>> |
Anonymous
>>283158
>>283100 This, in its main thrust, but damn you, "bokeh" does not mean shallow depth of field. It refers to the subjective qualities of how the lens draws what's out of focus.
Bokeh is an important aspect of the lens, and you should care about it as much as you should care about it as much as any of the other qualities of the lens... i.e. find one with bokeh you like, absolutely, but don't sweat it if you somehow find yourself with not-your-favorite-lens-in-all-creation.
Also Nikkor fifties except for the fuckawesome 50/1.2 have mediocre-to-submediocre bokeh, IMsubjectiveO. Call for yourself.
>>283102 Burt, you're right a 28mm is much more versatile, but singling out the Sigma is stupid, not that it's a bad lens, but there's better ones and it's pretty big.
And despite being right, you're trolling; stop. "Prove me wrong?" and bringing it up in an unrelated thread?
>>283105
Meese back in Meese form. It's spelt "Afghan," and "Afghan Girl" was shot with the 105/2.5 Nikkor.
Beyond that, your post is just being silly/Meese.
>>283113 >Also, in order to GET bokeh with a 28mm lens, even on a crop sensor, you have to be inches from the subject, practically.
GFD no. See above, first of all. Second, you do get noticable out of focus blur at f/1.8 on crop sensors. Third, bokeh plays a role in how *every* image gets rendered; one plane is in focus, and moving away from that further and further the characteristics that determine bokeh will affect the rendering of the image.
>>283117 This. Spend the spare money on the proverbial "hookers and blow to photograph." (Except, you know, try to make it something less degrading and healthier.)
|