[Canada_Rockies]

Just picked up my second M series lens today - 400 F5.6 - and I'm loving it!

Great IQ - but somewhat to my surprise, the stop down metering with K200D really seems quite accurate. Not perfect, but really quite good. PF is much less severe than I imagined too, not big deal at all. I'm happy

I love this lens as well. The only downside appears to be a red fringe in severely back lit conditions.

[8540tomg]

I'm sure you will have a lot of fun with it Goddo31.
I use mine all the time.



Tom G

[schneider]

To follow up on the pumpkins and the season in general:



M120 2.8 @ 2.8

[goddo31]

Schneider - nice shot

Thanks guys, had great fun with the 400 this afternoon. Will add some photos here when they are ready... still downloading off the card at this stage.

Here's one:



And some more:

---

Last edited by goddo31; 11-08-2009 at 06:52 AM. Reason: photo addition

[keyser]

M 50mm f/1.4

My cat, Lucy

[goddo31]

keyser - I've really gotta use my M50 1.4 more often.
But... here's another one from the M400:

[keyser]

keyser - I've really gotta use my M50 1.4 more often

I just got mine on Sunday and I'm impressed with the colour rendition. That shot was taken wide open, which is commonly said to be 'soft'. Well if this is the kind of soft I get, I'll take it every time!

[Marc Sabatella]

Frankly, I think the cat shot *is* rather soft, although it's hard to know how much of that is the lens and how much is due to detail being lost due to much of the detail being underexposed at ISO 1600, and a shutter speed of 1/30" not being fast enough to stop motion. Was that really taken with a Canon ike the EXIF says? If so, the lack of SR didn't help, either.

But if the point is that sometimes being a little soft isn't a bad thing, I have no argument with that! A lot of people deliberately soften portraits anyhow, and even for shots one would prefer a bit sharper, there is something to be said for lenses that make the shot *possible* in the first place. I recently observed the same about many of my shots, which similarly are are at high ISO with not quite fast enough shutter speeds to take full advantage of the sharpness of the lens. But the fact that I could get the shot at all is saying something about the value of these lenses.

Two more examples, both wide open at ISO 1600. First, from my M28/2.8:



Next, from the M135/3.5:

[Recercare]

It seems like sharpness is very very important for people today. The same goes for noise, or to be more correct: the lack of noise. I suspect that many focus more on these technicalities than the storytelling/content of the pic. Perhaps it's because now everyone with a DSLR and a kit lense can produce pictures of pro technical quality if they have basic knowledge in both photography and PP.

Sooner or later I think this attitude will change. I look forward to the day when reviewers/people write.."the lens is sharp enough" and then start commenting on size, convenience, focus ring and special rendering qualities that can't really be measured.

Kind regards
.lars

[jeffrey r]

It seems like sharpness is very very important for people today. The same goes for noise, or to be more correct: the lack of noise. I suspect that many focus more on these technicalities than the storytelling/content of the pic. Perhaps it's because now everyone with a DSLR and a kit lense can produce pictures of pro technical quality if they have basic knowledge in both photography and PP.

Sooner or later I think this attitude will change. I look forward to the day when reviewers/people write.."the lens is sharp enough" and then start commenting on size, convenience, focus ring and special rendering qualities that can't really be measured.

Kind regards
.lars

Interesting. As a general matter, I don't necessarily see such an emphasis on sharpness. On the contrary, if I had to generalize, I see a definite focus (no pun intended) on shallow depth of field, often at the expense of sharpness. People want superfast lenses, 2.8 isn't fast enough (how many times has Marc had to argue that 2.8 isn't so slow...), shallow depth of field is paramount, etc. In my very amateur opinion, I see so many photos shot at 2.8 or below that could benefit from being shot at f4 or higher. I kind of like sharp photos. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion for another thread I suppose.

[keyser]

Yep, I'm a Canon digital shooter (I primarily bought the lens for my film bodies) and at f/1.4 and ISO1600 the shutter speed needed to be fairly slow due to the light. More importantly, I don't have a split prism and Canons don't provide AF assist on 3rd party lenses... focussing can be a bit tricky!

But technicalities aside, her fur is nicely defined and I don't feel the photo is lacking in detail. My point was that I have a Canon 75-300 "Plastic Piston" and that lens is really soft. I also have used a pre-ai Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 wide open and it's really dreamy, surreal almost. This lens in comparison is superb

I bought the M lens knowing it's 'soft' at 1.4. What I didn't realise is that softness doesn't destroy the detail as it does in some lenses. I believe that M series lenses have qualities, as Lars says, which are often overlooked..

[Recercare]

Interesting. As a general matter, I don't necessarily see such an emphasis on sharpness. On the contrary, if I had to generalize, I see a definite focus (no pun intended) on shallow depth of field, often at the expense of sharpness. People want superfast lenses, 2.8 isn't fast enough (how many times has Marc had to argue that 2.8 isn't so slow...), shallow depth of field is paramount, etc. In my very amateur opinion, I see so many photos shot at 2.8 or below that could benefit from being shot at f4 or higher. I kind of like sharp photos. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion for another thread I suppose.

I agree with you regarding DOF and I also like sharp photos
I just notice that some people pixel-peep and systematically scan the picture to find noise or blown highlights. At the same time other people can brag about a photo just because it's razor sharp, even though the same picture has obvious weaknesses (wrong white balance, bad composition, ugly colors etc.).

Kind regards
.lars

[jsherman999]

I'm sure you will have a lot of fun with it Goddo31.
I use mine all the time.



Tom G

.



Tom, I love this shot!




.

[CanadIan]

This is my first time shooting with an M lens. SMC-M 135mm f/3.5

I will have more soon with the 28 f/2.8 and 200 f/4.

[wtlwdwgn]

Interesting. As a general matter, I don't necessarily see such an emphasis on sharpness. On the contrary, if I had to generalize, I see a definite focus (no pun intended) on shallow depth of field, often at the expense of sharpness. People want superfast lenses, 2.8 isn't fast enough (how many times has Marc had to argue that 2.8 isn't so slow...), shallow depth of field is paramount, etc. In my very amateur opinion, I see so many photos shot at 2.8 or below that could benefit from being shot at f4 or higher. I kind of like sharp photos. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion for another thread I suppose.

Interesting observations. It's often said that a lens' best qualities are found 2 stops from wide open, which if the lens is f1.4 would be, wait for it, f2.8. Lens designers often provide f1.4 just to give us a brighter viewfinder to compose and focus with.

I'd like to see the discussion of picture quality in a more general area as well with a focus more on subject matter and composition, etc. Interesting, too, as I've just read this article on this subject: Chasing the Look