Giving the stagehands their due...

Scooter

Senior Member
Messages
2,515
Reaction score
10
Location
Western, NC, US
I liked these two shots and I'm digging this 35 1.4 L with the Mark II big time. I see the dif with the "L" lenses. This thing is big, heavy and cumbersome but I love it.

This is a young lady standing in for the normal spotlight operator studying her cues. She's normally onstage but she wanted to be there for us. I love the story the pic tells:



This guy is a traditional stagehand... he's a computer whiz. The little yellowish box on his right is his control for the moving stage (slipstage) on which all of our sets move but since the big musical number is going on, he's got time to futz with his new laptop. :-)



yer pal™,
Scooter
 
I really like shots like this, Scooter. They have backstory and prompt questions. The shot of the girl in the crows nest is really good (although a nudge out of focus and maybe 1/3 stop too hot). There's a good, intricate mix of highlights and shadows. It takes a second to spot the girl amidst all of the lighting gear.

The second shot of the backstage crew is good, too. The fellow's face glows nicely from his laptop screen. It would have been excellent if there had been just a bit of bounce to catch a glimpse of the second fellow's face. But I like the soft, blue pools of reflected light from the wall fixtures. They give the shot a bit of mood.

Nice! Thanks very much for sharing them with us all.
 
That 35mm F1.4 looks to be giving you good service, my 24mm F1.4 is a little wide. For the closer in's I've been astonished with the performance of the 85mm F1.2, have you tried it?
 
And it's sharp as a tack. I really love it. For my uses, the 50 1.4 and now the 35 1.4 are total must haves for my theatre uses. I have to say, thusfar, my first experience with L glass has been pretty dreamy. It's an amazing lens.

I got into a discussion on the lens board and one guy insisted that a "faster" lens was the same as a slower lens at, say, 5.6. That's baloney. This 35 1.4 at 5.6 is much faster at every apperture than, say, a 2.8 prime lens. I have a HUGE shoot tonight. I'll share some images when I get them converted and the 35mm will be the primary lens for this shoot of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

yer pal™,
Scooter
That 35mm F1.4 looks to be giving you good service, my 24mm F1.4 is
a little wide. For the closer in's I've been astonished with the
performance of the 85mm F1.2, have you tried it?
 
And it's sharp as a tack. I really love it. For my uses, the 50
1.4 and now the 35 1.4 are total must haves for my theatre uses. I
have to say, thusfar, my first experience with L glass has been
pretty dreamy. It's an amazing lens.
I have a HUGE shoot tonight. I'll
share some images when I get them converted and the 35mm will be
the primary lens for this shoot of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

yer pal™,
Scooter
I have always found it very difficult to catch the Stage hands. Nice work.

I recall you being very happy using your new 1D and your posts of "Singing in the Rain". Sure would like to see a summary of your experiences with your equipment to this point. What has been the best equipment improvement for you? Perhaps when you have some free time?
Thanks Steve
Retired, and always in the pursuit of happiness.
http://homepage.mac.com/sbrowns1
http://www.pbase.com/stevebrown
 
And it's sharp as a tack. I really love it. For my uses, the 50
1.4 and now the 35 1.4 are total must haves for my theatre uses. I
have to say, thusfar, my first experience with L glass has been
pretty dreamy. It's an amazing lens.

I got into a discussion on the lens board and one guy insisted that
a "faster" lens was the same as a slower lens at, say, 5.6. That's
baloney. This 35 1.4 at 5.6 is much faster at every apperture
than, say, a 2.8 prime lens. I have a HUGE shoot tonight. I'll
share some images when I get them converted and the 35mm will be
the primary lens for this shoot of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
Yeah, the camera focuses at wide open then shuts down to your Av setting for the shot, there fore the faster lens will focus faster, and more accurately, no mater what aperture its set at.

I asked about you 85mm lens as the F1.2 is not only the fastest Canon lens, but perhaps the sharpest. Any one into low light ambient photography as much as you would love it. Your 85mm 1.8 is two stops faster than a 2.8 prime, and the 85mm 1.2 is two stops faster than your 1.8. That being said, it is slow Mechanically but works very well for theater. If you ever get a chance, give one a try.

Keep the post coming, we all enjoy them…

BCC
 
I've never used a lens that fast. I'll bet it's awesome. It's pretty big too, isn't it? I'd love to give it a try!!!

When I sell this screenplay I'm writing, I'm going on a major lens shopping spree... but I'd best focus on upcoming baby right now! :-)

I'm in the show I'm shooting but tonight's shots are primarily shots that I've chosen, parts of the show that don't include me. If they do include me, I'll set them up and do the timer thing. I'm psyched but also know we're in for a late night because there will be gobs of set and costume changes and this coming after a two performance day! I hope everyone keeps their patience... but we are rewarding the cast and crew with a big party next week. I'll post some shots as soon as I can. :-)

yer pal™,
Scooter
And it's sharp as a tack. I really love it. For my uses, the 50
1.4 and now the 35 1.4 are total must haves for my theatre uses. I
have to say, thusfar, my first experience with L glass has been
pretty dreamy. It's an amazing lens.

I got into a discussion on the lens board and one guy insisted that
a "faster" lens was the same as a slower lens at, say, 5.6. That's
baloney. This 35 1.4 at 5.6 is much faster at every apperture
than, say, a 2.8 prime lens. I have a HUGE shoot tonight. I'll
share some images when I get them converted and the 35mm will be
the primary lens for this shoot of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
Yeah, the camera focuses at wide open then shuts down to your Av
setting for the shot, there fore the faster lens will focus faster,
and more accurately, no mater what aperture its set at.

I asked about you 85mm lens as the F1.2 is not only the fastest
Canon lens, but perhaps the sharpest. Any one into low light
ambient photography as much as you would love it. Your 85mm 1.8 is
two stops faster than a 2.8 prime, and the 85mm 1.2 is two stops
faster than your 1.8. That being said, it is slow Mechanically but
works very well for theater. If you ever get a chance, give one a
try.

Keep the post coming, we all enjoy them…

BCC
 
OK, maybe I'm missing something here. My understanding was that 1 stop increase = current aperture / 1.414. Why 1.414? Because it's the square root of 2. The f stop is a measurement of the radius of the aperture and area of a circle is pi X radius squared. Sooooo, if the radius decreases by a factor of 1.414 then you have half the light. All this is just a way to say my understanding is that 1.2 is approximately 1 stop faster than 1.8 (1.2 X 1.414 = 1.7).

John Engstrom
Plano, TX
Your 85mm 1.8 is
two stops faster than a 2.8 prime, and the 85mm 1.2 is two stops
faster than your 1.8.
 
John, I'm not trying to be argumentive, so please have some patience while us lesser technical endowed, who are trying to sort through your post.
OK, maybe I'm missing something here. My understanding was that 1
stop increase = current aperture / 1.414. Why 1.414? Because it's
the square root of 2.
Ummm... where did the "2" come from? Again, please be patient, you're dealing with some one who thinks that a click on their lens equals an F stop.

. The f stop is a measurement of the radius of
the aperture and area of a circle is pi X radius squared.
I didn't know that the radius of the aperture was an constant, from lens to lens that is, could you define this a little further?
if the radius decreases by a factor of 1.414 then you have half the
light. All this is just a way to say my understanding is that 1.2
is approximately 1 stop faster than 1.8 (1.2 X 1.414 = 1.7).
Ok, than a F 1:1.4 lens is only a half stop faster? I didn't know Canon would manufacture so many lenses in half stops. The constep of "stops" is some what of a mystery to a lot of us, and any light you could shed would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
 
John, I'm not trying to be argumentive, so please have some
patience while us lesser technical endowed, who are trying to sort
through your post.
I didn't take your post as argumentative. In fact, I love explaining things and listening to explanations. Occasionally I get something wrong and I love it when I'm corrected because it furthers my understanding of how things work - something in me likes to learn. :-)
OK, maybe I'm missing something here. My understanding was that 1
stop increase = current aperture / 1.414. Why 1.414? Because it's
the square root of 2.
Ummm... where did the "2" come from? Again, please be patient,
you're dealing with some one who thinks that a click on their lens
equals an F stop.
OK, let me take a step back and see if I can make this make sense. Please don't take this as "talking down" to you - I just want to make sure we're all on the same page and if I cover something you already know I apologize.

If you halve the shutter speed, say from 1/30th of a second to 1/60th of a second the film (or sensor) only gets half of the light it was getting at 1/30th of a second. Half the light is a 1 stop decrease in light (or exposure). So, every halving of the light the film sees is a 1 stop decrease in exposure and every doubling of the light the film sees is a 1 stop increase in exposure. So what is a half stop increase? Well, it's half of a 1 stop increase. ;-) If we have two half stop increases we get a full stop increase so a shutter speed of 1/60 times 1.414 (first half stop increase) times 1.414 (second half stop increase) = 2/60 = 1/30. A half stop increase from 1/60 of a second is 1/42.433 of a second but in the world of cameras it's OK to round so we say that 1/45 is a half stop increase in shutter speed from 1/60 second.

Now, on to aperture. For all intents and purposes the aperture is a circular hole (it's not really perfectly circular but for our discussion it's close enough). The amount of light the aperture lets in is based on the area of the hole. The area of a circle is pi time the radius of the circle squared. If we double the radius of the circle we actually let in 4 times as much light - orignal radius squared (r^2) = 1/4 of doubled radius sqaured (2r^2 = 4 times r^2). So, once again the square root of two (1.414) helps us out. If we increase the radius of the aperture by 1.414 then we double the area of the hole and thus double the amount of light reaching the film (sensor): 1.414r^2 = 2 times r^2.

Now, on to the magic f numbers and what they mean. If we take a picture at 1/60 of a second and f8 then we get the same exposure regarless of the focal length of the lens used. If this weren't the case then it would be very hard for a camera or a human to meter because they would have to set their exposures differently depending on the lens they used. So, what is f8? Well, the f stop number is the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the aperture . Ever notice how the 200mm f2.8 lens is much bigger around then the 28mm f2.8? The longer the focal length the physically bigger the aperture has to be for an exquivalent f number. In the case of the 200mm f2.8 the aperture has to be 200/2.8 = 71.4mm while the 28mm f2.8 only needs an aperture 10mm in diameter. Now, packaging all the elements in a lens greatly increases it's size which is why the wide angle low f number lenses are still pretty big around but the apertures in them are actually significantly smaller.

So, as the diameter of the aperture decreases (is stopped down) the f stop number gets bigger. Lets suppose we decrease the diameter by a factor of 1.414. That means the f stop number increases by a factor of 1.414. When the diameter is decreased by a factor of 1.414 the radius of the aperture is also decreased by a factor of 1.414. Since we square the radius of the aperture to get the area (and hence the amount of light it lets through) we halve the light when we decrease the diameter/radius by a factor of 1.414.

OK, let's take a more practical look at it. Increasing the exposure by 1 stop doubles the amount of light. The f number is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter. The smaller the aperture the larger the number. 1 stop decreases are achieved by halving the area of the aperture which means multiplying the f number by 1.414. So, starting at f1 the full stop progression for an aperture is 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 (ok, actually 11.2 but remember we said it was OK to round here and there), 16, 22, 32, 44...

If you've made it this far I congratulate you!
. The f stop is a measurement of the radius of
the aperture and area of a circle is pi X radius squared.
I didn't know that the radius of the aperture was an constant, from
lens to lens that is, could you define this a little further?
Actually the aperature is a ratio of focal length to diameter of the aperture - that's why f2.8 is a different physical aperture size from lens to lens. The thing that's constant is how much light a lens allows through at a given f number.
if the radius decreases by a factor of 1.414 then you have half the
light. All this is just a way to say my understanding is that 1.2
is approximately 1 stop faster than 1.8 (1.2 X 1.414 = 1.7).
Ok, than a F 1:1.4 lens is only a half stop faster? I didn't know
Canon would manufacture so many lenses in half stops. The constep
of "stops" is some what of a mystery to a lot of us, and any light
you could shed would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
No, thank you. If you do manage to read my whole post please let me know if I wasn't clear on something.

John Engstrom
Plano, TX
 
John,

Thanks for taking the time to go into so much detail; I've printed your response for further reference.

With modern cameras one seldom has to think about such things, that is, until we really need to. When switching to all manual for difficult shots, and trying to dial in the exposure, a working knowledge of the relationship of F-stops and shutter speeds would be most valuable.

May I ask, if you don't mind, what is your background in regards to this subject?

Thanks,
BCC
 
I'm a software engineer who's been "into" photography for the last 15 years. I have a pretty good knowledge of physics coupled with a desire to understand how things work. I guess I just read a lot about cameras and have spent a lot of time thinking about how they work. :-)

John Engstrom
Plano, TX
May I ask, if you don't mind, what is your background in regards to
this subject?

Thanks,
BCC
 
I got into a discussion on the lens board and one guy insisted that
a "faster" lens was the same as a slower lens at, say, 5.6. That's
baloney. This 35 1.4 at 5.6 is much faster at every apperture
than, say, a 2.8 prime lens.
I'm sorry but he's right and you're wrong :-) 35/1.4 is faster than say a 35/2 only because it's able to open up its aperture to 1.4 while the 35/2's max aperture size is f/2. Otherwise, if you set the the 35/1.4 to f/2, f/2.8 and so on...the shutter speed should be the same as 35/2 given that the other variables are the same. Do a controlled test to prove this.
 
I've tried it a couple of times. Maybe I'm dreaming but...

I didn't save anything in my test but when I took a crappy zoom lens (28 - 80 or whatever that old thing I have that came with my old Elan II) at 35mm f5.6 the exposure was something like 1/125th of a sec. The 1.4 L on the same shot was 1/250th of a second (at 5.6).

I'll try it again but
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top