?

Log in

No account? Create an account

oh, and one more thing // quick note - Lograh — LiveJournal

Wednesday, 15.Dec.2004

22:02 - oh, and one more thing // quick note

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

before I go to bed, just figured I'd mention for those playing along at home:

I now have a shiney new 50mm 1.8 lens which I'm itching to try out. things this will help with: higher-end photos where clarity throughout the frame is needed (this lens generates less edge-distortion than my zoom lens) and faster shots in low-light situations (it can gather roughly double the light gathered by the zoom lens).

relevant appointments can now be made.

[edit]:addendum: I've done a lens comparison using various objects with fine detail and a range of colours. The 50mm is FAR superior to the 28-135 in terms of clarity and line distortion across the picture. The colour distortion of the 28-135 is not readilly noticable to my eye on this monitor. That edge-blur that the 28-135 has, though, is painful now that I'm seeing what a nice clear lens like the 50 can do! :) The fixed focal length is a bit annoying, but it's a reasonable trade-off.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:artistic_chaos
Date:14:51 16.Dec.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
I'd like to get together sometime and do portrait shots :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:16:30 16.Dec.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
this can be arranged, I have no class till late Jan after today, so sometime then would likely be best.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mslulu
Date:15:22 16.Dec.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
Cool! My fluffy coat is ready for your lens!

Actually, not yet. I want to wait a few weeks and do it when my hair is freshly dyed.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:16:32 16.Dec.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
ah yes, freshly dyed hair.. this lens is supposed to have less colour distortion than the zoom also, though I never noticed any trouble with the colours through the zoom. could be this is one of those stats in the range only "true" photo-freaks would care about.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lotusstone
Date:17:27 17.Dec.2004 (UTC)

lens distortion

(Link)
As is the case with almost all (I only say almost because invariably there is an exception) zoom lenses edge distortion is almost always a factor , becoming a greater effect the further the lenses are seperated from their "home" position. Each zoom lens has a "home base" if you will, where the defractions and such are at a minumum, often times the widest focal length. This may not be the case in newer lenses with the increased range of focal length's being offered. i.e. your 28-135, probably has a home base of somewhere around 35 or 50mm. At these points, the distortion will be minimal. Fixed length lenses have always been regarded as the clearest lenses because you are only dealing with one moving lens rather than 2-5.
The color distorion is a factor of the multiple lense interacting with each other, and color aberation has been fix quite well over the years with the growth of the industry. A high end Canon or Nikor lens is going to be so close to some of the economic models in terms of color that the price is way worth the savings. technology is a wonderful thing.

For the portraits though, may I suggest a longer focal length lens than the 50mm. The f-stop(1.8) is quite adventacious, but you may find that you need to get pretty damn close in order to get an image you are happy with. With portaits I tend to shoot with a fixed length 100 or 135mm. The mag helps to through out the background and the length isn't one which hand holding is going to be a problem with camera shake.

just my two cents.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:17:44 17.Dec.2004 (UTC)

Re: lens distortion

(Link)
yeah, I'm looking at some numbers and wondering if I can squeeze a larger lens (100 or so) into this month's budget also. I wanted the 50 because I looked over my shots and enough of the better ones seemed to hover around that area to make it worthwhile (that, and it was less than half what I had budgeted for it -- which is making the larger lens seem possible as well), but you're right about portraits needing more.

I did the distortion comparison shots with the 28-135 set to 50 (well, technically it registered at 57, but close enough) so that I could more easilly compare the two.

as for background, wouldn't the 1.8 throw it out of focus on it's own? I thought the depth of field was more dependent on the aperature than the length of the lens. or is there some more subtlety to it that I'm unaware of?

your two cents, on this topic at least (and likely many others I'm sure), are worth a million. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I will probably swing by a camera shop in the next two days and price out a few options. Thank you for the range to look in (I would have went just under 100 had you not mentioned anything -- now I'll try to hover around 100-135 as you mentioned).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)