|
Tape your zoom ring to one focal length and try shooting with it for a bit to see which you like better.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Geektox posted:The 23 really isn't a great focal length for portraits, and I personally like the 35 a lot more as an "all-around". The Zeiss 32 isn't bad, either, but the Fuji 35 is better and in most cases cheaper used. My 35 basically never leaves my X-E2. What a great lens. IT's a bit tight for most street stuff, but shines as an all-arounder/occasional-portraiter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Geektox posted:The 23 really isn't a great focal length for portraits, and I personally like the 35 a lot more as an "all-around". The Zeiss 32 isn't bad, either, but the Fuji 35 is better and in most cases cheaper used. You should not ever shoot portraits wider than 50mm (35) really. You end up with distortion that can make people's facial dimensions look weird and you can end up with some weird stuff going on with body dimensions if you're trying to shoot a full body portrait with a wide lens. 80-90mm/equivalent is the sweet spot for portraits lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:You should not ever shoot portraits wider than 50mm (35) really. You end up with distortion that can make people's facial dimensions look weird and you can end up with some weird stuff going on with body dimensions if you're trying to shoot a full body portrait with a wide lens. 80-90mm/equivalent is the sweet spot for portraits lenses. Focal length doesn't affect perspective. If you're at the same distance from the subject, there won't be any more or less perspective distortion, regardless of the lens focal length. I've been perfectly happy with group shots using a 28mm that included some background context - you don't always have to fill the frame with just one person and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:You should not ever shoot portraits wider than 50mm (35) really. You end up with distortion that can make people's facial dimensions look weird and you can end up with some weird stuff going on with body dimensions if you're trying to shoot a full body portrait with a wide lens. 80-90mm/equivalent is the sweet spot for portraits lenses. Please source your quotes if you are gonna post dumb stuff from other forums (because no self respecting dorkroomer would say something this blatantly wrong).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Animal posted:I am greatly enjoying my Fuji X-E1 and the 18-55mm f2.8 OIS. I wan't to complement it with a good prime. What do you guys think would be a best all around lens for street stuff, landscapes, low light stuff, and the occasional portrait, and some aerial photography? the 35mm f1.4, or the 23mm f1.4? I also have the option to buy a Zeiss 32mm f1.8 from a local guy on Craigslist. Maybe just consider getting the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 two lens setup, which covers all the scenarios you listed. Though considering what you want to do, the zoom lens that you have seems ideal already. The 35/1.4 is good all-rounder but can be tight in urban city areas, depending on what you want to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Maybe just consider getting the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 two lens setup, which covers all the scenarios you listed. Though considering what you want to do, the zoom lens that you have seems ideal already. The 35/1.4 is good all-rounder but can be tight in urban city areas, depending on what you want to shoot. This is what I decided on. I bought the 23mm f1.4 from Bob Socko in the centralized gear trading thread. If I decide to get into portraits in the future I'll go with the 56 f1.2, though I suspect I'll be happy with the 23mm and the 18-55mm, which already is a great lens. Fart Car '97 posted:You should not ever shoot portraits wider than 50mm (35) really. You end up with distortion that can make people's facial dimensions look weird and you can end up with some weird stuff going on with body dimensions if you're trying to shoot a full body portrait with a wide lens. 80-90mm/equivalent is the sweet spot for portraits lenses. I'm still amateur at photography, but my knowledge of optics tells me that doesn't make much sense... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Animal posted:
Jimlad posted:Focal length doesn't affect perspective. If you're at the same distance from the subject, there won't be any more or less perspective distortion, regardless of the lens focal length. I've been perfectly happy with group shots using a 28mm that included some background context - you don't always have to fill the frame with just one person and nothing else. 8th-snype posted:Please source your quotes if you are gonna post dumb stuff from other forums (because no self respecting dorkroomer would say something this blatantly wrong). http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/lens-choice-affects-subjects-appearance The first thing that came up in google. Shooting portraits with a lens wider than 50mm generally results in the facial structure becoming distorted. Similarly if you're taking a full body portrait with a wide lens and generally filling the frame with the subject, you can end up with un-pleasant, un-natural torso-to-leg-length ratios unless you're shooting them from straight on waist level (which you usually aren't). Maybe we're talking about different stuff. When I someone asks for a portrait lens I assume they're asking for a 'shoudler-and-up/headshot portrait' lens. Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Yes, specifying head and shoulders does make your point not dumb. It's unreasonable to assume all portraits are frame filling headshots though, for example I shoot mostly environmental portraits and the 28-50 equivalent is the sweet spot for those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:
Ah. Yes, really up close I guess you'd see a "fish bowl" effect with a wider lens. But I don't intend to shoot close ups. My portraits will tend to be someone standing in front of a nice background, with some pleasing bokeh if its night time. The X-E1 has enough resolution that if I want a face shot, I can just shoot from a reasonable distance and then crop it. Eventually I'll get the 56mm if I become too perfectionist. Animal fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Animal posted:Ah. Yes, really up close I guess you'd see a "fish bowl" effect with a wider lens. But I don't intend to shoot close ups. My portraits will tend to be someone standing in front of a nice background, with some pleasing bokeh if its night time. The X-E1 has enough resolution that if I want a face shot, I can just shoot from a reasonable distance and then crop it. Eventually I'll get the 56mm if I become too perfectionist. 8th-snype posted:Yes, specifying head and shoulders does make your point not dumb. It's unreasonable to assume all portraits are frame filling headshots though, for example I shoot mostly environmental portraits and the 28-50 equivalent is the sweet spot for those. OK boys for future refernce if you ask someone for recommendations for a 'portrait lens' they're probably going to assume you're asking for lens that is best at taking THE NORMAL DEFINITION OF A PORTRAIT If you ask them for a general purpose lens you might get a different answer 
Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Hey jerkwads, everyone congratulate Animal for buying my 23/1.4. For the rest of the stuff, I lowered my prices, come give the rest of my Fuji gear a good home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:OK boys for future refernce if you ask someone for recommendations for a 'portrait lens' they're probably going to assume you're asking for lens that is best at taking THE NORMAL DEFINITION OF A PORTRAIT If you think this guy is correct, slap a ringflash on your poo poo and go shoot a bunch of face-flling-frame 18mm portraits eight inches from someone's face. Would I try to sell it to an actor for promotional use? No. Is it a really neat look? gently caress yes. Basically anyone who tells you "never shoot _______ with _______ for _______ reason" is stupid, or is successfully attempting to appear so. Shoot what gives you the results you want. That's all that matters. Whoever originally posted this, you probably have a kit lens. If not you should probably get one. You can try shooting portraits at (presumably) anywhere between 18 and 55mm, depending on your lens. See what you like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Disclaimer - don't shoot portraits of your significant other with an ultra wide angle. You may trigger deep-seeded nose-size emotional trauma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:
I shouldn't have said 'not ever', that was really dumb. But people jumped down my throat because I said shooting a portrait with a wide lens would result in distorted faces and features, and dimensions. Which it does. I think the work of guys like Schoeller is really radical but I'm not going to recommend that equipment to a new photographer looking for advice on first lens for fucks sake Subyng posted:Shooting a portrait close up will result in distorted features. Shooting one with a wide angle lens from an appropriately far distance won't. Yes, we've been over this. I think its fair to presume he isn't going to take a full body shot with a wide lens and crop it down to a head shot. Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Shooting a portrait close up will result in distorted features. Shooting one with a wide angle lens from an appropriately far distance won't. If you take two lenses, one wide and one tele (relative), and shoot the same subject from the same distance away, and crop the wide photo to the same field of view as the tele photo, the two will be optically exactly the same. Subyng fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Subyng posted:If you take two lenses, one wide and one tele (relative), and shoot the same subject from the same distance away, and crop the wide photo to the same field of view as the tele photo, the two will be optically exactly the same. Was gonna say this. The perspective is only affected by your distance to the subject. The focal length (in combination with your sensor size) only determines your field of view, not how much the subject will be distorted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
While I wouldn't recommend a 19-35 as anyone's first portrait lens, you can actually get quite decent results at 19mm, if that's the look you're going for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
I would say some people look better with a closer perspective, even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I would say some people look better with a closer perspective, even. Yeah I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I think that was 19mm, f/8, with full TTL ringlight. Working distance was less than a foot. (it was a full-frame 19-35 on a crop sensor) But yeah if I'm doing actor headshots, I'm probably between 105-180mm, one stop down from wide-loving-open, minimum focus distance or close to it. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/lens-choice-affects-subjects-appearance If you look at that page, the people in the comments section there also confirm that focal length does not affect perspective. The reason everyone's correcting you is because what you've said carried a lot of assumptions that are very misleading to beginning photographers, so it's something worth clarifying. The photographer in the video you linked also says odd stuff like, "I love 135mm because it provides more shallow depth of field when shooting with a fast lens." Again he repeats a common misconception, at odds with the fact that he's shooting with the same subject framing. Depth of field is affected by both focal length and subject distance, so for a given framing they both cancel out and your depth of field remains the same for a given aperture. i.e. 85mm f/2 will give the same DOF as 200mm f/2 if the distance to the subject is increased to give the same subject magnification. All you've done is show that even pros get the terms and concepts confused, which is why it's important to point it out when people repeat commonly believed myths. Jimlad fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Depth of field is affected by both focal length and subject distance, so for a given framing they both cancel out and your depth of field remains the same for a given aperture. i.e. 85mm f/2 will give the same DOF as 200mm f/2 if the distance to the subject is increased to give the same subject magnification. you forgot that sensor size must be held constant 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Matt Granger JUST released a video on the subject as well, demonstrating that the DOF is identical, but what changes is the compression/bokeh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of62i3U5VB0
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Also, depth of field is not absolute. If I recall correctly, one of the factors is the circle of confusion, which is the size of the spot of light focused to an point (in real life lenses aren't perfect, hence it will be a spot). What this means is that depth of field, and more fundamentally, focus, is totally relative to magnification. When you take a photo of a subject with a wide angle lens and a tele lens from the same distance, what happens is the out of focus background you would see in the tele photo takes up the entire frame, whereas in the wide photo that same area of background would only take up a fraction of the space - therefore, all the points of light in that area of background appear smaller, and therefore it appears to be more in focus. Conversely, take the wide angle photo, crop it, and blow it up in size to match the tele photo (assuming you have enough pixels in your image), and the background will appear less in focus. It's the same reason as why an out-of-focus picture looks fine until you magnify it. It's all relative. I found a great website explaining this before with examples but I can't find it at the moment, but will post it when I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I'm kinda revisiting the possibility of picking up one of these small cameras. I just don't want to lug around my DSLR to most places, and for things like street photography it makes you feel like a doofus. Thing is there are so many models out now and since these things aren't the new hotness anymore there aren't any up to date comparison guides I have yet to find. So I am kinda looking for a current buyers guide or summary of the major models. I kinda always loved my Fuji point and shoot many years ago, and like the look of those but not sure if I want a fixed focal length. Everything else about the X100T sounds awesome though so maybe I'll end up getting it when it comes out, but probably should know more about the other options like the Fuji X-E1 or other brands. What is the compatibility like for lenses between lens systems, or what is good for doing a rangefinder or focus peeking type mode some some cool leica or whatever lenses. Just too drat info out now and I haven't been paying attention to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
If you're looking to adapt lenses, the Sony A7 series is the best because it's full frame so all the lenses from film cameras will match up, focal length-wise. That said, even with a crop sensor camera, a set of 28mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses will take you a long way for a little cash. You'll just have to get a native wide angle lens. All interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras will take almost all 35mm film camera lenses with the right adapters, so aside from the A7's sensor size advantage, there's really no big winner in that department. Sony is also a little further ahead in the "getting autofocus to work" department with other lenses like EOS lenses with the Metabones adapter and the like, but it's so slow that it's not even worth taking into consideration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I'm just waiting for fuji to make a XT-1-performance camera in an x-pro form factor. I tried a x100s and the input lag was unbearable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I'm just waiting for fuji to make a XT-1-performance camera in an x-pro form factor. I tried a x100s and the input lag was unbearable. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
The X100T is supposed to have improved performance compared to the X100S, I guess I'll find out soon (Amazon ships on the 13th). I couldn't really justify waiting for the X-PRO2 when its probably going to cost $2300 by the time you get a lens for it. There are also those 2 adapter lenses for the 100 series, so you're not exactly stuck with 35mm equiv (although the teleconverter is huge).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
I was thinking of selling my Canon DLSR and lenses since I'm mostly shooting film and not really using it any more. I'd still like to have a digital camera, something smaller that I'd be more likely to bring with me, particularly when travelling and room is an issue. I've been thinking about getting a Fuji x100s but I've seen that a camera shop near me is doing the X-Pro 1 with 18mm and 27mm lenses for €1000. So my question is; what is the X-Pro 1 like after all the firmware upgrades at the moment? Is the autofocus still kind of poo poo or has that been remedied?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
crap nerd posted:I was thinking of selling my Canon DLSR and lenses since I'm mostly shooting film and not really using it any more. I'd still like to have a digital camera, something smaller that I'd be more likely to bring with me, particularly when travelling and room is an issue. I've been thinking about getting a Fuji x100s but I've seen that a camera shop near me is doing the X-Pro 1 with 18mm and 27mm lenses for €1000. The Xpro's autofocus isn't amazing but it isn't trash either. I'm a fan of mine, the OVF more than makes up for any short comings the camera has in my opinion. The 18mm isn't great but I hear good things about the 27mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Thanks! How do you think it holds up to the x100s? The option to use other lenses would be good but I like the 28-35mm ish equivalent range so if the 18mm wasn't much good that would be a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
My understanding is that the 18mm isn't a bad lens, it just doesn't hit the heights of the system's best lenses. I too have been tempted by the current x-pro1 offer, but it's not really high enough up my priorities to spend the cash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the 18 is a fine lens, it's just that the 35 and the 23 are both in a similar price range new and both are amazing lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I've seen great photos from the XF 18mm, I'm pretty sure it's not the lens that will be the limiting factor for good photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
The 18mm XF is acceptable. It's just no where near as good as the 35 or 56mm that I also own. I was very happy with the 18mm until I shot a wedding with it, the distortion and off-center sharpness are no where near as good as the 28mm AIS Nikkor I used in a similar way back in the day when shooting them all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Yeah the 18mm is is by no means a great lens. It grabs focus quick but the IQ is not up to par with the rest of the XF lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Adapt a Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series E and realize that you will never need another lens ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The 18mm XF is acceptable. It's just no where near as good as the 35 or 56mm that I also own. I was very happy with the 18mm until I shot a wedding with it, the distortion and off-center sharpness are no where near as good as the 28mm AIS Nikkor I used in a similar way back in the day when shooting them all the time. To be fair, in that range, the Nikkor is one of the best lenses ever made (the Zeiss is better  )The Fuji 18 and 60 macro suffer from being average lenses in an above average lineup. luchadornado fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
Quoting and editing my post from the DSLR thread, since someone told me I might want mirrorless instead of DSLR.Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:To give an idea of the kinds of things I want to shoot: Is there a camera that handles this stuff well? I was just looking around, and the NX1's promo video seems to look pretty darn nice, and 4K to boot. I have some money to burn, but I want to burn it wisely and only once until I progress a bit from beginner to an intermediate or advanced level of familiarity with shooting
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:53
|
|