Everything Digital Photography
Posted 16 February 2014 - 02:31 AM
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.
I saw this hood in a Sony shop ...
..and borrowed the idea. Executed in card on my ef-m 22/2.
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.
Posted 07 July 2014 - 02:27 PM
Then three days later, the seller lowered his price to RM1.2K. Haih. So severely thou tempteth us, oh Lord.
The latest dog pic in the other thread was shot with this setup.
Posted 13 July 2014 - 11:52 AM
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.
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.
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.
at the kl butterfly park.
unfurled silver fern frond.
Posted 13 July 2014 - 07:21 PM
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.
Posted 14 July 2014 - 11:39 AM
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."
Posted 18 July 2014 - 03:59 PM
Posted 20 July 2014 - 09:43 PM
And very good.
It's a very cost effective lens at RM500 new. Bargain of the decade.
Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:31 AM
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.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users