gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: My thoughts on Fuji XF 35 vs. 33 | |
Geoff D F wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Geoff D F wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
gyoung143 wrote:
Ok, I haven't seen that referenced before, although that is such a tight criteria its still meaningless in terms of use of the 40mpx sensor. Should wd only buy it if we are going to use tge camera at full aperture etc? Still nonsense. I bought it to crop with shots taken at the lenses best performance.
Gerry
I guess if I try hard I can imagine a situation in which someone might photograph a flat subject that stretches from corner to corner and use f/1.4… but that would have to be extremely rare.
More likely, the reason for using f/1.4 is to produce narrow DOF, in which case OOF is not only accepted but hoped for, everywhere but on the primary subject.
gyoung143 wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Geoff D F wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
gyoung143 wrote:
Ok, I haven't seen that referenced before, although that is such a tight criteria its still meaningless in terms of use of the 40mpx sensor. Should wd only buy it if we are going to use tge camera at full aperture etc? Still nonsense. I bought it to crop with shots taken at the lenses best performance.
Gerry
I guess if I try hard I can imagine a situation in which someone might photograph a flat subject that stretches from corner to corner and use f/1.4… but that would have to be extremely rare.
More likely, the reason for using f/1.4 is to produce narrow DOF, in which case OOF is not only accepted but hoped for, everywhere but on the primary subject.
I suppose someone will say that they need f/1.4 for low light photography… but there you are unlikely to have all scene elements in the plane of focus and its acceptable DOF at f/1.4 on a 35mm APS-C lens.
I wonder what other common use case people are thinking of for any f/1.4 lens…
Astrophotography.
Fair enough. A good, wide aperture, wide angle lens with minimal coma, probably manual focusing. (Though I'm betting that by "astrophotography" you mean something like Milky Way photography right?)
What else?
Any shot where there is enough DoF but not enough space to use something longer? I found f/2 handy on film for quick shots in museums, cathedrals etc so 1.4 is just as good on APS-C.
One could say that we use wideangle to get a wider view so sharpness at the edges is important. I certainly was a consideration when I bought the 23 f/2, which is sharper at the edges at 2 and 2.8 than the old 23 1.4. Also why I always had Summicron 35s on Leica rather than Summilux, and for that matter why I used the Leica for such casual work rather than the Nikon or Olympus cameras I had, the 35 f/2 Summicron is sharper at the edges than the Nikon or Olypus 35 f/2s at large apertures. I am tempted by the new 23 and 33 1.4s simply for the extra stop without losing the edge 0erf9rmance, although the bulk and weight penaltys are discouraging.
Gerry
I’m not so sure about the museums and cathedrals thing. I photograph both of those, and even when I carry large aperture lenses I would almost never use them wide open for those things.
In either case, the minimal DOF at those big apertures is a problem, perhaps more so in the cathedrals than in museums, at last if you are photographing 2D pieces straight on. (Not always possible when the work is very large or not hung at eye level. — I’m literally thinking of The Louvre as I write that.)
Fortunately, today we can increase the ISO enough to use somewhat smaller apertures and get the DOF we need in those places — where there’s often sufficient light. I’ll share an example or two below.
(I often grab quick pictures in museums as a way to remind myself later of what I saw. I use my iPHone for that!)
- - -
I suppose someone will say that they need f/1.4 for low light photography… but there you are unlikely to have all scene elements in the plane of focus and its acceptable DOF at f/1.4 on a 35mm APS-C lens.
I wonder what other common use case people are thinking of for any f/1.4 lens…
Astrophotography.
Fair enough. A good, wide aperture, wide angle lens with minimal coma, probably manual focusing. (Though I'm betting that by "astrophotography" you mean something like Milky Way photography right?)
What else?
Milkyway photography is astrophotography as last I checked the Milkyway was made of stars and nebula.
It has certainly, within the photography world, come to be described that way. But a lot of it seems to me more like night landscape photography. Including the sky —day, night, or twilight — never made a photogaprhy into astrophotography in the past. The old idea was that “astrophotography” was using telescopes to photograph distant objects that could ot otherwise really be seen — like photographs of distant nebulae, comets, etc.
I admit that today that is a minority notion in the photography world.
- - -
Examples, as mentioned above:
 Arches and Columns
 Interior, St. Lorenz Church
 Blue Column, Sagrada Familia
|
