Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

Started Dec 4, 2012 | Discussions
Le Kilt Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Useless!

Schwany wrote:

Philippe R wrote:

WOW Hammer !!!

at last someone with real humor !!!

There's a lot more where that came from.

I'm sorry, but a hammer with a handle that's not tack-sharp is 'point'-less.

Quickie high ISO shot of said Wow Hammer.

 Le Kilt's gear list:Le Kilt's gear list
Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM
Schwany
Schwany Forum Pro • Posts: 10,129
I just couldn't do it

Le Kilt wrote:

Schwany wrote:

Philippe R wrote:

WOW Hammer !!!

at last someone with real humor !!!

There's a lot more where that came from.

I'm sorry, but a hammer with a handle that's not tack-sharp is 'point'-less.

Not only pointless, but distorted.

I couldn't bring myself to make it sharp anywhere.

By the way, you don't have to read anything I post. I seldom have a point to drive home.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM +14 more
Le Kilt Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Again, someone missing the point. Now fortunately...

barriejb wrote:

Many years ago, at the time of the first US Gulf war, I saw a photo on the cover of Time Magazine (or maybe it was Newsweek). It was of a young widow at the funeral of her dead (marine?) husband. She had a look of utter resolve and determination on her face as her hands rested on her knees clutching the hands of her two young children. Although I am not an American, this image has seared itself into a little corner of my brain where it replays quite frequently like I am holding that magazine in front of me.

The lens the photographer used is irrelevant because it is not the lens that made this a wow image, as most photographers here know very well.

But, to try to give some idea of what lens might get an image that sells (and therefore presumably has something of a wow factor in it), take a look at the focal lengths most used at Reuters. This is not an accident:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

People with great skill and great equipment bring us those Wow photos from time to time.

Fortunately, people with great skill and any old equipment bring us those Wow photos from time to time too.

Fortunately, people with great luck and any old equipment bring us those Wow photos from time to time too (well, occasionally!).

This thread is about getting Wow shots where you think the lens helped you get it.

My first two would be the 16-35mm f/2.8L II at around 16mm for the great perspectives you can get, and the 85mm f/1.2L II for the smooth moody bokeh.  A few other lenses can give similar results, but the photographer cannot compensate with "any old lens".

The recent 24mm f/2.8 IS is going to be a good contender for great perspective Wow shots thanks to its close-focusing ability (but the photographer will have to go and get those shots, of course).  The new 24-70 f/2.8L II gives fabulous bokeh in some conditions.

P.S. My first digital Wow shot?  Erm, well, yes, taken with a Minolta 4 mega-pixel compact P&S.
My latest Wow shots?  Close portraits taken with the 85mm f/1.2L II.
My most Wow shots?  Landscapes and seascapes taken with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.

And I haven't even started on tele-photo lenses...

Yeah, as usual with photography, it's a mixture of science and art where there's often more than one correct answer! 

 Le Kilt's gear list:Le Kilt's gear list
Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM
Le Kilt Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

Arkon wrote:

Canon EF 28 mm f2.8 USM IS

Agreed, like the 24mm version, great potential due to its close focusing ability

 Le Kilt's gear list:Le Kilt's gear list
Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM
Le Kilt Senior Member • Posts: 2,487
Re: I just couldn't do it

Schwany wrote:

Le Kilt wrote:

Schwany wrote:

Philippe R wrote:

WOW Hammer !!!:-P

at last someone with real humor !!!

There's a lot more where that came from.

I'm sorry, but a hammer with a handle that's not tack-sharp is 'point'-less.

Not only pointless, but distorted.

I couldn't bring myself to make it sharp anywhere.

By the way, you don't have to read anything I post. I seldom have a point to drive home.

Ok, ok, you nailed that.

I promise I won't feel obliged to read anything you post, but I may read it anyway... 

 Le Kilt's gear list:Le Kilt's gear list
Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM
guitarist
guitarist Senior Member • Posts: 2,725
Re: Again, someone missing the point. Now fortunately...

WOW (pun intended)

this is such a good point

"...The recent 24mm f/2.8 IS is going to be a good contender for great perspective Wow shots thanks to its close-focusing ability (but the photographer will have to go and get those shots, of course). ..."

ability to get close and squeeze out something that that lens 's unique design ...enabled...  IF you go for it and find it...

...that was so right-on ... IMO

the first surprise I discovered on my 10-22 (same -ish  as the 16-35)

was that I could get 8" from a flower and...include a 40 story building...

my 50 1.8 II would not help me much there...

anyway

you made such a good point ...along with some other good explanation

all these comments made me think too....

TOM

guitarist
guitarist Senior Member • Posts: 2,725
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

beautiful....both.. really

thanks

I suppose I will get HAVE the 24-70 II ..... so darn sharp @ 24 ...such nice colors

a handy range

but

the zeiss distagon 21 is making me CRAZY...

I wish I had not looked...of course the beach shot is helping...

what a time we are having with these beautiful optics

.. and how they allow us to do so much more.

I am wondering what the Samyang 24 TSE lens will be like...

I really should pay more attention to my guitar.....

well it is winter..

Press Correspondent
Press Correspondent Veteran Member • Posts: 3,345
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

gdanmitchell wrote:

Bassman2003 wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

Bassman2003 wrote:

The OP is probably aware that photographers make photos etc... There are lenses that just make you go "Wow" looking at images. As much as some folks want to deny it, there is a reason why some lenses cost more. If I am going to attempt to represent professional quality, I want to be using one of those lenses. I want the equipment to match the effort.

No, that is where I fundamentally have to disagree with you. Lenses can be good, bad, or indifferent, but I have never seen a photograph where the lens made me say wow. I've seen lots of photographs, made with an incredible range of photographic equipment that did make me say wow or something similar, including work done with just about every kind of camera gear imaginable.

I'm not suggesting that decent gear is unimportant nor that all gear works the same - not that there are not reasons for price differences among lenses. What I am saying - emphatically - that you cannot create a wow effect (whatever that is) in a photograph by choosing to use some particular lens - any more that you can elicit a wow response to your cooking by using really, really cool cookware - or that you'll get a wow response to your skiing by using the world's most expensive skis.

If you aspire to eliciting a wow from your viewers and you are hoping to get their by choosing some particular lens, you are on the wrong track entirely.

For the record, I own good lenses, some of which might even make it onto the lists of so-called wow lenses. But I don't view them that way at all. They are appropriate tools for the photography I do and that is all.

Dan

No worries but I think you are arguing a point that nobody is disputing here. As just posted, the term WOW has hit a sensitive button. The age old equipment vs talent battle has shown up even when it is not needed.

The point of this thread is if you took the same photograph or scene with different lenses, which ones would make you go "wow" with the captured image? Simple concept and nothing to do with photographers.

And the answer is that no particular lens will make anyone say "wow" when they look at a photograph.

You Sir misunderstood the question and went great length to defend a position irrelevant to this thread. You just need to update the limited definition of "wow" in your aging dictionary with more flexible meanings. The question essentially was, "What are your favorite lenses?" Perhaps you like some more than others. Let's hear which.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +11 more
gdanmitchell
gdanmitchell Veteran Member • Posts: 7,730
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))
2

Press Correspondent wrote:

You Sir misunderstood the question and went great length to defend a position irrelevant to this thread. You just need to update the limited definition of "wow" in your aging dictionary with more flexible meanings. The question essentially was, "What are your favorite lenses?" Perhaps you like some more than others. Let's hear which.

I just re-read the original post after reading your claim that I "misunderstood the question." Actually, I understood it exactly and I responded to the "wow" lens question that was asked.

An excerpt, since the whole thing is readily available and quite long:

"Philippe R wrote:

... have read a post on someone looking for a lens that produces a "wow" factor.....

So let's have it, what do you consider a lens with a definite "wow" effect

Please specify the lens, the body it's used on, and of course your use..."

The question was not "essentially...'What are your favorite lenses?'" So, "you, sir, misunderstood the question," not me.

The whole notion of "wow" lenses, whether you know it or not, continues to induce eye-rolling and laughter among folks who do serious photography. (Yes, with a few exceptions.) I won't repeat my long previous post - which I hope you read and tried to understand - but the short story is that there are lenses of various quality levels, lenses are tools, there are no "wow" or "magic" lenses, photographers looking to produce "wow" and "magic" in their work by choosing the right lenses are barking up the wrong tree - sort of like a person interested in running marathons focusing obsessively on what brand of shoes to buy rather than on training.

If the question had been "what are your favorite lenses," I could easily have provided an answer. In fact, I have, at the web site that is listed in my signature file, where I often write about equipment and other subjects.

A funny story on the "wow" lens topic. Yesterday I was shooting with a couple of fellow photographers, doing wildlife and a bit of landscape-style work in California's Central Valley. One of my friends - I'll call him "Dave" - and I have an ongoing joke about "wow" lenses. He will write to me about his latest "wow" lens and give it full credit for some photographic success of his - a success that is obviously due to compositional skill, patience and perseverance, and a good eye - and I'll write back and tell him that I, for example, made a pretty good photograph and really wish that I'd had a wow lens handy in order for it to fulfill its full potential. Our other friend - I'll call him "Michael" - sort of rolls his eyes and smiles. ("Michael" is a fairly well-known photographer. If you have visited Yosemite Valley you have probably seen his work and/or read one of his books, and you might have taken a workshop from him.)

It turns out that all three of us will have photographs in a small annual show in Yosemite Valley this February, the Yosemite Renaissance show that opens in a gallery in The Valley in late February. "Dave" knows the photograph of mine that will be in the show, and he had written one of his jokey notes, wondering whether or not I had used a "wow" lens to produce it. I actually couldn't remember what lens I had used, so at his suggestion I decided to check the EXIF file to remind myself. The first place I looked was an online version of the photograph that provides a minimal subset of EXIF data and I was momentarily horrified to find that it was shot with a "50mm" lens - my God, maybe the success was due to using a prime! (Though it would have been a distinctly non-wow-inducing 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens - a wonderful tool.) Distressed that I might have to admit that my photographic success was actually due to using a 50mm prime and not my vision or anything else, I found the original file where the full EXIF is available and was greatly relieved to find that this photograph, which seems to enjoy some degree of success, was actually created with the 24-105mm f/4 zoom. Now that is a fine, functional, and effective lens - but anyone who chases after the "wow lens" chimera knows full well how often it is dissed in forumtography discussions.

Relieved to find that the lens choice had essentially nothing to do with the success of this photograph - since it could have been made with several lenses I own - I wrote back to my friend to lament the terrible disappointment of knowing that the photograph that was selected for inclusion in the show could have been so much better if only I had used a "wow lens" with "3D effect" and "powerfully rendering" capability.

We all had a great laugh over this subject.

Dan

Mystery Gardener
Mystery Gardener Contributing Member • Posts: 838
Unique, unusual or difficult subject material...

Unique, unusual or difficult subject material is what often produces the 'Wow' factor for me (and I suspect quite a few others).

I like to fool around taking the odd macro shot with the Canon 180mm macro lens. When friends or relatives look at my photography efforts, it is usually the macro shots that get the 'Wow's (followed by 'I have never seen that' or 'I had no idea it looked that way').

Since I am wanting to go UWA, I have been recently looking at pics done with the Canon 17mm TS-E and I say 'Wow' quite often. Of course the subject material is key, the exotic places and buildings which I will probably only see in the their photos. Similar effects could be obtained using another lens.

Cheers

-- hide signature --

'The question is not what you look at, but what you see'
Thoreau

Denton Taylor Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

OK, so I am not the world's greatest photographer, and maybe I will never produce any images that make the world go 'wow'.

But lenses that make me go 'wow' when I sometimes look at my photos are:

85 1.2, for sure.

135 2.0

70-200 2.8

300 2.8

Other lenses from past systems:

Zeiss Distagon 21for Contax

Zuiko 90mm 2.0 macro

Nikkon 135 2.0DC

Leitz 35mm 2.0 ASPH

-- hide signature --

www.pbase.com/dentontay

 Denton Taylor's gear list:Denton Taylor's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8 Zeiss Loxia 35 Zeiss Loxia 50 +13 more
Press Correspondent
Press Correspondent Veteran Member • Posts: 3,345
Re: Lens with "wow" effect !! :-))

gdanmitchell wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

You Sir misunderstood the question and went great length to defend a position irrelevant to this thread. You just need to update the limited definition of "wow" in your aging dictionary with more flexible meanings. The question essentially was, "What are your favorite lenses?" Perhaps you like some more than others. Let's hear which.

I just re-read the original post after reading your claim that I "misunderstood the question." Actually, I understood it exactly and I responded to the "wow" lens question that was asked.

An excerpt, since the whole thing is readily available and quite long:

"Philippe R wrote:

... have read a post on someone looking for a lens that produces a "wow" factor.....

So let's have it, what do you consider a lens with a definite "wow" effect

Please specify the lens, the body it's used on, and of course your use..."

The question was not "essentially...'What are your favorite lenses?'" So, "you, sir, misunderstood the question," not me.

You also missed my explanation of why you misunderstood the question. It is because you have a certain definition of what you think "wow" means, but the OP meant something completely different. Please see his opinion on this matter:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50423703

I also wouldn't say that Canon 50/1.4 is not a "wow" lens once stopped down to f/5.6 or so.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +11 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,585
Ultra-Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f2

A lens made for industrial applications in the late 60's, with very limited possibilities (does not even  have a variable focus).

Michio Akiyama wrote about it:

"The most useful Ultra-Micro-Nikkor is 55mm F2 lens.
This lens is excellent very much. Yes, Super fine lens.
If you have this lens you become happy.

God of light lives in this lens.
Therefore, you will become a happy mood if you have this lens.
Two lenses cause the beautiful light in afternoon reflected.
It is not a real fantasy.
You can make the great legend with this lens.

Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 55mm F2.
The Superb Lens, Grand High End, Super Resolution is this.
Nippon Kogaku Dreaming, 55mm F2 of Ultra-Micro-Nikkor.

Yes, you can make it.
And you can have it.
If you want."

Trying to use it on APS-C, due to home made adapter at 1:2.5 magnification level, I must say I find the way it renders rather special, for 55mm.



Two images stitched

ZAnton Contributing Member • Posts: 592
For me it was 35L on a crop (350D)

after i bought FF, 35L become "just a lens". Considering it's price, quite bad one.

 ZAnton's gear list:ZAnton's gear list
Nikon D600 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon 85mm F1.8G Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD
Press Correspondent
Press Correspondent Veteran Member • Posts: 3,345
Re: For me it was 35L on a crop (350D)

ZAnton wrote:

after i bought FF, 35L become "just a lens". Considering it's price, quite bad one.

Why? You can still crop the FF. Are you saying, if you crop the image, you get the "wow" effect from the lens, but if you don't, the same lens in the same shot becomes "quite bad"?

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +11 more
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 6,418
Re: For me it was 35L on a crop (350D)

Press Correspondent wrote:

ZAnton wrote:

after i bought FF, 35L become "just a lens". Considering it's price, quite bad one.

Why? You can still crop the FF. Are you saying, if you crop the image, you get the "wow" effect from the lens, but if you don't, the same lens in the same shot becomes "quite bad"?

I'm also interested in the answer. I have the 35L and love it on my 7D. Are you saying that it becomes bad on FF, or is it a comparative thing? Perhaps you are saying that cheaper lenses perform really well on FF, so you can't justify the price of the 35L? Is it the corners of the 35L that are bad, according to you? If so, that would explain why you changed your view when switching to FF.

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +19 more
DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,489
I have this lens! How can I use it on my 5D3?
ZAnton Contributing Member • Posts: 592
Re: For me it was 35L on a crop (350D)

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

ZAnton wrote:

after i bought FF, 35L become "just a lens". Considering it's price, quite bad one.

Why? You can still crop the FF. Are you saying, if you crop the image, you get the "wow" effect from the lens, but if you don't, the same lens in the same shot becomes "quite bad"?

I'm also interested in the answer. I have the 35L and love it on my 7D. Are you saying that it becomes bad on FF, or is it a comparative thing? Perhaps you are saying that cheaper lenses perform really well on FF, so you can't justify the price of the 35L? Is it the corners of the 35L that are bad, according to you? If so, that would explain why you changed your view when switching to FF.

Yes, corners are very, very bad (I mean at f/1.4-2.0). Second - strong vignetting.

Third - field of view - too wide for portraits. There is no "wow"-effect. Not even close.

Probably widening of the angle make bokeh look less "creamy".

Of course you can crop, but that is not what you buy $1400 lens for.

Photozone.de had test it for both APS-C and FF. I totally agree with them.

Bottom line: if you already have this lens for 7D, you can use it on FF later, it just looses its "wow"-effect.

But buy it new for FF - better no.

 ZAnton's gear list:ZAnton's gear list
Nikon D600 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon 85mm F1.8G Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,585
This is how

It is a lovely lens, beautifully built with special optics... Crazy sharp in the center. An oddity, though.

I use mine on APS-C, I can not tell you what the corners are like on FF (but else a little cropping is not so hard).

You can use it in several ways. The lens is designed with a fixed focal length to produce 1:4 images, or 4:1 when reverse mounted. The designed flange 43mm, close to EF mount. It depends on the adapter thickness which magnification you get.

My homemade adapter is about 12mm thick, and gives about 1:2.5 magnification with this lens. On FF it seems to give some vignetting at the corners, but not to total black (tried on a cheap film body). I am not sure, but I think a less thick one may give some real vignetting.

You can get a thin one, which remains closer to the 1:4 design spec. They are available without focus confirmation chip:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/M39-Lens-to-Canon-EOS-1100D-600D-60D-550D-500D-5D-7D-Camera-EF-Mount-Adapter-/170880047679?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item27c93e9a3f

With focus confirmation chip and with advanced EMF chip which lets you set a focal length and a single aperture (for EXIF) and allow for front/backfocus adjustments. I think a normal one with focus confirmation is fine:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/lens-adapter-macro-EMF-AF-Confirm-Leica-M39-to-Canon-EOS-EF-Mount-For-40D-50D-7D-/390324858096?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item5ae12cacf0

Other options include an M42 to EF-mount adapter combined with a  thin helicoid, which will allow a short focussing path, enabling different magnification levels.

The thinnest I see are 12mm (to 17mm) m42/m42 ones, which then also need one M39 to M42 adapter ring, and a 13.5mm (to maybe 18mm, it does not say) m42 / m39 one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-TO-M39-L39-X13-5mm-Helicoid-Tube-/330815145567?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4d061e865f

You can also use the lens reverse mounted for macro stuff. I am not sure what the optimal distance of the lens to the sensor should be in that way. At least needed will be a reverse ring to attach to the 40.5mm thread, and then probably some bellows or helicoid of bigger dimensions.

Anyhow, here is a reverse ring from 40.5mm to 52mm as a start:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Macro-Coupler-Reverse-Ring-40-5mm-to-52mm-for-Nikon-1-Nikkor-J1-V1-/400305715384?pt=US_Filter_Rings_Holders&hash=item5d341478b8

And a pretty groovy reverse ring helicoid:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BPM-bellows-40-5mm-reverse-ring-lens-adapter-/370694312111?pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item564f1a50af

Good luck and have fun with that special, strange lens you have!

DFPanno
DFPanno Veteran Member • Posts: 5,489
Wow !

Thank you for such a detailed answer; very much appreciated.

I'll have to sit with a cup of coffee and read this thoroughly.

Which one, in your opinion, is the most "plug and play"?

Your post should be a "sticky" for m-n lens owners!

Thanks again Brightcolours !!!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads