Jump to content

Build Theme!

Photo
- - - - -

Everything Digital Photography


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#21 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 09 February 2014 - 07:51 PM

Look at this, by the Nikkor S-Auto 55/1.2 of 1965

Wide open (click for enlargement)
sample2.jpg

F2.8
sample3.jpg

#22 kenterong

kenterong

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:28 PM

dreamy



#23 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:31 AM

Most who live in towns and cities never really get to see a starry night sky. I really only noticed what I was missing when I started living in the country. From out of my balcony, it's pitch dark at night because if a lack of civilization and the accompanying lights: from street lamps, houses, shops, and cars. In towns, this ambient artificial light makes the stars in the sky difficult to see.

The stars remain hidden even when you gaze upwards because of the contrast-reducing stray light from around you.

Hoods on lenses increase image contrast by blocking stray, non-image forming light from entering the lens. Hoods are however cumbersome--most are large and protrude forwards a great deal. But here's a relatively compact, effective solution on my 35/2. image_zps36bec6cc.jpg

I saw this hood in a Sony shop ...
image_zpsbc286355.jpg

..and borrowed the idea. Executed in card on my ef-m 22/2.
image_zps18a0d67f.jpg

#24 kenterong

kenterong

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 17 February 2014 - 12:36 PM

my main concern with light pollution would actually be in the context of getting star trail pictures.

 

to date, i have only one semi-success with getting a star trail picture.
 

that sure seems like an elegant solution to cumbersome hoods, though i think you would still require the conventional hood for wide angle lenses.



#25 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 23 February 2014 - 02:00 AM

Just now. Hand held.

IMG_3645_zpsc2cd2023.jpg



#26 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 01 April 2014 - 07:21 PM

I noticed one of my macro lenses is very dusty on the surfaces facing the diaphragm. So I removed the rear group. Look at the dust!
image_zpsb7246458.jpg

After cleaning
image_zps6c080d53.jpg

After reassembly
image_zpse79027e5.jpg

#27 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 07 July 2014 - 02:27 PM

So I was trawling lowyat (the forum) looking for a particular lens to buy. But I saw a Canon 650D + EF 40mm/2.8 being sold for the conspicuously low price of RM1.4K. Shutter count was only 1300 actuations. I meditated to the stage of first djana, took cold showers, went for long walks and binged on chocolate to dissipate the intense desire to buy yet another camera I do not need.

Then three days later, the seller lowered his price to RM1.2K. Haih. So severely thou tempteth us, oh Lord.
IMG_4985_zps2e596679.jpg

The latest dog pic in the other thread was shot with this setup.

#28 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 13 July 2014 - 11:52 AM

I saw a lens on mudah I couldn't pass up. The Sigma 105/2.8 EX Macro. It was going for RM250. The seller described the AF as not working, which is fine with me. I have three macro lenses, and none could be autofocussed properly since the focus range is so long and the DOF so narrow. I.e. I use macro lenses in manual focus mode.

When I met up with the seller, I found a wonderfully built lens, heavily used, but disappointingly, it was riddled with haze and fungus. The haze was so bad, the pictures were low contrast and there was blooming around high contrast edges. I told the seller I am not taking the lens, but he said let's do RM200. Well, I am getting a very nice original metal lens hood, and both caps, and a lens that might be serviced. So I took it.

It turns out the entire haze and fungus was on a single lens surface -- on the rear group, directly facing the aperture. I spent 30 minutes disassembling the lens and managed to completely clean out the fungus.
IMG_1924_zps4a085d0d.jpg

While inside, it also became apparent why the AF isn't working: the rubber drive belt is loose with age. This is a little rubber band the circumference of a 10 sen coin. If you take a closer look at the lens above, you'll see the black rubber belt. I'll give Sigma a call about a replacement.

Meanwhile, you would never guess this lens ever had fungus on it. Perfect.
IMG_1946_zpsdd4a51cf.jpg

IMG_1967_zpsa9271a19.jpg

#29 kenterong

kenterong

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:29 PM

yep, macro lenses are awesome, especially if they're 105mm or longer. mine isn't as fast with a variable aperture of f4.5-5.6, compared to your sigma 105/2.8.

 

but then again, you probably need to stop down to f8 (or f16 even) for adequate depth of field anyways.

 

_DSC1938copy.jpg

at the kl butterfly park.

 

 

_DSC1184.jpg

unfurled silver fern frond.



#30 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 13 July 2014 - 07:21 PM

Let me see the macro lenses I have.

Minolta Maxxum AF 50/2.8
Canon EF-S 60/2.8
Canon Compact-Macro EF 50/2.5
Sigma EX 105/2.8 Macro

Of these four, the Canon 60/2.8 is a forever lens, i.e. I will never part with it. Staggeringly good, modern performance, without qualifications. The Compact-Macro is an ancient design from 1983, but still made today. It is no longer competitive by today's standards, let down mostly by low contrast and loads of chromatic aberration especially in the OOF plane. Yet it has the creamiest bokeh of all four, and the low contrast gives it the relaxed look of vintage lenses. It's perfect as a normal lens on a Canon film body for B&W. The Minolta is of a similar vintage to the Compact-Macro, and is also still made today with new coatings and a new housing under the Sony label. It is a well-tempered lens, competent in every aspect. The Sigma, from preliminary shooting, is not that sharp but sharp enough, not that contrasty but contrasty enough. The bokeh is just acceptable. It's not a lens for the connoisseur, but like any modern lens, perfectly good enough for its intended application. In the arena of macro lenses, there is never poor performance, just either very good or jaw-droppingly good.

#31 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 14 July 2014 - 11:39 AM

Lousy Canon with Sigma 35/1.4 Art. (I would love to peek at his camera closet, must be overflowing.)
tumblr_n3fxn7nQtL1qad1efo1_1280.jpg

Ethan is the one with the M Monochrom.
"I shoot with 3 cameras for the most part - A Leica M3 film, a Leica M9 digital and Leica M Monochrom digital. I have for the longest time shot only with a 50/2 pre-asph lens I bought about 6 years ago, from the early 90’s, but recently bought a 50/2 dual range close focus lens, and a 35/2.8, both late 60’s Leica. I have a 90mm that I bought for $100 on ebay which is surprisingly good for a 50 year old piece of glass, and a 50/1.4 from the 80’s which sits on my old M8 gathering dust.

"Film I primarily shoot with Ilford HP5 for black and white, and Kodak portra for colour.

"I shoot with Leica because I know it, have learnt it reasonably well, and can rely on it. I’ve never bought anything new, and am always scrounging for bargains or calling in favours to get my photography gear. It’s expensive stuff, but bargains can be had if you look. An M3 with an old 50mm lens is about the best set up I can think of, and my M3 and 50mm lens cost me less than $1500. Not cheap, but still a bargain for such a great camera."

#32 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 17 July 2014 - 11:47 PM

Sufficiently cinematic?
browneebb2_zpsc88de736.jpg

#33 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 18 July 2014 - 03:59 PM

Just got off the phone with the Sigma repair technician. It's like talking to a mental retard. Totally useless. He wants me to send the lens in to him, but this is impossible because I can't put any lens in the hands of a dumb ass who needs to be bashed on the head with a hockey stick a few times to wake him up.

#34 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:37 PM

Alien technology
eosprofile_zps0e6f373e.jpg

#35 joonian

joonian

    Megatimer

  • Alfa once more
  • 2,134 posts
  • Location-

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:51 PM

Possibly an alien commode?



#36 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 20 July 2014 - 09:43 PM

After a long day, finally the drive home. I've been intrigued by my new lens, the Canon EF 40mm f2.8. How does it draw? This is a recent lens, introduced in 2012, and one which Canon is proud of, with a full page cover ad in a Japanese photography magazine. The ad has a MTF diagram of the lens. Just shows who they are communicating to. Canon lenses are typically bulky, but this one is very compact.

And very good.
foliage_zps4926745f.jpg

tanah_zps612a1c21.jpg

grass_zpsf203f10b.jpg

It's a very cost effective lens at RM500 new. Bargain of the decade.

#37 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:31 AM

Gathering experience with my Sigma 105mm/2.8 macro as a cine lens. The Canon video format is vastly better than the Sony AVCHD, the worst codec ever. Yet, even the Canon is just barely OK; nobody is going to mistake this for 4K.


The Sigma lens is very low contrast at closer focussing distances like those above. It's not such a great lens. I also shot with the EF-S 60mm/2.8 and the colours and vibrancy were much better. But in videos like this the limiting factor is not the lens, it is the format/codec, and it is youtube's compression.

#38 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:13 PM

Super-Takumar 135/3.5 with backlit subject. The veiling flare is out of this world. Cinematographers actually use a smoke generator to create this veiled effect.
DSC05186_edited_900px_zps77fdfb3b.jpg

#39 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:44 PM

More important than the lens, or camera, is the lighting. But if you must know, this is the Canon 40/2.8 on an EOS M.
brownee_potrait_zps35ad716c.jpg

#40 kotmj

kotmj

    Megatimer

  • Members
  • 7,681 posts
  • LocationBukit Rimau

Posted 05 September 2014 - 04:06 AM

My current most-used lens was made in Shah Alam
4028_zpscfaaea9c.jpg




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users