Indeed! For a f/1.6 aperture the focus area seems very shallow - there is no software bokeh-effect, right?
Right! Apparently i forgot what f/1.6 looks like ...
Here is a 30 mm f/1.6 image shot with my old canon 60d, using a sigma f/1.4 lens:
Pretty similar depth of field!
Ok, I’m a sucker for big aperture lenses. I just ordered the 50mm F/1.1. 🥹
It’s probably a bit soft compared to the gen II 9 element version but I’m not quite ready to spend $100 on an Aliexpress lens yet.
Speaking of big aperture - 135mm F/2.0 is a monster of a lens I have had the pleasure to use on full frame film.
It’s probably a bit soft compared to the gen II 9 element version but I’m not quite ready to spend $100 on an Aliexpress lens yet.
Speaking of big aperture - 135mm F/2.0 is a monster of a lens I have had the pleasure to use on full frame film.
Last edited:
The old lenses are great if you're on a budget. But for actual macro photography, especially if you want razor sharp pictures with a nice bokeh, an actual macro lens is worth having.
I shot these many years ago.
I'm pretty sure these were with the Contax 645 and 120 mm macro:
Pretty sure this was with the 80 mm Planar on the Contax 645:
And getting back to electronics. This was most likely with a 35 mm Contax Aria and the 100 mm macro.
All shot on film (Fuji Velvia @ ISO 40 mostly but also some Provia 100).
I went from film to digital with a Canon 10D and some other Canon digital bodies. I never liked how Canon rendered a blue sky and found the system too heavy and bulky to haul up a mountain. The 70-200/2.8 IS is a fantastic piece of glass but it's hard to take pictures with it when you've left it in the car due to its weight.
These days I use a Fuji mirror-less. Most of my product photography is done either with the XF 16-55/2.8 or XF 60/2.8 macro. I'm considering getting a longer macro lens so I can cut down the field of view a bit.
The zoom lenses are so much better than they used to be. I don't see much of a reason to have a prime lens anymore, except for maybe a pancake lens like the ones shown earlier in this thread. The 45 mm pancake for the Contax was a fun little lens.
Tom
I shot these many years ago.
I'm pretty sure these were with the Contax 645 and 120 mm macro:
Pretty sure this was with the 80 mm Planar on the Contax 645:
And getting back to electronics. This was most likely with a 35 mm Contax Aria and the 100 mm macro.
All shot on film (Fuji Velvia @ ISO 40 mostly but also some Provia 100).
I went from film to digital with a Canon 10D and some other Canon digital bodies. I never liked how Canon rendered a blue sky and found the system too heavy and bulky to haul up a mountain. The 70-200/2.8 IS is a fantastic piece of glass but it's hard to take pictures with it when you've left it in the car due to its weight.
These days I use a Fuji mirror-less. Most of my product photography is done either with the XF 16-55/2.8 or XF 60/2.8 macro. I'm considering getting a longer macro lens so I can cut down the field of view a bit.
The zoom lenses are so much better than they used to be. I don't see much of a reason to have a prime lens anymore, except for maybe a pancake lens like the ones shown earlier in this thread. The 45 mm pancake for the Contax was a fun little lens.
Tom
Photography meets audio. Here's a non-lens. Long exposure pinhole shot on 4"x5" sheet film. The exposure time was the length of one side of an album, somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes, I think. Can't remember which album it was anymore.
The image was contact printed onto cyanotype emulsion coated watercolour art paper. Exposure was by ultraviolet light and developed with plain water.
The image was contact printed onto cyanotype emulsion coated watercolour art paper. Exposure was by ultraviolet light and developed with plain water.
Attachments
One of my sons gave me his Fuji X-E2 with an "M-Mount" adapter. I've used it with a f/2.8 35mm Summaron I bought over 50 years ago. Went on to buy the 16-55mm, and the 23mm
The best lens I have ever own/owned the Dual Range 50mm Summicron.
Now that's real photography!!
I did borrow a friend's 4x5 view camera to see if that was for me. It wasn't. They say, "f/8 and be there" but with view cameras it's more like f/32 and be there an hour early.
Tom
You do have to be an hour early, but you gotta use tilt and swing to get the focal plane where you want it. And shifts are good for maintaining parallel lines.
I also have a Linhof Technika -- and a wonderful selection of lenses -- but a Nikkor Ultrawide is a wonder to work with! I have to convince mamselle to rebuild the wet darkroom.
My Nikkor 75mm f/2.8 medium format lens (from a Bronica S2A) might be useful for a 3D printed tilt/shift adapter for a M4/3 sensor body?
6cm x 6cm format is about 84mm image circle. M4/3 sensor has a 23mm image diagonal. That would give about 3.65x range for shifts, not bad.
6cm x 6cm format is about 84mm image circle. M4/3 sensor has a 23mm image diagonal. That would give about 3.65x range for shifts, not bad.