[sebberry]

I actually quite like these photos.

The one of the pathway leading to the gate in the garden (colour version) has a sense of life to it. It isn't a sterile digital image.

The one of the bell with the lens flare (colour version) also makes me feel like I am there. The lens flare isn't like what I am used to seeing, it's a much softer wash. The last couple - great depth.

Whatever the lens is, I like the fact that I can't tell if the photos were taken yesterday or 30 years ago.

[hangu]

I actually quite like these photos.

The one of the pathway leading to the gate in the garden (colour version) has a sense of life to it. It isn't a sterile digital image.

The one of the bell with the lens flare (colour version) also makes me feel like I am there. The lens flare isn't like what I am used to seeing, it's a much softer wash. The last couple - great depth.

Whatever the lens is, I like the fact that I can't tell if the photos were taken yesterday or 30 years ago.

Well, thank you. I guess you must have missed my post revealing it to be an Angenieux 28mm f3.5 lens. The announcement was buried in a lot of other junk. It's a 50 year old lens, which would explain many of its "flaws" or characteristics.

I think part of why I love Angenieux lenses and Pentax cameras is because of its vibrancy. There's none of the sterility that I see in so many of today's digital equipment.

Hi Hangu,

I was in a pretty bad mood when I made my first comment, and it was too harsh. Observing silently and not commenting certainly would have been a better choice. I apologize.

I missed it when you said those were intentionally bad compositions. And I have never read one of those articles recommending against good test shots. I can't really see the logic, I am more a fan of "this is the best shot this lens could produce for me under these conditions". If you had put up the 10 best shots you've ever made from this lens and had us guess, that seems to me like it would be pretty fun.

I wasn't belittling any of your other work, which you correctly point out I haven't seen. Apparently I was only agreeing with you about the quality of the shots shown. I won't apologize for the pictures I have in my galleries, they are what they are. Perhaps you would have deleted them from your camera; perhaps I like the rendering shown in them. Luckily, we just do this for fun.

This forum post sums up my thoughts quite well:

Maturity in the World of Digital Photography - photo.net

I'm sure most hobbyists reading this are intimately familiar with the honorable genre of the test photo. (Some hobbyists photograph little else, which I think is fine, as long as they're having fun.) When testing a camera or a lens, I really do take a lot of really bad, boring pictures—usually because they show me something specific about the product's technical performance.

I have a few photos taken with rather kit lenses that I happen to like quite much. The lens' flaws are somewhat offset by the composition and lighting. I didn't want people to be influenced by that. I never asked for anyone's opinion on my ability as a photographer.

-------------------

I'm curious to hear from the numerous posters who bemoaned what a huge waste of time this experiment was. Was this what you expected the experiment to be? Any thoughts on the points I've raised? Anyone? The naysayers all seemed to have disappeared... very odd.

[Nick Siebers]

I'm curious to hear from the numerous posters who bemoaned what a huge waste of time this experiment was. Was this what you expected the experiment to be? Any thoughts on the points I've raised? Anyone? The naysayers all seemed to have disappeared... very odd.

Well, you did ask for people who were being negative to not comment.

[hangu]

Well, you did ask for people who were being negative to not comment.

No, I didn't. I think you're confusing my asking people to stop griping about what a waste of time this was when they knew absolutely nothing about what I was testing for. People assumed wrongly that I was doing a standard lens test. I thought it silly to see people judge something that they know absolutely nothing about.

Now that it's all been revealed and people actually have a good idea of what I did there, they're welcomed to express their opinions fully, be it positive or negative.

[Nick Siebers]

I don't know, you seem a little touchy about negative comments. Some one else might not want to have their galleries looked through and then belittled.

The test shots might have been more illuminating if you gave each a caption of what it was you were trying to test with each one - PF, front/back bokeh, flare, etc. That way we might have given more informed comments.

Enjoy your lens! The shots you linked to do look quite good.

[hangu]

I don't know, you seem a little touchy about negative comments. Some one else might not want to have their galleries looked through and then belittled.

The test shots might have been more illuminating if you gave each a caption of what it was you were trying to test with each one - PF, front/back bokeh, flare, etc. That way we might have given more informed comments.

Enjoy your lens! The shots you linked to do look quite good.

I think you're missing the utterly missing the point.

[DogLover]

I think that perhaps you just have unique tastes, a good thing in my book. When you first posted these I glanced through them and was completely underwhelmed. I only glanced because there were so many of them. I couldn't take the time to really study each one. However, I just went through them again, (the ones that are left) trying to concentrate solely on "rendering", and I gotta say, I still feel pretty much the same way. The only image that has uniquely appealing rendering to me is the rose with the lattice in the background. I like that one and can totally see how you would want to be able to re-create that. The rest of them, to me, are unique but without the appealing aspect. But I strongly believe that whatever floats your photographic boat should be allowed to do so without others trying to convince you that you're crazy. We Pentaxians are, by definition, not followers. Individualism is part and parcel of what we are about. So carry on, hangu!

[stevebrot]

Angenieux, eh? My understanding is that this lens has a longstanding reputation for being soft with low contrast. Its cult classic standing is based on its historic significance. Angenieux pioneered the retro-telephoto design that makes wide angle lenses possible on a SLR.


Steve