Lenses

[thebrothersthre3]

7 minutes ago, heart0less said:

My bad, I stand corrected.

I'll probably just pony up and and buy a metabones. Its probably more useful than this useless 4k monitor I just purchased for not much less ??

[kye]

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I want a good set of manual focus glass. Currently have a set of Minoltas; 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 135mm 2.8

I really want to get a speedbooster to make full use of them but my go to focal reducers Lens Turbo doesn't make one. That leaves me with Metabones, which is $400, unsure if its worth it.

I am debating selling it all and getting a Nikon 35mm 1.4, 105mm 2.5 or 85mm f2, plus a cheap lens turbo speedbooster. Than I'd have the option of using with or without the focal reducer to get different FOV. 50mm lenses are cheap but I don't really like the focal length. Its either too long or too short. 

This is definitely more of a passion move as for practical purposes super fast glass isn't very useful. Accurately focusing the 50mm 1.4 is difficult if not practically worthless for live events, unless the subject isn't moving. I was thinking about getting a 58mm 1.2, but imagine focusing that with a speedbooster lol. Buying glass is fun though. May just keep all my minolta glass and get the Nikon glass as well.

Be aware of focus ring direction on lenses.  IIRC Minolta and Nikon are opposites, so if you have any muscle memory then it won't like changing from one to the other!

5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I'll probably just pony up and and buy a metabones. Its probably more useful than this useless 4k monitor I just purchased for not much less ??

A 4K monitor is useful for having a 1:1 window of 1080p plug the tools of your NLE visible at the same time.  Just like how they were advertising 5K monitors as having 4K preview with a GUI also visible.

So if you want to justify your 4K monitor purchase then get shooting and then get editing!!

[kye]

Does anyone have any good links to articles or whatever talking about the artistic aspects of lenses?  

Like, how to look at images and understand the visual aspects that the lenses contribute.. I'm not talking about lenses 101 with the "the background blur is caused by aperture" or anything, I'm talking like if I sat down with a Hollywood cinematographer and asked them to explain what makes a great lens great and what to pay attention to and how you can tell when looking at the images.

I know I prefer a Zeiss or Angenieux to my kit lens, even when on the same settings, but if someone asked me what differences there really are I don't think I could say much beyond "it looks nicer".

If I can work out what I'm looking at and responding to then I can figure out what works for me and use my brain to evaluate options, instead of just using emotional reactions and having my impression of a lens also being influenced by how recently I ate, exercised, or if the kids are behaving nicely or not.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone have any good links to articles or whatever talking about the artistic aspects of lenses?  

Like, how to look at images and understand the visual aspects that the lenses contribute.. I'm not talking about lenses 101 with the "the background blur is caused by aperture" or anything, I'm talking like if I sat down with a Hollywood cinematographer and asked them to explain what makes a great lens great and what to pay attention to and how you can tell when looking at the images.

I know I prefer a Zeiss or Angenieux to my kit lens, even when on the same settings, but if someone asked me what differences there really are I don't think I could say much beyond "it looks nicer".

If I can work out what I'm looking at and responding to then I can figure out what works for me and use my brain to evaluate options, instead of just using emotional reactions and having my impression of a lens also being influenced by how recently I ate, exercised, or if the kids are behaving nicely or not.

I've heard people speak of certain lenses looking more 3D. I can't say I take much stock in it but I've heard it before. 

 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Be aware of focus ring direction on lenses.  IIRC Minolta and Nikon are opposites, so if you have any muscle memory then it won't like changing from one to the other!

A 4K monitor is useful for having a 1:1 window of 1080p plug the tools of your NLE visible at the same time.  Just like how they were advertising 5K monitors as having 4K preview with a GUI also visible.

So if you want to justify your 4K monitor purchase then get shooting and then get editing!!

Almost forgot Nikon focuses the other way. I am sure the 4k monitor is not useless but I haven't seen a noticeable difference in detail or color when editing. 

[kye]

14 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I've heard people speak of certain lenses looking more 3D. I can't say I take much stock in it but I've heard it before. 

I've heard that too, and seen it a bit in some lens comparisons but it was pretty subtle, at least to my eyes.

15 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Almost forgot Nikon focuses the other way. I am sure the 4k monitor is not useless but I haven't seen a noticeable difference in detail or color when editing. 

OMG keep quiet!!  If you say things like that people will realise that 4K isn't 4X better than 1080!  and then people would stop buying things, manufacturers would go under, and we'd be left with only one or two companies left.... and knowing our luck Canon would be one of them.  

So keep quiet..  even if not for yourself, think of the children!!

[thebrothersthre3]

3 minutes ago, kye said:

I've heard that too, and seen it a bit in some lens comparisons but it was pretty subtle, at least to my eyes.

OMG keep quiet!!  If you say things like that people will realise that 4K isn't 4X better than 1080!  and then people would stop buying things, manufacturers would go under, and we'd be left with only one or two companies left.... and knowing our luck Canon would be one of them.  

So keep quiet..  even if not for yourself, think of the children!!

? 4k footage looks sharper for sure! At least comparing 4k to HD on the same camera. However lets compare XT3 4k to high quality 1080p like on a C100 and see what the difference is. Why can't they market dynamic range instead or color depth! ?

[kye]

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

? 4k footage looks sharper for sure! At least comparing 4k to HD on the same camera. However lets compare XT3 4k to high quality 1080p like on a C100 and see what the difference is. Why can't they market dynamic range instead or color depth! ?

I know, right!

[kye]

4 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone have any good links to articles or whatever talking about the artistic aspects of lenses?  

Like, how to look at images and understand the visual aspects that the lenses contribute.. I'm not talking about lenses 101 with the "the background blur is caused by aperture" or anything, I'm talking like if I sat down with a Hollywood cinematographer and asked them to explain what makes a great lens great and what to pay attention to and how you can tell when looking at the images.

I know I prefer a Zeiss or Angenieux to my kit lens, even when on the same settings, but if someone asked me what differences there really are I don't think I could say much beyond "it looks nicer".

If I can work out what I'm looking at and responding to then I can figure out what works for me and use my brain to evaluate options, instead of just using emotional reactions and having my impression of a lens also being influenced by how recently I ate, exercised, or if the kids are behaving nicely or not.

@heart0less I'm assuming you're laughing at the last part of my post?

I wish it were a joke, but sadly not.  We've all heard jokes about how we have to apologise to our wives if we do something mean to them in one of their dreams, but it happens to all of us despite not wanting to admit it.

I remember reading about a debut album that was meant to be spectacular and I went and listened to it at the shop but it didn't do anything for me.  Months later a friend had it with him and asked if I'd heard it and said I'd really like it.  I said I had and that I didn't, and he told me I was crazy and made me listen to it again on his Discman.  What followed was an hour of the best music I have ever heard.  That album is spectacular, received wide critical acclaim, and is still one of my favourite albums 20+ years later.  

I thought long and hard about why it didn't strike me on my first listen and the only explanation I can find is that maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it at the time.

Photography is such a subtle art that it's hard to get past all the noise to be able to really see properly.  Even great photographers deliberately sit with their work and only over time do they decide if they like an image or not.

If I can work out what to look for in an image then my brain can cut through some of that noise and I'll at least get in the ballpark of which lens characteristics I like or don't fuss me.

[heart0less]

1 hour ago, kye said:

@heart0less I'm assuming you're laughing at the last part of my post?

Exactly. It's more laughing through tears, because I know this problem so damn well.

 

1 hour ago, kye said:

I thought long and hard about why it didn't strike me on my first listen and the only explanation I can find is that maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it at the time.

It happens to me pretty often, too, but in my case it's movies, not music albums.

I sometimes find that I can't stand watching something. And one year later - boom - I watch again and I find that there is more to this, some hidden beauty I wasn't able to perceive.

 

It's just that our tastes develop throughout our lives.
I guess this can be put down on all the things that we experience or that we are surrounded with.

 

However, I just hate this taste changes when it comes to liking certain lens qualities, because it usually involves selling all the gear I collected last year only to replace it with another set..

[Emanuel]

On 12/31/2018 at 5:12 PM, mercer said:

 

More than from a screenwriter, this is from a director... getting how to narratively use the shallowest DOF into the framing, nice shot : -)

[mercer]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

More than from a screenwriter, this is from a director... getting how to narratively use the shallowest DOF into the framing, nice shot : -)

Thank you! The actual shot turned out pretty nice. I was able to do a rack focus just as he appears in the window and since my story entails a symbolic union between ghosts and memories, even an over used rack focus can play into the narrative.

[noone]

12 hours ago, kye said:

 

If I can work out what to look for in an image then my brain can cut through some of that noise and I'll at least get in the ballpark of which lens characteristics I like or don't fuss me.

All I can suggest is taking note of photos and videos that YOU like and asking the photographer/videographer what they used.        As for the 3d thing, well to me that is just subject separation and the lenses said to give 3d type results all just make it easier (and most will be faster and tend to be longer or if shorter, used in close).    Even a kit lens can give a 3d look with enough space behind the subject though will be a lot harder to achieve than say a 85 1.2 or 300 2.8

[kye]

12 hours ago, mercer said:

Thank you! The actual shot turned out pretty nice. I was able to do a rack focus just as he appears in the window and since my story entails a symbolic union between ghosts and memories, even an over used rack focus can play into the narrative.

Screw what is over-used or under-used or what the cool kids are wearing, if it fits the story then use it

It's like that saying about continuity "if someone notices continuity issues, then your film is crap".  Shoot the whole film in slow-motion in golden hour and into the sun with flares all over the place and it will be fine as long as all that stuff fits the story.  It's when it doesn't fit that people start complaining.

10 hours ago, noone said:

All I can suggest is taking note of photos and videos that YOU like and asking the photographer/videographer what they used.        As for the 3d thing, well to me that is just subject separation and the lenses said to give 3d type results all just make it easier (and most will be faster and tend to be longer or if shorter, used in close).    Even a kit lens can give a 3d look with enough space behind the subject though will be a lot harder to achieve than say a 85 1.2 or 300 2.8

I used to think that the 3D thing was just a DOF thing, but I'm beginning to understand.  Last night I did a bunch of reading and found this comparison:

https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/warning-lrg-lens-shootout-contax-zeiss-planar-50mm-f-1-4-t-vs-pentax-smc-takumar-55mm-f-1-8.394768/

Tell me that the 5mm difference in focal length (and therefore aperture) is responsible for the differences in those shots.  I suspect it's the contrast, which likely comes from the coatings.  I would have expected the Takumar to be sharper than the CZ, but not so.  Maybe I just let my mind wander with Takumar sounding like Tak, as in "tack sharp"

[anonim]

@Kye Little bit or little bit more thinking about 3d, microcontrast, blur, creative effects etc. Of course, for video usage order of values might be different. (Story telling greatly benefit from interesting 3d separation.)

[noone]

3 hours ago, kye said:

 

I used to think that the 3D thing was just a DOF thing, but I'm beginning to understand.  Last night I did a bunch of reading and found this comparison:

https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/warning-lrg-lens-shootout-contax-zeiss-planar-50mm-f-1-4-t-vs-pentax-smc-takumar-55mm-f-1-8.394768/

Tell me that the 5mm difference in focal length (and therefore aperture) is responsible for the differences in those shots.  I suspect it's the contrast, which likely comes from the coatings.  I would have expected the Takumar to be sharper than the CZ, but not so.  Maybe I just let my mind wander with Takumar sounding like Tak, as in "tack sharp"

Both those seem to have a bit of a 3d thing going to me which is down to the subject having DOF covering the toy and the background being empty for quite a distance behind.       There are other issues that make me not like either of those lenses wide open (from that anyway).      Stopped down and they are both ok (and both fast enough and long enough to easily separate the subject from the background).       I have had  many lenses from 50 to 58 and they all had their for and against and all could make "3D" type images easily but most were not great wide open.      The four best I had were/are the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (ended my desire for any other normal lens really), Canon FD 50 1.2 L (loved that lens and regret selling it) Both those use aspheric elements- then the Pentax 50 1.2 (I used it so much for so many years it literally fell to bits even though it was a solidly made lens) and the Nikon 50 1.8 AF non D made in Japan (the best cheapie).         The worst but one of the most interesting was an ancient Zeiss Jenna Biotar 58 f2 that had 18 blades and was sharp but very low contrast.     Other people would have preferred the old Biotar to the others I think- IE it is all subjective.      I had an old 55 Tak and didn't think it was all that good (I threw it away from memory when it got stuck on some bellows).

[Phil A]

Probably an odd question because I‘m coming the other way around than most people:

• What are my camera choices for the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 or 40mm f/1.4 Nokton?

I realize that I can use them natively on a M-mount camera or via adapter on every mirrorless system but I obviously want their intended FoV and characteristic and, as there’s no focal reducer for M-mount, that rules out the Leica M8, Fujifilm X and mFT cameras.

I want a really basic, compact camera just to take portraits and still life pictures. Does someone know how bad these lenses perform on the original A7 or A7r due to the micro lens design? I find the M9 to still be really pricey and I don’t feel rangefinder focusing works well when relying on glasses (I’m short sighted so I can use EVF without glasses).

[anonim]

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/

[kye]

22 hours ago, anonim said:

@Kye Little bit or little bit more thinking about 3d, microcontrast, blur, creative effects etc. Of course, for video usage order of values might be different. (Story telling greatly benefit from interesting 3d separation.)

Thanks, just got time to watch that.  I like how he starts by saying something like "let's get through this as quickly as possible" but it then takes 45 minutes

I found the Contax Zeiss Survival Guide on Reduser and was heartened when the guy distinguished between "Vintage" and "Organic".  I'd noticed that when people were talking about the lenses they were talking about how that more organic look could be had from certain lenses, and that those same lenses might also be super sharp, whereas Vintage seems to indicate a softness that is at the expense of sharpness.  

To my eye there is something that some lenses do that is similar to the effect of shooting in RAW, or even shooting 10-bit colour instead of 8-bit.  I think whatever that thing is, it's the thing that nasty kit zooms tend to have the opposite of, which is why they don't get a lot of love, despite often being sharp and optically quite good performers.

16 hours ago, Phil A said:

Probably an odd question because I‘m coming the other way around than most people

You mean, you're doing it the right way around? ???

[kye]

I can feel a lens test coming on...  I'm only waiting on three more lenses and then I'll do it and share with everyone.

I haven't completely worked out how I should do it, any specific advice?  I'll shoot RAW stills on my GH5 with each lens at a few apertures - probably wide open, f2.8, and f8.  I find that the most useful lens test is at an identical aperture at least a stop from wide-open for any lens as the differences aren't to do with aperture settings or how sharp they are wide open, and f16 is getting into diffraction territory.

The goal of the test for me is to compare the look of modern budget lenses vs modern high quality lenses vs vintage lenses to find the aesthetic that works for me, and work out which lenses I want to keep.

Lenses:

• 8/4 SLR Magic
• 14/2.5 Panasonic (focus-by-wire)
• 14-42/3.5-5.6 Panasonic (focus-by-wire)
• 17.5/0.95 Voigtlander
• 28/2.8 Yashica
• 35/3.5 Takumar
• 37/2.8 Mir
• 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon (x2 - not shown - still in transit)
• 40/4 Lomo (lens from popular non-ILC Russian pocket film camera)
• 55/1.8 Takumar
• 58/2 Helios (x2)
• 135/2.8 Minolta
• 135/3.5 Petri (not shown - still in transit)
• 135/3.5 Takumar
• 150/4 Takumar
• 200/4 Takumar
• 200/3.5 Minolta

And yes, I know I'm not winning any Instagram-worthy-photo competitions ???

[BTM_Pix]

My suggestion would be to it like the World Cup.

Pair the vintage lenses together by focal length (as best as you can) and play them off against each other so you get the best of the vintage stuff.

Then play the winners of those matches off against the modern versions.

You haven't got like for like with the modern ones but at least you'll be pitching what you have deemed to be the best of the best of the vintage ones to compare them to.

If you have an Android device, then I've written a couple of automated stepper apps for Panasonic cameras that might potentially be of use to you for this sort of testing.

There is a basic bracket one but also a more elaborate one which will cycle through selectable parameter permutations such as saturation, contrast etc which can be of use in looking at different responses as well.

With both apps, it automates the stepping of the parameter and taking the shot for you so you can just set up the lens, press go and it will take care of the rest so you will have sets of exact like for like shots for each lens.

You will also get a better context of what lens works best with your particular camera's sensor.