or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 154

post #2296 of 4210
4&5 are awesome. How does that work with getting a different mount? I have some nice Nikon lenses, does it affect the quality of the image or anything? (I've never messed with this before)

here is one from the shoot I did today, which went pretty well. I just don't like shooting other peoples' kids :/

6374033363_88c40f9824_o.jpg
post #2297 of 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

4&5 are awesome. How does that work with getting a different mount? I have some nice Nikon lenses, does it affect the quality of the image or anything? (I've never messed with this before)
here is one from the shoot I did today, which went pretty well. I just don't like shooting other peoples' kids :/
6374033363_88c40f9824_o.jpg

Well, I forget where I saw the link but not even an hour ago I saw it. Anyways just type in google canon to nikon lens adapter. They run to about $150-$200 (don't be cheap about it!) but I don't think it lessens iq? It's just an adapter it doesn't change a thing about the lens, just makes it so the mount fits. thanks for the compliment btw, 5 is my favorite of the day! I don't know if I should have edited it though as it looked pretty good SOOC, but I gave it a sepia tone to it and added grain. I can re-upload it so you can see the difference.

I like that shot though it's sharp and leaves me wondering what it is. Or I kinda know what it is but I want to see more of it now!
post #2298 of 4210
6366186713_18a2764eef_z.jpg

6366204273_2db4de5a56_z.jpg

6366196499_dbf2e4d6e0.jpg

6366199993_c056533858_z.jpg

6366179685_cda6c0f962_z.jpg

6366202067_14790930b6.jpg
post #2299 of 4210
Anyone have any experience with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 lens?

An 85mm is probably my next purchase and I've heard the Sigma's image quality is comparable to the Nikon's at 60% of the price.
post #2300 of 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krp480 View Post

6373001549_1a3a1bbe8a_z.jpg
Weeping willow

Love this one.
post #2301 of 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRINI View Post

Anyone have any experience with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 lens?
An 85mm is probably my next purchase and I've heard the Sigma's image quality is comparable to the Nikon's at 60% of the price.

An even cheaper alternative (MF only though) would be the Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4... Great IQ on it as well! FWIW, their 35/1.4 is regarded as an equal competitor with the 35L and Nikkor equivalent, but at a fraction of the price ($500).
post #2302 of 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRINI View Post

Love this one.

Thanks man!
Quote:
Originally Posted by malaujai View Post

An even cheaper alternative (MF only though) would be the Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4... Great IQ on it as well! FWIW, their 35/1.4 is regarded as an equal competitor with the 35L and Nikkor equivalent, but at a fraction of the price ($500).

The Rokinon/samyang provides amazing IQ!

Trini: The only thing it lacks is AF but there is super precision focus screens for that. Otherwise I used an 85 1.8 today and it was really good at what it does. Bokeh on an 85mm lens even at about 2.8 will still be really good. You can open the lens up to about 1.8 and honestly if you are on a budget it still provides amazing results.

Malaujai- you have the 85L II right? I'm saving up for one right now. You think it's wot=rth the price though? I'm trying to get my set-up to be an 85L, 35L, and 50 1.4 for FF.
post #2303 of 4210
I have the 14mm samyang and it's incredible. Blows away the 14L at 1/5th the price.

I don't think the 85L or 50L are worth the price. The 85 1.8 has such a better focus system and its equally as sharp. The 85L only has one use and that's to make girls look beautiful at 1.2. But if you're shooting at f/2 or higher there's no point in owning the 85L unless you need the weather sealing (but then you'd need a 1D series body to match).

The sigma 85 1.4 and 50 1.4 are both 95% as good as what the L versions are. Nobody in the real world would notice the difference. It's only if you look at MTF charts all day. 1/3rd of a stop in the digital era makes no difference anymore with our high iso cameras.

I think most of the other L lenses are worth the money though. The only L lenses I own the 70-200, 100, 135. All my other lenses are third party and cheaper but as good or better (ziess 85 and 35, sigma 50, samyang 14). And I guess the 17-55 too which is not an L but should be.

Krp. I think 35/50/85 is all too close if it's all you're gonna have. I'd go 24/50/135 or 35/85/135 for the holy trinity

Have you tried the 135L? It's unreal especially for its price. It'll have pretty much the same amount of background separation with the same framing as the 85 1.2 but you'll have more of your subject in focus. And it's AF is 10x better than the 85L.

Trini, it's well worth the price. Only thing is you might have to send it into sigma with your body to get it calibrated.
post #2304 of 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by trader View Post

I have the 14mm samyang and it's incredible. Blows away the 14L at 1/5th the price.
I don't think the 85L or 50L are worth the price. The 85 1.8 has such a better focus system and its equally as sharp. The 85L only has one use and that's to make girls look beautiful at 1.2. But if you're shooting at f/2 or higher there's no point in owning the 85L unless you need the weather sealing (but then you'd need a 1D series body to match).
The sigma 85 1.4 and 50 1.4 are both 95% as good as what the L versions are. Nobody in the real world would notice the difference. It's only if you look at MTF charts all day. 1/3rd of a stop in the digital era makes no difference anymore with our high iso cameras.
I think most of the other L lenses are worth the money though. The only L lenses I own the 70-200, 100, 135. All my other lenses are third party and cheaper but as good or better (ziess 85 and 35, sigma 50, samyang 14). And I guess the 17-55 too which is not an L but should be.
Krp. I think 35/50/85 is all too close if it's all you're gonna have. I'd go 24/50/135 or 35/85/135 for the holy trinity
Have you tried the 135L? It's unreal especially for its price. It'll have pretty much the same amount of background separation with the same framing as the 85 1.2 but you'll have more of your subject in focus. And it's AF is 10x better than the 85L.
Trini, it's well worth the price. Only thing is you might have to send it into sigma with your body to get it calibrated.

I gotta admit that after only taking 10 pictures with the 85 1.8 the sharpness definitely caught me by surprise. As for colors though... well I don't think that came close to surprising me or flattering me. If I were to compare the 85 1.8 to my 50L in terms of contrast and colors (I know, two totally different lenses) the 50 definitely won hands down in terms of color. But wide open is was way too soft, while stopped down it was nice and sharp. I don't think I want a sigma though unless I get a 50 1.4 cause honestly way too many AF issues.

Once I go FF though I will definitely have to try out the 135L, that lens is magic from what I've seen. I know you are comparing the 85L and the 135L and I understand what you mean but no matter what I will be getting the 85L eventually. I at least need to own it for a while and use it before I can say I hate it because I have had such a desire to own that lens. As for the line-up I think I might as well go with the 35/85/135 route because you are right.. not enough variety. Or I could throw in a 50 and just have it there when I want to do closer portraits that an 85 wont allow me and a 35 would be too wide. But if I were to go without the 135 I was planning on getting a 70-200 to cover everything over 85 or when I want to shoot sports.
post #2305 of 4210
^ yup, I've got the 85LII... Without getting into too much detail, it's pretty much true what is written about it. The AF is painstakingly slow and you'll find it hunts a bit, and it is also not too much different from the 85/1.8 (or Sigma 85/1.4) at F2 or above. That said, however, the lens is absolutely magnificent at 1.2. The bokeh is creamy smooth and the thin DOF and compression is great. Colour-wise, I find the lens is a bit warmer than my other lenses...

I don't really run on a large setup of lenses at the moment, and I also only shoot primes. I've got an alternative to the holy trinity with the 24LII, 85LII and the 135L (I've got a Canon 50/1.4 that is so beat-up... I've dropped it three times and the AF motor basically jams in three different spots). However, I do find these focal lengths are great for me. The only real issue is that without a zoom, I'll usually need to bring one or two lenses out even just for street-shooting (sometimes I might settle for just the 24 though). Personally, I find the 24mm FL is a bit more useful to me than the 35. There isn't a lot of distortion so you can still get some portraits in, while the wider FL lets me capture more and is great for street shooting.
post #2306 of 4210
35 - 50 - 85 is too close. I'd personally second the notion towards 35 - 85 -135 but I'd go for the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 85 1.4. The 85 L is just too expensive for its ridiculous auto focus system. The Canon 50 1.4 is also basically nice but kinda meh. The construction is sub-par compared to the 85 1.8 and it's really soft wide open so I only use it from 2.2 on. I could also imagine to just go for 50L + 135L, don't think I'd miss the 85 a lot.
post #2307 of 4210
Floating leaf

zwevendblaadje2zw.jpg
post #2308 of 4210
Wow NOBD, great shot! Really well done!
post #2309 of 4210
Thanks!
post #2310 of 4210
nice NOBD! I was doing the same shot the other day but with scotch tape lol. It turned out great smile.gif

another selfy:

6409724367_f0285fca03_o.jpg


tired...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)