But you have to use the lens not think about it......
Irrelevant theory. I've used it in the mountains for 8 years and none of this stuff matters an iota.
What brand are you talking about with a 70-200? What are the sales of that brand of camera? I think you are trying to cover your tracks to present your theory.
The question here is why a lens like the very metal-heavy 70-200 L is more popular than the 35-100.
I wouldn't use the 35-100 as a hammer, but as a camera lens it is just fine, in fact, it is one of several of my lenses that are excellent. and it weighs just 357 G, mine is 330g.
I've read this twice now, but are people throwing blurred layers on things and getting satisfactory results? Everything I've seen from software looks really artificial. Or are you referring to other post processing techniques?
I have the 35-100 kit, the 40-150 R “plastic fantastic”, and the 40-150/2.8. All have their place. Adding the 35-100/2.8 would be overkill. It was a serious option, but the 40-150/2.8 won out. I thought it would be too heavy, but holding used copies of the 35-100 and 40-150 f2.8s persuaded me. The Olympus is optimised at 150mm and frankly a bit weaker at 40mm, just as the 12-40/2.8 is optimised at 12mm. The Panasonic is optimised at 35mm.
this is partly the reason for myself as I own(ed) both. Sold the 40-150 after getting the 12-100. The other part is that both of these lenses can focus closed than the 35-100 making it a better closeup lens. Jordan and Chris did a video comparison of the 35-100 vs 40-150 when they worked at the Camera Store - see videoI think it's because the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 and Olympus 12-100 f/4 exist.Hello
As a newbie M4/3 user and longtime Canon user.. surprised to see that the 35-100 f/2.8 not as popular as the 70/200 on FF..
Is this because Panasonic is these days not too clear on FF vs M4/3.. and that Olympus does not have this focal range zoom..
Or is this because 35-100 f/2.8 is not providing enough subject separation and people prefer the much smaller 35-100 f/4 - f/5.6 supplemented by a fast prime ?!!
Tempted by a very good condition 35-100 f/2.8 Mk ii at a very good price .. Talk me out of it as I am seriously considering it..
Thx
Gaul
PC, ON1 - AI subject recogntion (mask concealing the object) mingled with gradual/reflected gradual option for blurring the rest of scene. Fully adjustable + controllable hi-end lensblur.
I'm not sure anyone has established the 35-100 is unpopular. At least relative to the number of m43 cameras sold.
DoF is a reason for some, but I think low light is a more common reason. And I expect far more 5.6 lenses are sold than 2.8.
Wedding and event photographers are often working in low light where they need all the advantage they can get. So yes, 5.6 doesn't cut it, but more for low light capabilities than shallow depth of field.
It is not complicated, AI masking for background (not the dog) fully controllable as for distance, gradient disappearing, DOF start/stop, optical quality, aperture sides, curvature, blooming etc. ON1 - roughly 30 secs incl. denoising and sharpening.
Interesting. Hard for me to tell due to viewing on my phone, but it looks like a really abrupt transition.It is not complicated, AI masking for background (not the dog) fully controllable as for distance, gradient disappearing, DOF start/stop, optical quality, aperture sides, curvature, blooming etc. ON1 - roughly 30 secs incl. denoising and sharpening.
--
Vlad
Both images are blurred with nothing sharp. Look at the image resolution.Interesting. Hard for me to tell due to viewing on my phone, but it looks like a really abrupt transition.It is not complicated, AI masking for background (not the dog) fully controllable as for distance, gradient disappearing, DOF start/stop, optical quality, aperture sides, curvature, blooming etc. ON1 - roughly 30 secs incl. denoising and sharpening.
Andrew - depends on preferences - your #1 is easy - it is flat foreground and flat background, nothing in-between. All that matter is how much do you want the background to be blurred - this can be easily be defined in POST.Both images are blurred with nothing sharp. Look at the image resolution.
I prefer DoF control by lenses.
The key is focus fall off, not pasting a sharp cutout on a blurred background.
Andrew
Looking at the EXIFs, you had a fair bit of DoF control already. I can see you got more by processing. The overall effect is both impressive and weird.Andrew - depends on preferences - your #1 is easy - it is flat foreground and flat background, nothing in-between. All that matter is how much do you want the background to be blurred - this can be easily be defined in POST.Both images are blurred with nothing sharp. Look at the image resolution.
I prefer DoF control by lenses.
The key is focus fall off, not pasting a sharp cutout on a blurred background.
Andrew
#3/4 - have nice fluent gradual blur, but would much prefer smoother blurring in highlights, less of harshness. However what the lens gives is what you get.
Finally when talking about Main object blurred differently than background blur. Again it is not a particular problem - just one step more. Nevertheless forget about cheapo cut-out and past solutions. Everything must be blended seamlessly.
Here again examples in higher resolution:
I am not talking of replacing Optical DOF with POSTblur technique. Just saying - it is doable (no comparison to phones) and sometimes inevitable with lenses aka O 40-150/2,8 if you do not want to leave the shot half-baked - i.e. prefectly sharp with nervous background.
The trouble is that I won't last forever. :-(
I do buy lenses though, but seemingly more from Panasonic.
but does it also blur everything non-subject to the sides of and at the same distance as the subject ?
Yes, the retreat has been to the high end, less sales, bigger $$$, more profit per unit. The high end is more likely to also buy high end lenses, where the real money seems to be.
Ick, clunky design compared to the smooth and neat E-P5.
I successfully ignore the EVF on my Sony RX100M6, only popped it up a few times during the warranty period to see if still working. Stays down permanently since then.
