 and 500 PF with this 800 PF. I don't think that makes sense. The 800 PF is much closer to the fastest aperture 800mm lens alternatives than the 300 and 500 PF lenses are to the fastest aperture lenses at those focal lengths. That is a difference you fail to appreciate even in your post above and you lump all PF lenses together. I think that is a mistake.
We are going to continue to disagree. I find your point and your argument absurd and nothing but an excuse for the poor images being posted. You can take really good images the instant you use a lens. This whole time is needed is just nonsense in my book. No it isn't. You can spend your life shooting with poor technique, in mid day light and sub optimal shooting angles and distance to background and the results won't change one bit. Unless the 800PF is your first lens and you have no basis for comparison then you will know what you are shooting with very quickly. And if people chose not to cull that does not in any way negate the fact they they posted less than stellar images. All of the images in my opinion look bad. You are free to disagree. But enough of them were posted that led me want to ask the question. If you think more time is needed and that is acceptable for you then that is fine. But that does not make me wrong in any way if I have a different expectation of the lens and the images posted.
With regards to your other point I simply can't understand why you would continue to talk about aperture and not appreciate that they are all PF lenses. That is what makes them so small and light. They all do share the same tendency for jittery backgrounds regardless of their aperture. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to tell you.
This is completely pointless in my book. Nothing but blind defense of photos that in your words should have been culled and are less than stellar. Nikon has been making some outstanding, industry leading lenses. In my opinion 10 pages is enough of a sample size to be a bit concerned. If you disagree that is fine.
|
