SeeRoy: These are daft focal lengths for MFT application since they more or less duplicate existing, reasonably priced equivalents (in many cases faster) from other brands - notably Olympus and Panasonic themselves.Why "deceptively pleasing"? Are they in reality repulsive? Do explain.
Bhima, get help.
Oh, I see now. At 50mm the woman's face is horribly distorted! Oh wait... that's not distortion. Her face is really like that. She's a bit on the ugly side, isn't she?On the other hand, the telephotos do a great job bringing the backstage to the fore. Yeah, I'd say 50mm is terrible for portraits.Next time you feel like commenting, just count to 10 and don't. You brought nothing useful to an useless argument. What was the point?
The second picture you link to can hardly be qualified as a 'portrait', except for the car... and the first one was taken several metres away from the subject. I fail to see what you were trying to prove with these links. You've gone way off the mark. All I said was that the Sigmas didn't correlate to the classic wide, normal and telephoto focal lengths when used on m4/3 cameras. What was so offensive about that? Why did everyone trip over and get defensive? Jeez...
I don't know why portraiture was brought to the argument. It's not the only kind of photography that exists, you know. You can get closer to a car, a lighthouse or whatever you want to photograph.The kind of deformation you mention is more a matter of perspective than of distortion caused by the lens properties. And you'd be unwise if you thought telephoto lenses don't produce distortion: they do. Of the 'pincushion' kind, which can make a face longer and thinner than it actually is. Besides, when you use a normal (or standard) lens in a portrait, you can include background details that help provide some context to the picture. Of course, if you like the Karsh or Jane Bown style of portraiture, you'll want to isolate a face from all its surroundings. In that case you'll be better off using an 85mm lens. (I'd advise against longer lenses for portraits, unless you're going to photograph fat people and want to flatter them...)
No, standard lenses don't have any distortion. You must have some crappy lenses if you get distortion from a 50mm lens. This argument is getting ridiculous. I'm debating with people who know nothing about photography but "dig" gear. Sheesh!
Mr. Anderson, I assume you are disabled and/or have no legs. Want a less 'roomy' view? Get closer to the subject! It's that easy. 'Thinking inside the box' is better than not thinking at all.Marty, no one seems to understand that. It's OK. A bloke who uses zooms has some weird theories about focal lengths... glad this is a broad church.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. The equivalent focal lengths are neither fish nor fowl. 38mm is too wide for standard, too long for wide-angle; 60mm is too long for standard; 120mm is too long for a portrait lens and too short for typical long telephoto applications. It's clear these lenses were designed for APS-C, where they replicate the classic wide, standard and telephoto focal lengths.
Altruisto: Technically ok but no "vision" , no "personal touch". Though everything has been already photographed , there's "uniqueness" in the true artistic photos that convey the photograph universe. I'm sorry to say that there's no such a thing in these photos. They look like technical photos in "gear review websites". Oh, Goodness!With all the good amateur photographers revolving around Dpreview, why choosing this one, and why no series of photos instead of this constellation of different takes?
Prixnobeldefoot, that's true but if you only get praise for your pictures, it will become difficult for you to find out where your weaknesses are. You'll incur the same mistakes over and over again because you'll think that's fine. Criticism should thus be welcome. I understand Steve Badger is quite new to photography, and we know how easy it is to get carried away by technique when we're beginners. He will understand the pictures showcased are all about forn and lack emotional content (save for #7); he will work to get that area covered. If so he could become a very fine photographer. There's nothing inherently wrong about using technique: Ernst Haas was technically minded and that didn't stop him from achieving greatness.
I agree with Altruisto. Marvellous landscapes almost reaching technical perfection... what's new about it? There are zillions of pictures like these ones out there! Where's the will to convey something new, or to express a personal viewpoint? It's fair to except picture #7, though: that picture says something about life and stimulates imagination (to a certain degree at least).Oh, by the way - horizon in #4 is unlevelled.
Digitall: Something that torments me and wonder why that NASA does not keep these objects to the museum itself, or has more units?Or is in need of money to fund projects?:)
Neither. They just wanted to have fun reading our comments.
Hugo808: What's the EQV focal length on micro 4/3s?
No, Vermeero, that's in absolute terms. With micro 4/3 you multiply everything by x2: focal length, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, battery life, price, silliness of comments. Only bokeh is divided by :2. I have an Olympus E-P1 and found its neck strap to be twice as strong as the one bundled with the Canon 5D.
You're welcome ;)
And let's not forget it will be equivalent to an f/16 lens on a micro 4/3 camera. But then again the prodigious IBIS in the latest Olympus cameras might allow you to shoot it hand-held.Hopefully Mentalbones is already working on a Speedbooster for this.
Interesting pictures but lacking artistic content. The world needs a new W. Eugene Smith.
Rodger, I know you from the always fascinating comment columns of 'The Online Photographer'. I had the chance to take a look at your pictures previously. They're great. Congrats. Hope there are many more to come.
And I thought my poor old Zuiko OM 28mm-f/3.5 had too much barrel distortion...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.
Astrotripper: "It's pretty clear that the only person here suffering from bokeh mania is you."Sorry to say it so plainly, but you've crushed the end-stops of stupidity.
"Sorry if you have a limited imagination..." This from someone whose only interest is gear. Oh well.
...Because all of you would use this lens for astrophotography, right? Oh, those stars with creamy bokeh... Spare me!
I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.