Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)

[Kaplan]

- and about bloody time, too. I've been on several waiting lists here for months and still no one has it in stock. Had to order from the UK. Thanks again for your thoughts on it.

 

[bwong337]

I'll play! First time posting in this thread.

First time posting in this thread! I love film!

Shot with a Nikon (*gasp!*) F3 on Kodak UC100. I shoot the Leica too

Another Nikon F3 shot. Tri-X.

Annnnd this was shot on my first roll on the Rolleiflex E2 2.8 80mm(inherited from my father). Fuji Acros 100.

A picture of my friend fishing last summer. Fuji Acros 100.

Bixby Bridge. Rolleiflex/Fuji Acros.

Friends. Shot with the Leica M3. Way underexposed (or underdeveloped... the negative was almost all clear.), but with TRI-X, you can pull out some crazy details in the shadows.

A shot of my wife using the Leica M3/Tri-x combo

All scanned with Canon 8800F/Vuescan.

 

[binge]

My uncle's otherwise rambunctious house cat, caught for a still moment:

 

[Szeph el raton]



I miss my 50 1.2 . I think I might have to get another one... But I would rather have other lenses before I get another 50 1.2L. If you want the 50 1.2 it's great for it's colors I find that I didn't need to do that much editing to the pictures since the contrast was great and colors were amazing straight from it. But get the Sigma if you can't afford the 50 1.2 otherwise if you can definitely get it!]

As everyone asked me what I want for Christmas and "Give me money for my tax payment!" is not an option I opted for "you can contribute to me getting a new lens". With possibly selling my 17-40L and 24-105L (I realized I'm nearly always shooting primes) I could afford around 1,5k €. But it's really only a bag of trade-offs no matter what you decide for. I'm currently looking for something in the 30-50mm range as a walk around lens.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 -> nervous bokeh, crappy auto focus drive
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L -> mucho dinero, big, heavy
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 -> manual focus, demaciado dinero, soft at 1.4
Zeiss 35mm f/2 -> manual focus, except for that quite nice
Old M42 35mm with adapter -> manual focus, first have to find a fitting lens with good quality

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II -> plastic bomb, not-so-nice bokeh, ****** auto focus. gave it away as a present
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 -> the one I currently have. Not really usable wider than f/2 because of contrast problems, so-so auto focus
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L -> sharpness figures quite lower than the 1.4 but supposed to be usable at f/1.2. Reviews are a mixed bag
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 -> great reviews but auto focus is a gamble

So I'm really confused. I see that I can only get the points I dislike about the EF 50mm f/1.4 (auto focus accuracy, sharpness wide open, build quality) fixed if I throw quite a lot of money at the problem and at the same time I trade in other problems. I guess in the end it'll come down between 35L, Zeiss 35 f/2 and 50L but until then I'll stick with what I have. I've read a lot of reviews online, I checked the groups on Flickr and I know that Jacob had the 50L and Peter has the Zeiss 35/2 but the lack of a possibility to actually test the lenses myself makes it really difficult. And yes, dunno if I could live with manual focus, would definitvely get me the eg-s focus screen then for the 5D Mk II.

 

[TRINI]

I've decided to hold off on buying a portrait lens until I know more beautiful people.

 

[NOBD]

You could just make many self portraits, Trini.

 

[Szeph el raton]



I've decided to hold off on buying a portrait lens until I know more beautiful people.

Get Photoshop along with the lens

 

[Krp480]



As everyone asked me what I want for Christmas and "Give me money for my tax payment!" is not an option I opted for "you can contribute to me getting a new lens". With possibly selling my 17-40L and 24-105L (I realized I'm nearly always shooting primes) I could afford around 1,5k €. But it's really only a bag of trade-offs no matter what you decide for. I'm currently looking for something in the 30-50mm range as a walk around lens.
Canon EF 35mm f/2 -> nervous bokeh, crappy auto focus drive
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L -> mucho dinero, big, heavy
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 -> manual focus, demaciado dinero, soft at 1.4
Zeiss 35mm f/2 -> manual focus, except for that quite nice
Old M42 35mm with adapter -> manual focus, first have to find a fitting lens with good quality
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II -> plastic bomb, not-so-nice bokeh, ****** auto focus. gave it away as a present
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 -> the one I currently have. Not really usable wider than f/2 because of contrast problems, so-so auto focus
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L -> sharpness figures quite lower than the 1.4 but supposed to be usable at f/1.2. Reviews are a mixed bag
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 -> great reviews but auto focus is a gamble
So I'm really confused. I see that I can only get the points I dislike about the EF 50mm f/1.4 (auto focus accuracy, sharpness wide open, build quality) fixed if I throw quite a lot of money at the problem and at the same time I trade in other problems. I guess in the end it'll come down between 35L, Zeiss 35 f/2 and 50L but until then I'll stick with what I have. I've read a lot of reviews online, I checked the groups on Flickr and I know that Jacob had the 50L and Peter has the Zeiss 35/2 but the lack of a possibility to actually test the lenses myself makes it really difficult. And yes, dunno if I could live with manual focus, would definitvely get me the eg-s focus screen then for the 5D Mk II.

I was just in the same boat. If you want a dedicated portrait lens cross off the 35. Actually let me rephrase - if you want a dedicated portrait lens the 50L or 85L would be the best choice. I'm not saying the 35 delivers bad portraits BUT it does not give as desireable results as a 50 or 85, but from POTN, everyone with the 35L generally tends to love it. If you are looking for some serious bokeh though go for the 50L, but the best bokeh of all would be the 85L. If you are looking at lenses I highly recommend looking into that lens. I am actually getting it cause I sold my 24L as it was just too wide and the results were undesireable for me as I generally shoot portraits. Actually if you are using a 5D MK II and you want a walk around lens I believe the 50 would be perfect! I used it on my crop which makes it about an 85mm lens and a full day in the city I was able to capture almost any shot. I will admit that some shots could have been wider but for the most part it's just what you are used to.

The Canon 50 1.4 is definitely not worth the money though. If I were you regardless of what lens you get sell the 50 1.4 and if you go with the 35 1.4 then get the Sigma 50 1.4, yes you will probably have to send it in a few times to get the AF nailed but once you do it is a MUCH better lens than Canons version.

But if you don't like MF and never use it don't get the Zeiss then. The only Zeiss lenses I would get are wide angle ones where I know that I would need MF.

 

[Szeph el raton]



I was just in the same boat. If you want a dedicated portrait lens cross off the 35. Actually let me rephrase - if you want a dedicated portrait lens the 50L or 85L would be the best choice. I'm not saying the 35 delivers bad portraits BUT it does not give as desireable results as a 50 or 85, but from POTN, everyone with the 35L generally tends to love it. If you are looking for some serious bokeh though go for the 50L, but the best bokeh of all would be the 85L. If you are looking at lenses I highly recommend looking into that lens. I am actually getting it cause I sold my 24L as it was just too wide and the results were undesireable for me as I generally shoot portraits. Actually if you are using a 5D MK II and you want a walk around lens I believe the 50 would be perfect! I used it on my crop which makes it about an 85mm lens and a full day in the city I was able to capture almost any shot. I will admit that some shots could have been wider but for the most part it's just what you are used to.
The Canon 50 1.4 is definitely not worth the money though. If I were you regardless of what lens you get sell the 50 1.4 and if you go with the 35 1.4 then get the Sigma 50 1.4, yes you will probably have to send it in a few times to get the AF nailed but once you do it is a MUCH better lens than Canons version.
But if you don't like MF and never use it don't get the Zeiss then. The only Zeiss lenses I would get are wide angle ones where I know that I would need MF.

I don't need it for 'regular' portrait, I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 and the EF 135mm f/2L for that. The later one is ridiculously good, I know that the 85L is even better but at only half the price and quite a lot better auto focus performance I stick with the 135L. The 50L was for you, as you've mentioned, anyway the same viewing angle as the 85mm on my camera (which is too long as a general walk around lens for my tastes).

Basically I want the lens for environmental full body portraits and street photography.
These would be examples of the kind of viewing angle I'm looking for:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianmilo/6436939515/in/pool-311183@N25
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonio-giordano/6405977675/in/pool-311183@N25
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidguimaraes/6280658055/in/pool-311183@N25
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34849368@N07/6132431508/in/pool-311183@N25
http://www.dslr-forum.de/attachment_picture.php?attachmentid=1230486
It looks more three dimensional than with my 50mm because the background is less compressed.

Luckily I'll be able to borrow the 35L for some days next week from a workmate, then I'll know if it fits my expectations. If not, it will be an easy choice for 50L. I'd give the cheap EF 35mm f/2 a try but it's sold out everywhere and nearly impossible to get a used one. I'll also give the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM a try, I have a 14 day time frame to test and send back when buying over the internet.

I've payed 200 € for a like-new EF 50mm f/1.4 by the way so it was quite worth the money. That it's worse than the 1400 € 50L, well, no surprise here

 

[il ciclista]

here's just one I used for my final portfolio...I haven't shot much lately due to all the finals so this is really the bulk of my work. Plus my computer has been ******** out on me lately so I can never get through a full edit without the blue screen. (Macbook next month!)

 

[Kas]

il ciclista: pretty cool, but graffiti is usually very colourful - how's the colour version on this one?

Binge: the cat's head is a little too central for me.

bwong337: really cool pics, makes me consider shooting film!

From me:


Hyde Park Corner Haunted Mansion by npmeijer, on Flickr

Liking the composition with the diagonal line the trees and mansion make interrupted by the Grim Reaper's head, but not sure on the saturation: pumped it up +10 in Lightroom although I may have gone a little too far with it. What do you think?

 

[il ciclista]

Thanks, all the graffiti was black (with exception of the small piece on the right..all those tags on each step were black etc..I like that it has a darker tone to it.

Nice picture, The house is real or fake? Interesting. I am not sure about the vividness either..isn't death suppose to be dark? It does look pretty creepy though almost like it's going to jump out at you. Also my eye is constantly being drawn to the upper left corner because the vast openness of it all. You could get deeper into it by saying death vs light etc but it looks more purely as if it was composed out of serendipity. (ie half my portfolio lol) It's almost frustrating to me because I want to see the rest of the house.

 

[il ciclista]

A colored on from my portfolio

 

[rhianne]

Some close-ups I took of flowers:

Very beautiful shots! Kudos for a job well done.




___________________________
Student Loans for Bad Credit

 

[il ciclista]

Son was sick so we cheered him up with a new Teddy.