45mm Mangoes

link gaetz wrote:

I'm curious as to why you took them at f/1.8. The depth of field looks too shallow in the first picture as only a few of the labels are in focus.

I really like the 45mm. It's pretty much as good as the 30, maybe even slightly better, and just as light. Too bad it's not as compact, and it would've been nice to have a reversible hood or OIS to compensate for the size (OIS would have made it perfect for indoor portraits). Oh well, can't complain too much for the price. At least the hood screws onto the 30mm too, though I'm not sure if it'll cause vignetting when wide open?

Yes, the dof is a little shallow and it has caused parts of the image to be out-of-focus. I just wanted to use the lens wide open and try to create a feeling of depth so they 'popped' a little.  (and probably a stack of other reasons like "he doesn't know what he's doing" etc   )

I think it's a little better than the 30 for out-of-focus areas but the 30 is a brilliant lens too.

The 45mm lens hood totally annoyed me! I still don't like it!  It's the only lens I own with a hood that doesn't stow reversed onto the lens.  It's also screw on/off rather than bayonet. Could they make it harder?

In the end I just leave it always attached to the lens and accept that lens plus hood represents the true length of the lens.  Not at all compact but very light.  I put up with that because I think this lens is worth it.  Think it cost me around $250 here in oz which has to be a bargain.

Didn't know it also fits the 30 but I am guessing you might be right about vignetting. I have a Pentax 31mm lens with a built-in hood and it's a little shorter as well as a petal design (cut away from 2 sides).

Thanks,

Paul