bcalkins: You have to watch this hilarious take on the Lastolite Urban backgrounds:
Thanks for the link. They had me fooled. I really thought the guy was standing in front of a brick wall.I would much prefer having these than the ones above.
b craw: I remember as a kid getting family portraits done at [a major portrait studio]; they used a rustic landscape background, smartly adorned with a covered wagon. We looked so out of place in that portrait - laughably so. As did two other families I knew that used the same one.
These backdrops - even in a bokeh-crazed world - will end in tears (of laughter).
Most of the time, the hideous look they provide is caused by very bad flat lighting. The subject lighting has to be a close match to the one that is simulated on the background or the disaster you mention will be the end result. The samples provided above are not very flattering and it has very little to do with the background itself and a lot more to do with the lighting.
samfan: What? I think it's pretty smart.
I think so too. Sometimes one wants an artificial background for convenience and in a somewhat confined space, a shallow depth of field might be impossible to achieve with the detailed backgrounds available today. With good lighting, the resulting images could be very interesting provided Lastolite would have these in more varieties. The price is kind of steep.
JamesD28: Meanwhile, Canon are still....... nowhere to be seen.
And the D7100's pro replacement as well.
pictureAngst: Some useful reminders - particularly the one about keeping your gear in a sealed bag when moving between different temperatures and/or humidities, I always remember that one just after my lens has completely fogged up.
The whole lens caps thing will be lost on the 90% of owners who buy an SLR with a single megazoom lens.
BTW when using a lens cleaning solution, does anyone else get residual 'rainbow' smearing that then itself needs to be cleaned off?
What cleaning solution do you use ? I don't use alcohol like mentioned in the video but I have been using 2 Filters Formula MC for years and it works great for me. If the micro fiber cloth is clean, it will never smear. I throw mine out on a regular basis and buy new ones. Once you put them in the washer, residue from the detergent and hard water can cause what you describe as rainbows. If it does that, use a lens pen after the liquid cleaning. It should come right off.
Mike FL: FWIW:I'm not sure about the plastic bags thing because Panasonic suggests "...Do not leave in contact with rubber or plastic bags." noticed after I bought a Pana couple years ago.
BTW:I put my lenses in plastic bag for years, and they are seems ok so far. May be I should not.
Do you mean you store them in plastic bags ? It's the best way to keep dust away but it can make the lenses more prone to get fungus if they are not completely dry to start with or left in a place where high humidity is the norm. IMHO the plastic bag advice should only be used when getting the lens in from a cold environment to a hot or heated one. And this of course is only temporary. The equipment should not stay in the bag.
nikonman2004: I can't wait for Sigma to re do their 85 1:4
@gatorowl: Please find the link. As you know, bokeh quality is subjective. Even if I did a side by side comparison and posted pics, some people would still find the ART version bokeh to be fantastic. I can only go by the photographs that I see posted. I don't have the lens but I did have the old version and used it often.
The Name is Bond: hmmm, I hate to say it but the bokeh isn't good enough. It's really not smooth at all, despite the review's claim that it's good enough. Even closed down (which usually deals with bokeh issues).
Maybe it's good enough for closer pics, but we have here the usual bokeh-clueless pics from dpreview. Easy bokeh backgrounds (flowers and vegetation) with just a couple of pics that demonstrate the rough bokeh. They need to get themselves someone long versed in bokeh analysis. .....Like me!!! :)
Get that lens in to a bike shop, dpreview.
Anyway, I actually feel a bit sad. I was totally over excited at the review. ...until I saw the pics (and some pics on the blogs mentioned in the comments).
Same thing here. It's definitely sharper than the old version at the expense of bokeh smoothness.
Smeggypants: I found Jesse Chen's tutorial in 20 seconds on a web archive and really what he isn't teaching isn't rocket science. It's pretty simple.
If you don't want to people to steal your images then don't publish them.
"If you don't want people to steal your images then don't publish them." That's brilliant !To protect yourself from criminals, stop doing anything that might feed them.
Richard Murdey: I don't believe it should be illegal to learn how to pick a lock, or to teach people how to pick a lock. It is sufficient that its illegal to steal a car or break into someone's house.
So ... he did nothing wrong as far as I am concerned.
What about the cretins who have online tutorials on how to make bombs, should they be unaccountable for their actions as well ? the term social responsibility has no more meaning anymore sadly.You know only too well what these instructions can do in the wrong hands plus they serve NO useful purpose.
mpgxsvcd: Does anyone hate this camera?
I've had it. I really wanted to love it. It looks awesome, has an excellent build and finish and a fast lens but the few quirks it had got the best of me. I've had more missed focus shots with this compact than any other I've used.
Sergey Borachev: All the good stuff squeezed into a pocketable camera. Fast lens, high IQ sensor, tilting LCD, ND filter, EVF, and a flash that can be pulled back to bounce.
If the lens quality and build quality (especially EVF) turn out to be good, then this is the ultimate!!
But it's not. There is no such thing as ultimate. It's only the ultimate until the next version comes out. I've had the first version of the RX-100 and after a few months of use, I thought it was one of the most overrated cameras out there. The price/performance ratio just didn't do it for me.
SushiEater: Is this a first lens ever to come out in Nikon mount first before Canon?
Missed opportunity indeed. It seems Tokina are at least 1-2 years late. There are too many versions of the 70-200mm focal range already.
Michael Piziak: Tokina has a reputation of making excellent glass, and I believe the price will be much lower than these articles project.
I hope you are right because at that price point, I don't know how anybody could be interested. The Nikon is the reference and it can be had for less. At around 1K it could become interesting if it can equal the Nikon version in IQ. Doubtful.
PeakAction: Yes! More people complaining about the price of a lens that they would never need in the first place. If you were someone who would actually use this lens professionally, you would understand that this is an expected price tag. Are you a newspaper, wire agency, stock agency, or rental house? Are you a major sports network or magazine? No? Then don't bother complaining about the price. This isn't a lens for shooting house cats and flowers in your back yard. They don't just make up these numbers from thin air; considering unit cost, projected sales, and required profit margins, I would say that the price is precisely calculated. Plus, if the price were too low, then *everyone* could suddenly be an awesome sports shooter.
Why should you know what people need and don't need ? You seem to imply that only pro's can appreciate a lens like this and that non professionals shoot simple snapshots all day long. I resent this. Only people who are very loose on cash will not cringe at the 3000+ price hike compared to the already excellent and dare I say expensive current version.
I wonder if a new 300mm f/2.8 is on its way as well. It seems to be on back order everywhere in Canada and Nikon doesn't tell its dealers when new ones are expected.
Thorgrem: Very nice to see big professional tele lenses which arent ugly white. Or does this one also comes in white?
Yeah, for that price they should at least offer the lens in a range of colors.
KameraFever: Bokehlicous! The ability to shoot wide open portraits at 1.4, have them be sharp, and costing under $900 is understated. Many photographers will flock to this lens.
@JF69: Maybe the OP loves the bokeh and that's perfectly all right. It's a subjective criteria which few people agree on. I wouldn't describe the ART lenses bokeh to be ghastly but I find it is a step down (the only one) from the lenses they replace. I think that's the price to pay for optimizing both center and corner sharpness.
I agree with JF69 although I'd like to try it myself to be sure. Sigma's latest ART lenses are sharper throughout but the cost is unflattering bokeh (depending on background content and distance). I've owned the previous 50mm and the bokeh was definitely smoother that what I see in the samples. I'd really like to see a side by side comparison of the old and new 50mm with intricate backgrounds so the differences could be shown.
It's amazing how Olympus manages to survive.