tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 3838, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Kabalyero: This just gave me a hard-on...and I'm a Canon guy...

I'm sure it measures a full 105mm.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

Ran Plett: I can barely nail focus at f2. That being said, I really want to see some good samples from this beast. I wonder if this is Nikon's answer to Canon's 85L. Should render similar results wide open.

Only from the same shooting distance, which would mean tighter framing. That's not a typical comparison.

With the same framing, the 85L has narrower DOF, but the 105mm f1.4 has about 6% larger blur circles. Will you be able to tell? I really doubt it.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:50 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: If you actually shoot this lens at F1.4 your background will be all out of focus ... and so will your subject's collar, shoulders, nose, ears, left eye, mouth and 97% of their hair. Don't say I didn't warn you.

It's about perfect for a full body portrait from a distance. From 20 feet away, you'll be able to fit a standing person and you will have about 1 foot of DOF.

You shouldn't be shooting headshots at f1.4 with any lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Wake me up when some company delivers a set of lenses all at f/4: 24/4, 35/4, 50/4, 75/4, 105/4, all bijou and petite, optically brilliant, distortion free, excellent 3D rendering, and razor sharp. That will be the day when digital photography may celebrate real accomplishment and we clap that someone started using brains and delivered fully on digital promise.

Uhh, Triplet? Pretty creepy man.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:43 UTC
In reply to:

jmfoots: Oh. Oh god.
What is this.

I retract my request for a 135/2 remake.

Although, from the purely bokeh perspective, using the dofmaster depth of field calculator, it looks like the 105/1.4 will get minimum 0.27 inches of depth of field at MFD, whereas the 135/2D gets roundabout 0.36 inches? (Someone please check behind me here)

Obviously, sharpness + better light-gathering are the other big gains, but will such a gain on bokeh really matter?

Bokeh is not DOF.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:42 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: I think there's been some stupid "sexual" contest between Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Fuji and Canon lately, who is going to make the biggest, 'fastest', fattest, most ridiculously impractical lens to use outside studios, to defy every single sane promise about the digital photography and sensor development.
I think Sony is the culprit, they are driving this craziness of enormity, juvenescent obsessions with "size and girth", as they had a long history of disruption of any market they touch, depriving it from sanity and bewitching it to become virtually inane.

Because Canon made a lot more super fast lenses and they have an easy to use lens archive site. Most of those you mentioned are pretty slow (even if relatively fast for their focal length). I actually don't care as I don't shoot Canon or Nikon anymore.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:30 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: I think there's been some stupid "sexual" contest between Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Fuji and Canon lately, who is going to make the biggest, 'fastest', fattest, most ridiculously impractical lens to use outside studios, to defy every single sane promise about the digital photography and sensor development.
I think Sony is the culprit, they are driving this craziness of enormity, juvenescent obsessions with "size and girth", as they had a long history of disruption of any market they touch, depriving it from sanity and bewitching it to become virtually inane.

Canon built a 58mm f1.2 in 1964, dude. That's 52 years ago.
They built an 85mm f1.2 in 1976. That's 40 years.
Their first 200mm f1.8 came out in 1989. So did the 50mm f1.0! That's 27 years ago.

But yes, let's blame Sony for the "fast lens craze".

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 06:14 UTC
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: At that price why would anyone buy this instead of the 85mm 1.4? Crop the 85mm to 105mm and you have equiv. f-stop of 1.7. Less than one third stop diff in DOF. With the current crop of high mp cams, a small crop like this would be nothing. The 85mm would be more flexible and with pretty much the same size and weight.

You might as well ask why anyone buys the 85mm f1.4 over the 85mm f1.8.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

Marksphoto: When canon version surfaces up please alert me, I will start saving today.

Like anyone is going to be able to tell the difference between shots with this and shots from the 85L. Canon's had this class of lens for a long time.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:25 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Excuse me? 100 million Nikkors and Nikon releases a 10*5* mm lens?

Opportunity ... lost!

Maybe they plan on selling 5,000,000 of these? :)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:24 UTC

Pricing out of reach for many, but the 85mm f1.4 is already $1600. It's not like it was going to be cheap.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:23 UTC as 109th comment
In reply to:

ceremus: Good lord. That'll have a shallower DoF than the Canonball 85 1.2

He probably means BG blur, and the 105mm f1.4 should have blur discs that are about 6% larger with same framing. Not exactly noticeable unless you have out your ruler tool in photoshop.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: I hope Sony is paying attention.

If you are on Sony E, just use a Canon 135L with an AF speedbooster and you get 95mm f1.4.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

tsk1979: No 3.5mm jack? Do not want. I think only the consumers can put an end to this stupidity by refusing to buy these crippled things, and buy a proper phone instead? What next? No Dialer, buy our 1.99$ dialer package.

I have bluetooth earbuds, though.... :)

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

Joel Benford: What is the focal length?

I am a bit sad that they are trending wider and wider. Some of the recent ones are even 26mm. Since they can all do a nice panorama in camera if I need wide, I'd rather have closer to 35mm so I can take more pleasing people snapshots.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marksphoto: when i saw 2 cameras, I got super excited, I thought... finally I will be able to shoot 3d..

I was so wrong :( Nothing special about this phone other than a gimmicky idea

My 2011 HTC Evo shot 3D.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: A phone is a phone; a camera is a camera. A cameraphone is like having a frying pan that'll cut your hair.
I see all the happy boys and girls marching about staring at their screens and do feel a certain pain at the triviality of it all- facebook, twitter and whatever else there is out there. Of course, on the plus side, you have all helped to make the people who made you think you really, really wanted to catch a Pokemon or tweet the weather in Bournemouth to your Mum and Dad on holiday in Australia, you have helped to make them among the richest people in the world! So, it's not all bad.

I bet you are really mad that they put a television into your typewriter.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article All about control: Huawei P9 camera review (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: A phone is a phone; a camera is a camera. A cameraphone is like having a frying pan that'll cut your hair.
I see all the happy boys and girls marching about staring at their screens and do feel a certain pain at the triviality of it all- facebook, twitter and whatever else there is out there. Of course, on the plus side, you have all helped to make the people who made you think you really, really wanted to catch a Pokemon or tweet the weather in Bournemouth to your Mum and Dad on holiday in Australia, you have helped to make them among the richest people in the world! So, it's not all bad.

We get it. You are really old.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 21:37 UTC
On article Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: While this looks like a great option, I'm a bit baffled on the 28mm focal length. First, because it's just REALLY wide for a macro and forces extremely close working range. And second because this is only the second prime in EF-M mount and the other one is a 22mm. So this provides zero utility as a non-macro for most EOS M shooters. If it was a 55-60mm macro, it could double as a portrait lens and make a nice pair for the 22mm in a 2-prime kit. But who wants to carry a 22-28 pair of primes?

Still, the light idea is pretty cool.

Even if I can agree that 45mm equiv could be interesting in the right hands, I still think it is odd to branch out to "interesting" lenses when your lens lineup is so small.

And if it was a 55mm equivalent, then at least that would be some half decent separation from the 22mm f2 (@35mm equiv). As is, having only 2 primes in the system at 35 and 45 equiv isn't really giving you a broad range of capabilities.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 02:36 UTC
On article Getting up close: Canon EF-M 28mm macro hands-on review (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Hully: "All the trump cards held by the Micro-Nikkor fold when other features of the EF-M 28mm Macro are brought in to consideration, though. First, even though it is a wider FOV lens, its nearest focus distance is 3.7", nearly 3" closer than the Micro-Nikkor. Even taking the slightly longer field of view of the Micro-Nikkor in to account, the Canon is able to achieve a 1:1.2 reproduction ratio in "Super Macro" mode over the Nikkor's 1:1."

I have this lens and the difference between 1:1 and 1:1.2 is not that great and certainly not worth being 3" closer if comparing it to the NIkkor. On specs alone, the Nikkor is a better macro. Having the lights is definitely a plus for focusing but they are not powerful enough to make much of a difference if your subject is beyond 1:2 or you are using a narrow aperture.

I like this lens, an all-purpose one with a semi-wide field of view combined with decent macro options.

I don't get why the NIkkor was even mentioned. It's not a mirrorless lens and it's not even really a competitor. I would think the Sony 30mm macro or Panasonic 30mm macro would be the closest peers.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 23:44 UTC
Total: 3838, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »