an example of why the 50-135* doesn't suck - Page 7

*jsherman999* · 07-07-2008, 11:54 AM

.

Nice shot, Luna Calor! I always like looking at your website.

Oh, by the way, did someone mention bokeh?

DA* 50-135 @ 135mm f/2.8

metalfab · 07-07-2008, 12:21 PM

50-135 is a...

...Cityscape lens;

...Sunset lens;

...Nature lens;

...Speed lens;

...great for Bokeh lens;

...Wedding lens;

...and anything in between

-

f8 · 07-07-2008, 04:09 PM

And of course the 50-135mm lens is also a festival lens:

Click on the images for larger versions. Shot @ Provinssirock, June 13-15, 2008, featuring Stam1na (first two) and Paramore (third)...

There is a slight flare on the first one. That is propably to be expected at these conditions (this is repeated on a few shots from the venue under variable conditions but always relate to the heavy spot lights as far as I can tell) and not so much a lens issue or what do you think..?

leadbelly · 07-08-2008, 04:32 AM

I just got my 50-135... when I shoot at 50mm the image is OOF, but when zoomed up to 135mm, it is sharp (all in f2.8)... I'm thinking BF/FF issues with my K10D, since when I tried it with my K100D, it is tack sharp in all focal lengths, wide open... If my problem is BF/FF, how come it is sharp at 135, yet OOF at 50mm? Is this normal? Thanks...

Talisker · 07-08-2008, 02:29 PM

It will do wildlife
Name: wedell_duchaylard copy.jpg
Views: 370
Size: 30.0 KB

and cold and wet...
Name: beascochea_bay_bergs copy.jpg
Views: 373
Size: 297.2 KB

cosmicheretic · 07-10-2008, 12:19 AM

I was set on waiting for the Sigma HSM 70-200mm to be out soon but now I am torn. LBA DT's coming on.....

gkopeliadis · 07-10-2008, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by cosmicheretic

I was set on waiting for the Sigma HSM 70-200mm ...

I'm afraid prelemenary reports are not favorable for the Sigma lens...

cosmicheretic · 07-10-2008, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by gkopeliadis

I'm afraid prelemenary reports are not favorable for the Sigma lens...

I can't read that language. Any reports in English?

gkopeliadis · 07-10-2008, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by cosmicheretic

I can't read that language. Any reports in English?

You need not to... read the diagrams and examples

ddhytz · 07-20-2008, 01:27 AM

some test shots taken yesterday.

*jsherman999* · 07-20-2008, 07:53 AM

.

Looks good, dd! Fun lens, huh?

Ran across this 50-135 snapshot that I had overlooked before because
he wasn't in the center of the frame, or something...

135mm f/3.5, no PP except slight contrast adjustment in picasa. Love the
sharpness in the eyes, and the 3-D effect from the specular highlights and the
contrast between center sharpness and the fade to bokeh. And the skin
just has a perfect luster.

Who needs an FA* 85 1.4 for portraits?

*k100d* · 07-20-2008, 09:52 AM

thanks for bringing this thread back!
i tried out the lens in a store was impressed by the handling and the overall build, but i'm reluctant to move away from primes.

*jsherman999* · 07-20-2008, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by k100d

thanks for bringing this thread back!
i tried out the lens in a store was impressed by the handling and the overall build, but i'm reluctant to move away from primes.

I hear ya. If you do decide to get a zoom, though, like I've said before, this
one is the most 'prime-like' I've ever used.

It's worse than good primes in that it's pretty bulky, and it's 'only' f/2.8, but when
it comes to IQ, it's tough to tell the difference between this and a good prime
between 50 & 135mm. And then there's SDM & weather sealing.

It really lives up to it's rep.

.

ddhytz · 07-21-2008, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

.

Fun lens, huh?
...
Who needs an FA* 85 1.4 for portraits?

Certainly is.
FA* 85 1.4 for portraits? Not really, this one is much better.

Sydney Myer

One more, wish I could get rid of those green leaves, maybe photoshop?

*jsherman999* · 07-23-2008, 09:25 PM

.

All at 135mm unless otherwise indicated:

Cropped