File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
one thing ive always wanted to know is why people get fixed lenses.
why get a 50mm when you already have a 17-55mm?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelGR DigitalCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:30 00:54:28Exposure Time1/34 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.4BrightnessUnknownExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.90 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width857Image Height1279Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
really you have to be fucking kidding me with that question
>> Anonymous
Sharper and faster.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
because of this

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2005:07:01 00:46:10Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height687RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
Sharper and faster
>> Anonymous
>>265543
come on - like most people on here i'm asking to learn something. if you want to sneer...well, i guess you're in the right place but it's still douchebaggery.

to what degree is the sharpness an improvement over a more varied lens? especially with DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
primes have moar borkah
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>265556
Main reason for me is that primes are faster. I.e., they have wider apertures, which means you can shoot in lower-light with a given shutter speed.

For example, at 50mm, my kit lens' maximum aperture is f/5.6. My 50mm prime lens is f/1.8. f/1.8 is a little over 3 stops wider, which means that when my kit lens is shooting at 1/15th, my prime can shoot at 1/120th.
>> Anonymous
>>265561
okay no im interested. what does this mean? i have more play with depth of field?
>> Anonymous
>>265567
Yes, if the prime's biggest aperture is larger than your zoom's biggest aperture.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
You know, I can't help but worry that this board is going to lead to newbies thinking that borkeh or borkah is a thing, and that it means "narrow depth of field"...
>> Anonymous
also, i knew you guys would miss this cos /p/ is filled with gear horders who don't know anything about making nice photos.

some people like to use fixed because they enjoy the limitations it imposes on you. it's something to work around and it's fun. zoom lenses are too easy, you don't have to move around. but it all depends on taste.

also, they are good to start photography with. the restriction makes you think a lot more about what u are doing and how to get what you want, so if you are new to this stuff grab a cheap fixed lens and play around.
>> Anonymous
So yeah this is /p/ and everyone says buy a entry level dslr and 50mm prime. Why? Because its good glass for cheap? Sounds fair enough.

The problem is its pretty much a useless lens. Ok its reasonable for portraits.. but still not as great as something longer like 80mm or 100mm. Its pretty good for live music i suppose.

Otherwise its pretty dumb. Its an akward focal length to walk around with. On street you are limited to having a single subject or moving so far away the subject moves into the background.

I think the only reason why people recommend a cheap 50mm as a first lens is so that kids with their new dslr want some noticeable bokeh to show how proffessional they are. Well fuck that.

Luckily i got out of this cheaply by purchasing an old ricoh 50mm for 20 bucks. Now i'd like to pass this on to everyone in buying first lens town, save your money for a lens with a normal to wide field of view if you want a walk around lens or a longer lens for portraits. Leave the 50mm for people who want minimum depth of field per dollar for wank factors. Crop sensors have killed the nifty fifty lets move on.
>> Anonymous
>>265573
/p/ walks around with lenses and doesn't use them
>>265584
>>Its an akward focal length to walk around with
I know that 265584 is copy pasta and all, so responding to it is pointless, but seriously, 50mm prime is a widely used lens by those that take photos, but not so much by those that do lots of walking around.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>265584
It used to be appropriate, on film. Now, a better choice is something around 35mm. The reccomendation for the 50 doesn't usually take into account crop factor.
That said, it sucks to have your only lens be a prime. You need at least a little variety to learn from.
>> Anonymous
>>265572
Or even that "bokeh" means "narrow depth of field."

Bokeh is the appearance and quality of the areas of the image that *are* out of focus. I've got a bridge camera that, owing to its small sensor, has awesome huge depth of field. The lens on it also has awesome rich bokeh.
>> Anonymous
50mm is used for a number of reasons, dumbfuck. For one it closely mimics the mean focal length of the human eye - so usually pictures from it look correct from a perspective point of view. I use my 50 1.4 for a *raelly* wide array of shots including portraits and landscapes but also for city/candids.
>> Anonymous
Nobody's mentioned macro yet. Find me a zoom that can do 1:1 macro.
50mm debate: It's too long for me. I use a fucktonne of focal lengths, but if I had to choose one as my only prime it would be 35mm on full frame.
>> Anonymous
>>265594
50mm on 135 film is slightly longer than that, but it's close enough to still be considered "normal." To be exact, the diagonal of a format is the closest to the human eye.

36mm^2 + 24mm^2 = 43.27mm^2 (135 film, "full frame)
2(56mm^2) = 79.2mm^2 (square format 120 film)
23.7mm^2 + 15.7mm^2 = 28.43mm^2 (Nikon DX)

Etc. Etc.
>> Anonymous
>>265542

Usually because it'll give me a particular, consistent effect that i want while im shooting.
>> savage !!4UjFwZgP/SG
>>265595
>It's too long for me

I agree with anon when it comes to crop sensors.
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
i dont buy zooms becasue i dont like stopping down to get sharpness

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelMAVICACamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2004:12:19 18:10:33Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating159Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length16.20 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width970Image Height669
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265615i dont buy zooms becasue i dont like stopping down to get sharpness

*cough*
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>i dont like stopping down to get sharpness
OH HAI
>> Anonymous
>>265617


LOL IT'S NOT CANON IT'S NOT GOOD DUH LOL
>> SAGE
>>265616
wrong focal length there bud
and fuck you for the ken rockewll pic
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>265624
don't hate him cos u aint him
>> Anonymous
>>265616
>>265617
I don't buy zooms because I don't like to carry a fucking 800 pound missile tube that costs more than I make in a month on the end of my camera.
>> Anonymous
>>265626
me either
thats why I bought the Nikon 200 f2 VR

No zooming at all!
>> SAGE
>>265627
very nice lens
>> Anonymous
>>265626
I put an 800 pound missile tube on my camera and the next time i tried to take a picture it killed my dog :'(
>> Anonymous
>>265631


I call BS. There is no way your camera would be able to trigger such a device much less mount it in the first place.


Also, even if you were able to set that up you would have killed yourself, too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>265633
That was beautiful.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265633

remote trigger
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
     File :-(, x)
at 50 on a 55mm kit lens, your maximum aperture is 5.6. that's four stops difference from a cheap 50 1.8.

the photo on the left is with my 50mm 1.8 ai-s, on the right is my trusty 18-55 vr. they were both shot at their respective maximum apertures, with shutter speed set to the correct exposure for the 50mm. i shot 1/125 (enough to stop action, lolzburtgummer) at 1.8, iso 200 to get the correct exposure with my 50. i would have had to shoot at 1/15 to get the same exposure with my kit lens. even with vr, you have to have iron hands to shoot handheld at 1/15.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:09:29 13:21:15Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1927Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>265642


Nice house you hick.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Afternoon fence :)

inb4 tripod
>> Anonymous
>>265642i would have had to shoot at 1/15 to get the same exposure with my kit lens. even with vr, you have to have iron hands to shoot handheld at 1/15.

for a static scene like this? it's pretty easy to handhold 1/15, specially with VR

i said this in another thread before, i'm pretty weak and i can handhold 1/15 at 200mm on a 70-200, i'm sure a 18-55 at 1/15 is fine
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
you people troll too easily

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-S650Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2007:08:27 22:17:47Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating125Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSaturationLowSharpnessNormal
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>265645

thanks!

>>265642

i forgot to mention that while a 50mm 1.8 completely kills a kit lens for available light, you could pretty easily bounce a flash at 5.6 with either lens and get identical results.
>> Anonymous
>>265656

or use a tripod
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>265649
>for a static scene like this? it's pretty easy to handhold 1/15, specially with VR
>i said this in another thread before, i'm pretty weak and i can handhold 1/15 at 200mm on a 70-200, i'm sure a 18-55 at 1/15 is fine

Clearly you have never produced anything that gets looked at by people paying good money and know what there talking about

Like it or not, at those speeds, you cannot hand hold and want to have a sharp image.

Argue if you want, but am going to assume your the kind of guy who would shoot landscape without using timer or cable release coupled with the mirror lock, and think its going to be sharp as anyone elt's?

you are not a tripod, the camera moves, shakes, and so do you.
>> Anonymous
I regularly shoot +1 second shots freehand. Most of mine are sub-1/15th freehand. Its all in how you shoot. Some people blur it at 1/100th. Some can hand-hold it for a long time.
>> Anonymous
>>265660
6/10
>> Anonymous
1 second exposures are so pedestrian to me.
>> Anonymous
I shoot in bulb with a f.75 lens and everything is always in focus when I look at it online.
>> Anonymous
>>265665


2/10
>> Anonymous
I shoot long-exposure night scenes from moving vehicles that are sharp at 100% crop.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265659Clearly you have never produced anything that gets looked at by people paying good money and know what there talking about

assuming makes an ass out of you

>> Like it or not, at those speeds, you cannot hand hold and want to have a sharp image.

wow, i like how you make yet another assumption and can make such an idiotic claim that it's impossible to have a sharp image at 1/15, hilarious

i have posted this image before, to another idiot like you, with EXIF. i don't have the EXIF version with me right now but this is taken at 200mm on a 70-200 with IS at 1/15

can i do it reliably all the time? fuck no
can i do it reliably on a static scene? yeah.. it's 1/15 it's not 1/5, if you can't handhold that then you have serious issues

>> Argue if you want, but am going to assume your the kind of guy who would shoot landscape without using timer or cable release coupled with the mirror lock, and think its going to be sharp as anyone elt's?

i lold, maybe you should get with the times, it's 2008. IS works wonders.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
The issue is more with freezing motion. IS won't help with that. Since I personally pretty much always have to be shooting at 1/60 or faster anyway, there is little benefit for me from IS at focal lengths shorter than around 60mm.

Sure, I can handhold a 55mm 5.6 lens at 1/10, but motion blur will kill my image anyway. Then again, I'm moving to using strobes more and more, so it's becoming less of an issue.
>> Anonymous
i said static scenes...
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
     File :-(, x)
This is why you want to buy fast lenses, shallow DOF.

The other reasons would be gain faster shutter speeds at low light and is vital in for example catwalks (what VR and IS doesn't do) and mainly be sharper than zooms.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern1066Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2848Image Height4288Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:09:29 16:48:18White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width467Image Height703RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265754vital in for example catwalks
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
>>265761
If you're saying flash can solve the problem then no, not really.

You won't be balancing ambient and flash if you're using flash as the only light source, therefore you subject will expose fine but you'll have a black background.

And those Vivtar 285s, I've got 2 and is selling them off, too big for me.
>> Anonymous
>>265599
Fuck image quality, too-shallow depth of field, and freezing motion (just take the noise if need be). This is the reason to stay at fixed focal lengths.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html

I don't particularly care about or for the other aspects (though smaller size is nice). There's very few interchangeable zooms you can do this with- the two Leica Tri-Elmars, which just move between three fixed focal lengths, and the "power zoom" electronically stepped zooms that were made for two years or something a while ago.

Would I mind something like an equivalent wide-normal-tele in three steps? No. But a straight zoom 24-70 is just weird to work with.
>> Anonymous
I learned on a 50mm on a film SLR and I've been using the same lens since.

Benefits in a nutshell?
Speed, sharpness, price, and they make you think.
>> Anonymous
http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/09/30/sparklers/
>> macbeth !p.rX.niGWk
prime lenses are usually sharper, and plus it's cheaper to buy a 50mm f/1.7 (150) than a lens that's 28-70mm fixed f/2.8 (500), and the latter isn't even as wide as the 50mm.

so it's a matter of cost, plus superior build quality of the primordial lenses.
>> Anonymous
GTFO troll

and if you're serious then your a HUEG idiot
>> Anonymous
>>265782You won't be balancing ambient and flash if you're using flash as the only light source

you don't know how to use flash then
>> Anonymous
>>266251a 50mm f/1.7 (150) than a lens that's 28-70mm fixed f/2.8 (500), and the latter isn't even as wide as the 50mm.

lol wut? a 28-70 isn't as wide as a 50mm?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>266859

Aperture.
>> macbeth !p.rX.niGWk
>>266859

sorry i meant the aperture isn't as wide as the 28-70mm.

i would opt for a faster lens over the zoom range, since i can shoot things that are moving in significantly lower light. and at worst, i can back up to get more of the scene into the picture.


but there's tradeoffs either way, that's just my two cents :)
>> Anonymous
pfft

who says wider that way
>> Anonymous
>>266908
wide can have more than one meaning
>> Anonymous
>>266908
penis girth
>> Anonymous
>>266936

except in photo speak, wider 9.84 times out of 10 means a wider angle of view instead of a larger aperture
>> Anonymous
>>266959
0.16 != 0
>> Anonymous
>>266962who says wider that way
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266908
>>266959
>>266966
He said,
>sorry i meant the aperture isn't as wide as the 28-70mm.

He mistyped. Get over it.
>> Anonymous
>>266993

lol, whatever makes you feel better man

i'm going to tell everyone my 50mm is wider than my 17-50 now
>> Anonymous
>>267011
has a wider aperture

is true
>> Anonymous
>>265761

VIVITAR IS DEAD ;________________;
>> Anonymous
>>267063
not dead, just smells funny
>> Anonymous
a prime at its widest aperture will give a faster shutter speed in daylight than a zoom at its widest aperture.
>> Anonymous
can't believe you dicks got trolled this easily.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267175
Then why do it? Why not challenge yourself and try to troll someone harder?
>> Anonymous
>>267180


3/10
>> Anonymous
serious question: why are higher aperture primes more expensive, I mean all it is, is making the hole bigger right? Or are some sort of more expensive optics needed for the increased exposure of light or something?

not a troll
>> Anonymous
>>267606
Making the hole bigger is easy, but doing so increases aberrations, and it takes advanced designs and materials to correct those aberrations.
>> Anonymous
>>267606
more glass needed to make the lens
>> Anonymous
>>267610
ah right, also another question again not trolling

with a zoom lense the wider aperture values tend to be on the lower focal lengths eg:

18mm is f/3.5 and 55mm is f/5.6 with mine

how come primes have a wider aperture with the larger focal length like f/1.2 50mm but only f/2.8 35mm
>> Anonymous
>>267617
The mirror in SLRs doesn't allow to put the lens close to the film/sensor, thus more complex designs are needed for lenses with focal distances shorter than the depth of the mirror chamber.

Get rid of the mirror, and large-aperture wide-angle lenses become possible. You can find lenses like 35/1.2 for rangefinder cameras fairly easily.
>> Anonymous
>>267629
thanks again, you learn something new everyday :3
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267629
That's actually only half the answer. I.e., the retrofocal design of wide-angle SLR lenses explains why SLR lenses far away from 50mm in either direction are less likely to have wider apertures, but it doesn't explain why zooms have their widest aperture at the wide end.

(The reason for that is that aperture is a measure of the diameter of the aperture divided by the focal length. So if you make a lens that has multiple focal lengths but the diameter of your lens is constant, the longer lengths are going to have smaller apertures)

Now, here's a question for someone more knowledgeable than I am: With constant-aperture zooms, why *isn't* the wide end wider aperture than the tele end? Craziness with the retrofocal design thing mentioned, or is it just that it wouldn't be good optically if it used its full true aperture at the wide end so they keep it stopped down to f/2.8 or whatever, or something else?

Or am I completely wrong about all of this?
>> Anonymous
>>267617
Zooms get smaller as it goes in as a design compromise, size and complexity versus the usability of a constant aperture. The f-number is just the focal length divided by the actual size of the aperture. Say you've got a 35-70 zoom, that's f/2.8 at 35mm. The aperture is 12.5mm (35/12.5=2.8)

You double the focal length to get it to 70mm. Now, is it easier and does it make the lens smaller to make that 12.5mm aperture double to 25mm (70/25=2.8) or to keep it the same size and let it be a 2.8-5.6 lens (70/12.5=5.6)?

Primes can be faster because their designs can be simpler: they're optimized for one focal length and don't have to move. This also makes them smaller.

>>267629
>35/1.2

There's only one of those. The designs have to be more complex, but there's an SLR 28/1.4, whereas AFAIK the fastest rangefinder one is the CV 1.9. There's an SLR and RF 24/1.4. Watch, a few years from now they'll make an SLR 21/1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>267647
Rangefinders are pretty much dead now, so nobody except Leica spends money on R&D for new exotic RF lenses. If rangefinders had as much money riding on them as SLRs do, we probably would've had something like 20/1.2 by now.

The Micro 4/3 and similar systems ought to change the landscape for <50mm lenses, I believe. Olympus spent a lot of time on their pancake, but the result is just f/2.8 and optically subpar by Olympus standards; now Panasonic announces a Micro 4/3 lens in the same price and size category that's 1.5 stops faster.
>> Anonymous
>>267652
Yeah, but it's covering a smaller format, which again makes it easier.

The little fingernail-sized-sensor superzoom bridge cameras have 28 or 36 - 400mm+ size lenses, f/2.8-3.something, that range from decent to excellent. Why? Because of the small sensor.

It also gives them some play in terms of corner performance- make the lens cover some amount more than the actual area of the sensor and no one will notice, since the lens is small or midsize by the standard of even SLR primes.

The same principle, to a lesser degree, can apply with smaller-than-36x24mm lenses.
>> Anonymous
Oh, and Cosina is putting out some pretty exotic designs. The 35/1.2 is theirs, as is the 28/1.9, they've got a 12 and 15mm, and Zeiss has a 15/2.8 M-mount out.
>> Anonymous
whats the fastest piece of glass evar?
>> Anonymous
>>267682
think theres an f/1 somewhere out there
>> Anonymous
>>267686
I think there may be something stupid like f/0.8 but I think smallest for digital is 1.2
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>267687
>>267687
Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 L for ef.
Leica now is making a 50mm 0.95
>> Anonymous
Canon made a 0.95 and others have made stupid ones like f/0.5

The trick is to get them to be good quality, not to make them wide aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>267682
Ever? Probably some weird industrial lens that won't cover a cell phone camera's sensor.

Ever for photography? Zeiss made an f/0.3something lens to basically troll some Fotokina decades ago, because they had a reputation at the time for slow lenses. The point was that anyone can make a fast lens, but the apertures it's good at is what matters. Needless to say, it never entered mass production.

Next fastest I know of is the famous 50/.7 Zeiss for Hasselblad, specially designed for NASA to use on the moon, and later, Stanley Kubrick got a hold of one, had some people tear the mount apart and adapt it to an Arri mount. This was the lens used in Barry Lyndon.

Then I think it's just the comparatively normal (pedestrian, amirite) .95 Canon and new Noctilux.
>> RioRico
Lensfags! Prove yourselves! Design your own superfast lenses! Or just buy or steal hunks of optical glass, mount them in a bellows, and see what happens! Don't just be cash cows for major lens makers! Do something original!
>> Anonymous
>>267713
>>Next fastest I know of is the famous 50/.7 Zeiss for Hasselblad, specially designed for NASA

No such thing.
They used 80mm 2.8 planars on 500 EL bodies, sometimes carrying a 250mm 5.6. There was also a special version of the SWC (38mm 4.5). The fastest Zeiss lens for Hasselblad is 2.8, the fastest Zeiss MF is the 80mm 2.0 for Contax. Where did you get that bullshit?
>> Anonymous
>>267720
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

He probably from here
>> Anonymous
>>267720
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Photography

Like here ?
>> Anonymous
>>267721
I just looked that article is about a 36.5mm lens remained at f/0.7 and it's a cine lens
and there's no mention of Hasselblad at all
>> Anonymous
>>267723
Well, now I know why people hate Wikipedia - that article is wrong. Hasselblad's involvement with NASA is very well documented.
On top of that, you don't need fast lenses to shoot on the moon - the sun is very bright as long as you are not in the shade.
>> Anonymous
Good Reading comprehension, I figured the pictures would be simple enough for you, but I guess not.

And the Hassleblad mount part may be wrong, but that is definitely a 50mm f0.7 Zeiss lens.

>>267727
(Above Left) the Zeiss 50mm, f/0.7 lens, shown in special focusing-mount (and with adjustable shutter blade removed). (Center) in front, the specially modified Zeiss 50mm, f/0.7 lens. Behind it, the lens before modification. (Right) Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens with Kollmorgen adaptor, creating an effective focal length of 36.5mm.
>> Anonymous
>>267727
>>267723
It took me 5 minutes to sort out this story. They took a Zeiss 50mm PLANAR and converted it to 36.5mm/f0.7. The 50mm Palanr is NOT a Hasselblad lens, it's a 35mm lens. I could not be a Hasselblad lens because lens mt to film plane on a Hasselblad is about 79mm, this means that all lenses shorter than 80mm are retro-focus.

You guys really need to learn to read.
>> Anonymous
>>267744
Keep failing, you are quite good at it.
>> Grebbin !!M4ehTJKOnNf
>>266858
You're an idiot with such an empty statement. If the ambient was 1/250, f2.8, 1600iso and you use TTL then you're going to balance, but flash ONLY exposure would be something like 1/250, f4, 100iso, which significantly underexposes the ambient and is using the flash as the ONLY light to expose. Hope you learn a bit from this.

And it's funny because I'm sure you're using TTL with your flashes, which is by large, an amateur thing to do.
>> Anonymous
>>267744
>The Zeiss 50mm and 36.5mm, f/0.7 lenses used to film candlelight sequences for "Barry Lyndon" without the addition of artificial light were originally still-camera lenses developed for use by NASA in the Apollo Moon-landing program

And NASA used Hasselblads on the moon.

/tangent.
>> Anonymous
>>267759
keep suckin' cock. You are quite good at it
>> Anonymous
Everyone knows NASA used a Sony A200 with a nifty fifty on the moon. Don't you guys know anything?
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>268428
>> Anonymous
Sharper, faster, lighter (most of the time), more intuitive.
>> Anonymous
I just get sloppy as hell composition when I use a zoom, it makes me way too lazy. A fixed lens makes me wander around a scene more to get the right angle, and most of the time for what I shoot/my style a zoom won't do anything my own two feet won't.

Plus zooms for MF are heavy as a cunt, and they don't exist for 4x5.

Fixie fag signing in.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
This thread makes me want a 50mm f1.2

Wonder if I could trade my 8mm for one lol
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>268573

is the 1.2 really worth all that much? never used the 1.2 and i've been pretty happy with the 1.4D, would the extra ton of money mean a noticeable difference?
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>268573
no

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelCaplio GX100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 09:53:07Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.9Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/2.9Brightness4.3 EVExposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height724Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>268605
It's not worth the extra money if you divi it up in terms of quality, there are noticeable gains in performance such as bokeh though that's probably more subjective. It's like the 1.8 85mm L vs the 1.2 85mm L the difference is there but is it worth almost 5 times the price?

>>poorfag
GTFO and DIE FAGGOT Poorfag is not a meme
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>268605
oh probably not, Its MF aswell, which means I would probably hate it after a couple weeks.

we shall see how the new nikon is, I'm not happy with my 50mm f1.4 af-d
Focusing is inconsistent on the D300 and D200 (D50 seems fine, but at 6MP i may not notice the difference)
>> Anonymous
>>268611
since when is the 85mm 1.8 an L lens?
>> Anonymous
>>268611
Different lenses have different structures. You'll probably find that 1.2/f lenses will have a much much better MTF compared to a 1.8/f or even a 1.4/f. Just like you'll find a 1.4/f usually have a much better MTF compared to a 1.8/f.
>> Anonymous
>>268659
>>1.4/f usually have a much better MTF compared to a 1.8/f.

Not true. I can find many examples of the converse. Take a look at Nikon 24mm 2.8 vs. 28mm 2.0. The 2.8 is has better MTF at 2.8
Nikon 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8. The 1.8 is better at 2.8

Many people assume what you do, and they are wrong. There is always something you give up in order to have something else.