The Photo Snob Thread

O

Oliver.

Liquid Productions
Tristan23 said:
I, personally, think everyone needs to do a little less talking, and a little more walking, that's all.
Click to expand...
Truer words never spoken. This is the part where I would like to add, that part of being a good photographer (or anything else for that matter) is the ability to "speak softly and carry a big stick"

Being overly critical of gear differences and attributes will get you nowhere, yet taking great photos by absorbing information and using it to your advantage in a practical situation, will get you much further.

Read, absorb, take photographs...but don't get overly fussed or critical about top-notch gear. Lets hear some talk about light, colour, places, people and most importantly, photos!
 
O

Oliver.

Liquid Productions
Atomizer said:
I haven't for a very good reason. It's no better, if not worse, optically than the 50mm f/1.4, which is almost 1/4 the price. Now that the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L has finally been replaced it is currently the least performing of the Canon 'L' lenses. It's not rubbish; just not value for money.
Click to expand...
If I had the cash, I would get myself a 50 1.2L in a heartbeat. The extra DOF, build quality and finish is something I could certainly see myself spending cash on. However, I have no reason to comment on whether or not it is better or worse than a 50mm 1.4, and until I have photographed extensively with both. Until then, I have no opinion either way:) (But I would still buy one!)

Since I've now done the exact opposite of what I just spoke about earlier, I will fix it with some photo-posting!


Alan, riding some beautiful singletrack at sundown.
50/1.8 @ 3.2 ISO800 1/500th
 
T

tupper

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Edit: Directed @Tristan mostly :)

A good photographer can produce amazing stuff with cheap, simple gear. I'm with you there 100%. Skilled hands is the foundation of ones photography.

However, what I have found that to get good results out of cheap gear.. you have to try and work a lot harder to produce those results. Back using the old 400D (was great by the way, a gateway to progression in my photography) and after just purchasing the 5D, I found I had to spend a lot less time processing my images that they output such at white balances, out of camera was light years ahead.. There's a plus for buying pro gear.

Next was upgrading the 10-20 to the 17-40L. (although the 17-40 isn't too expensive in terms of Canon UWA's.) 10-20 is a great lens. But after buy the 17-40, you can really see the difference in not only the IQ, but the attention to things like stopping down for sharpness.

The 50L was bought because I didn't want to buy, and then upgrade again later when I'm ready.

These pro gear offer not only the IQ.. but they increase the amount of keepers (less chance of missing important shots.. [not so important for portrait sessions I guess.. you get to take shot after shot]) and they decrease the amount of processing needed to be done. Which means more time behind the camera and less behind the computer.

But that's enough talking for me ;) I'm in Adelaide at the moment.. so i'll stop talking and get out and shoot. So I have something to post, not just talk about.
 
T

tupper

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Atomizer said:
I haven't for a very good reason. It's no better, if not worse, optically than the 50mm f/1.4, which is almost 1/4 the price. Now that the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L has finally been replaced it is currently the least performing of the Canon 'L' lenses. It's not rubbish; just not value for money.
Click to expand...
Your not serious? I tried the 50mm f/1.4 and (no offense to owners of it) the 50L runs circles around it calling it stupid names.

It has a great ability to make images 'pop' or appear 3D like.

50L beats it in sharpness (50L @ 1.4 is alot sharper than 1.2 btw), Bokeh, AF, Build Quality, Colour and Low light ability. That's basically every aspect but price?

Edit: I'm not taking away the fact that the 1.4 is a great lens for the price.. it just needs a little work.
 
Last edited:
Atomizer

Atomizer

Likes Dirt
olly1oo6 said:
If I had the cash, I would get myself a 50 1.2L in a heartbeat. The extra DOF, build quality and finish is something I could certainly see myself spending cash on. However, I have no reason to comment on whether or not it is better or worse than a 50mm 1.4, and until I have photographed extensively with both. Until then, I have no opinion either way:) (But I would still buy one!)
Click to expand...
Agreed, to a point, (and I'm not wanting to wave a shitty stick at tupper....not my intent) but I like the idea of the f/1.2 'L' more than the performance/price of it. It has been tested extensively and doesn't weigh up. If it performed as well as, or better than, the 'L' lenses on either side of it I'd have one, as an ultra fast 50mm lens serves many an excellent purpose.

Copies vary, and good luck to those that have the exceptional ones, but I've tried out three 50mm f/1.2 'L's and didn't buy.
 
Last edited:
T

tupper

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Atomizer said:
Agreed, to a point, (and I'm not wanting to wave a shitty stick at Ewan....not my intent) but I like the idea of the f/1.2 'L' more than the performance/price of it. It has been tested extensively and doesn't weigh up. If it performed as well as, or better than, the 'L' lenses on either side of it I'd have one, as an ultra fast 50mm lens serves many an excellent purpose.

Copies vary and good luck to those that have the exception ones but I've tried out three and didn't buy.
Click to expand...
True. The 50L has come up crap on basically every test chart I have seen. Why do people buy it then? Because the images produced by it are great.. when they are not pointed at a flat surface testing its sharpness.

I said I wouldn't post without sharing.. So here is wide open f/1.2 - nothing special

 
Last edited:
Atomizer

Atomizer

Likes Dirt
tupper said:
True. The 50L has come up crap on basically every test chart I have seen. Why do people buy it then? Because the images produced by it are great.. when they are not pointed at a flat surface testing its sharpness.
Click to expand...
Images I constantly see produced from the f/1.2 'L' are often always remarkable mate but is that the photographer's skill or the lens? As you know all too well it's more the human eye behind the camera than it is the glass in front of it that makes an exceptional photo. ;)
 
T

tupper

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Atomizer said:
Images I constantly see produced from the f/1.2 'L' are often always remarkable mate but is that the photographer's skill or the lens? As you know all too well it's more the human eye behind the camera than it is the glass in front of it that makes an exceptional photo. ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed, but could these amazing photos be taken at the same standard by the same photographer with the same lens.. Depending on just how good a photographer Mr. X is.. he would have a hard time trying to keep up with the 50L if using other Canon 50mm's.

I'll retire from this conversation til I have more photo evidence to share of the 50L's beauty ;)
 
Tristan23

Tristan23

Farkin guerilla
tupper said:
Indeed, but could these amazing photos be taken at the same standard by the same photographer with the same lens.. Depending on just how good a photographer Mr. X is.. he would have a hard time trying to keep up with the 50L if using other Canon 50mm's.
Click to expand...
He could keep up if he didn't have to open up past f/1.8...
 
Atomizer

Atomizer

Likes Dirt
Tristan23 said:
He could keep up if he didn't have to open up past f/1.8...
Click to expand...
And what is being compared? Contrast, flare, sharpness, lens aberrations, bokeh..or, ultimately, the power of the image, it's lighting, subject and composition?

Technical versus aesthetic/creative.
 
S

syko

Likes Dirt
Wow now that was a good read!

Anyway I'm in Adelaide at the moment and am staying with an artist by the name of Frank Bauer, and while i was shit bored yesterday i had a wonder through the house and snapped his glasses that he himself made, i know its nothing fancy at f/1.2 but its a picture anywho.

Enjoy.
 
Tristan23

Tristan23

Farkin guerilla
Disclaimer: Yes, I do see the complete and utter irony in me posting the following after i've been whinging like a baby about people and the internet and their gear, but meh..haha...i'm going to do it anyway. :p

New toys: 28mm f/1.8 USM and BG-E7 battery grip. The 28mm seems a little wider than i'd hoped...I possibly should've gone for the 35mm f/2, though the 28mm has a couple of benefits; better build quality, USM, full-time manual focus ring, f/1.8 aperture over f/2 (not much difference, but it's always cool to have), but did cost $280 more. It's not L-series, as, for the moment, I don't have the money to drop $1850 on a 35 f/1.4L, but it's nice.

A quick couple of shots shows that at f/1.8 it's pretty soft and lacks contrast, at f/2 or f/2.2 it's more contrasty but still a little soft, but by f/2.5 it's basically as sharp and contrasty as it is at f/3.5 or f/4...so i'm happy. I look forward to going and giving it a proper test...I wish my girlfriend wasn't at work!

Obligatory photo...

 
T

tupper

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Good on you for sticking with the 28 over the 35. The build and AF is a lot better, and you will appreciate that in the long run.
From what I have seen, the 28 has some nice bokeh, and even though not the sharpest, is usable at f/2 onwards. Have fun mate!
 
A

alexx23

Likes Dirt


matoos:

1000d
nifty fifty
Exposure: (1/1250)
Aperture: f/3.2
ISO Speed: 100

and yeas, that black line up the top shits me too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top