[jsherman999]

Pentax 50/1.4. I really love fifties (owning a 58/2, a 50/2 a 50/2.8 and a broken 50/1.8) but i've never seen a fabuolous pic taken with it. And the 50/2 is a Pentax too, and i like it

This ain't chopped liver.


.

[Ben_Edict]

I know Ben was also saying (I think) that he likes portraits at really long FL's.

This is at 200mm, I know the image get's 'flattened' at that length, but I still
like it for portrait

I like the perspective. With such a long fl, you really make the subject stand out from the background. I personally don't find the compressed (I find that a better expression, than "flat") perspective to have any drawbacks. It might be impossible to achieve in a portrait studio, but oputdoors it is fine.

It is no coincidence, that many fashion shooters use the 300/2.8 or at least the 70-200/2.8 for catalogues images. I blows the background into oblivion and helps the subject details really stand out.

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

H
Anyway, what intrigues me about the FA* 24 is that it has very, very good center sharpness wide open, and extremely good contrast, but not so hot on the corners (wide open) - which means it can take very 3D-ish shots that look very sharp even wide open.


That pretty much sounds perfect as an indoor shooter, and then of course stopped down, the corners sharpen up and it's probably an exceptional landscape/outdoor lens.

So I just might get this lens. (Get it, not buy it...)

.

This is one of my favourite lenses. It is also very well made. The only drawback is its size, which is really on the bulky side. But then, this is the prize to pay for the f/2 and the build-quality. I use it indoord or outdoors and have often used it for nightly street photography. It renders street lights in the background nicely and produces some really atmosperic images.

Ben

[Wheatfield]

I quite like the 85mm focal length for portraits.
A*85/1.4, much post processing.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 02-05-2011 at 08:44 PM.

[MrApollinax]

I know someone on this board as the A*1200mm. I can't remember who it was though. How often would one take out that beast to shoot with?

[dave sz]

And I don't get why people recommend an 85mm as a good portrait lens. That's a 127mm equivalent when used on a crop sensor - too long,

It's still an 85mm. The FOV of 127mm doesn't make it a 127mm...

[G_Money]

Yes, I realize that, but to get the same image area that a 24x36mm frame would hold you need to back up from the subject. We were always taught that too far away from the subject and faces lose their roundness, thus "flattened". I didn't mean the subject to the background distance, but rather the nose to ears.

[rparmar]

i'd like to see you try

Sure. What would you like? Don't expect the same nervous bokeh effect because, as I said, I find it crap. Still, I can do...

background blur



painterly textures



and more



(Click through each for larger.)

[Gooshin]

i guess you an me have a different opinion of "whacky bokeh"

to me its odd-shaped highlights and bokeh swirl, not adding texture layers.

swirling a background layer while keeping the in-focus plane unaffected is a reather tedious process, and would require tremendous photoshop skill to do it seamlessly

likewise id like to see how long it would take you to make a picture with circular highlights and make them all oval, doughnut or squished.

[Blue]

I really don't get the Zeiss 50mm f2 ZK Makro-Planar T* or Zeiss 100mm f/2 ZK Makro-Planar T* at $1050 and $1568 respectively. They are MF and are only 1:2. The mf isn't that big a deal but 1:2. I'd have to have Leno money to even think about one at those prices.

[alohadave]

The release used to be directly in line with the locking pin, closer to the 8:00 position.
The lens dit lined up perfectly with the release lever, so if you were mounting a lens in the dark, you put one thumb on the lens dit, one thumb on the release lever and "put your thumbs together".
This enabled very easy lens mounting without have to look.
Sorry for the poorly focused example, it was a pretty quick and dirty picture, but it illustrates the relationship of the dit and the lever when the lens is mounted but not twisted to the home position.

How could they change it without breaking the mount? Is it just that the release button was moved, but the locking pin is in the same place on the flange?

[MrApollinax]

I'm pretty sure they just moved the release button further down.

[Wheatfield]

How could they change it without breaking the mount? Is it just that the release button was moved, but the locking pin is in the same place on the flange?

All the did was move the release lever and the mechanism, the actual pin location did not change.

[rparmar]

swirling a background layer while keeping the in-focus plane unaffected is a reather tedious process, and would require tremendous photoshop skill to do it seamlessly

It's not that difficult, and one can always save an action to replicate it endlessly from then on. The only trick is making the initial foreground selection, and there are many ways of accomplishing this efficiently.

But that rather misses the main point I was making. To put it plainer: why buy a lens that distorts the image in only one way, when one can buy a lens to take an "exact" image and then distort it as one sees fit, to suit the image? That's why I showed three different options. I chose the effects in each as artistic decisions; I do not want the lens choosing for me. That is limiting rather than freeing. Of course you may disagree; perhaps you like these sorts of limitations. But the whole point of this thread is to point out lenses we personally do not get.

[wavecurrent]

i dont understand why the 11-16mm F2.8 Tokina lens was never made for Pentax

Here's another one who don't understand it

Mike