Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 12, 2002, 7:54 PM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Default

The quality of the 50/1.0 in the widest apertures is marginal -- while it can yield pretty decent contrast in the center 1/3 of the frame assuming no oblique bright light sources exist, it is subject to coma and a number of other issues that can cause problems.

Sharpness in the center of the frame is a little better than OK -- fine detail (40lp/mm) suffers tremendously and coarse detail (10lp/mm) is fair. Resolution of fine detail at f/8 is about equal to resolution of coarse detail at f/1.0. Essentially, this is a lens that can be used for newsprint-level work wide open, but not for critical work or reasonably large blowups.

It will yield clean results given an aperture that is capable of them at about double-to-triple the shutter speeds of the 28mm, which can yield clean shots hand-held down to about 1/10-1/15 sec. assuming solid hand-held technique (the 50mm is effectively slower due to the longer focal length). Considering the 50/1.0 should be stopped down a bit for best results, this makes it about half as fast as the 28mm, but you certainly can see to focus in darker conditions. While the 28mm is a little soft at f/1.4, it is nowhere near as soft as the 50/1.0 is at f/1.0, and is still a little better at f/1.4 (but at that aperture they are close enough to be effectively equal to anyone who isn't picking nits). The major difference is that the 28mm f/1.4D reaches optimum resolution of detail at f/2.8, two stops earlier than the 50/1.0 -- and maintains performance from f/2.8 to f/8 where the 50/1.0 hits the peak at f/5.6 and drops off at f/9.

Both are very good lenses. No doubt. Both are also extremely expensive and are quite specialized... While the 50/1.0 is a technological masterpiece, it is not really a practical tool in my opinion unless you need a coverage lens in that focal length for shooting in near dark -- most people who shoot Canon who need a tool like that would shoot the 50/1.4 as it is equal wide open to the performance of the 50/1.0 when at f/1.4, equal to the /1.0 when both are at f/8, and is significantly lighter and better balanced on a pro body, allowing for sharper results under most conditions for a tremendously lower price. In my opinion, the Nikkor 28/1.4D is the more practical tool of these two for the application (precision results with high yield in low light conditions). The better Canon lenses for this application are in my opinion the 28/2.8 (which is exceptional wide open) and the 50/1.4 shot at f/2.
RonReznick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2002, 2:04 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32
Default

My comment about the 50/1.0 was a bit tongue in cheek. I could go on for a while about the differences between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.0, however, the most significant differences are price and weight. Both of these features favor the 50/1.4 in most situations.
I haven't had problems with contrast or sharpness with the 50/1.0 in the situations where I've been able to use it. I presume the 1.6 multiplier of the D60 helps out there some by naturally favoring the center of the image. I suppose this will be more of an issue with the 1DS with its full frame sensor.
All this not withstanding, the 50/1.0 is an amazing piece of glass. Just holding it is really quite a feeling. However, I don't expect that I will ever own one myself. And of course in your situation, something wider than a 50 makes a lot of sense.

As for your particular choices for low light, all I can say is that your images are impeccable (as always), so I can only aspire to look and learn. Your "good shot" statistics are quite telling. Sounds like the 28/1.4 is a winner.

Thanks for sharing the great work so the rest of us can enjoy and take notes.

-r
Roger M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2002, 2:40 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Default

Roger, the next time you get a chance to use the 50/1.0, see if you can go somewhere where you can shoot flat-field (e.g. paintings). You'll notice at wide apertures an extreme difference in detail when looking at fine lines, small brushmarks and details in the canvas in comparison to large details, which are rendered quite well in the center 2/3 of the frame. Essentially, what you'll see is a good general look with little definition of fine detail. Another test would be shooting a wide aperture portrait. Lock securely on the eyes and check the results on eyebrows and eyelashes, details in the iris, skin details, and facial hair. You'll immediately see what I mean.

I agree that the 50/1.4 makes one heck of a lot better sense.

I'm pleased that you enjoyed the Getty shots
RonReznick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2002, 3:50 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 92
Default

Hey Ron, are you still pushing that $60 28 f1.4?
I shot a wedding with the 50 f1.4 and have to agree with you, it's a steal at $300 and is good as some of the L lenses. It also improves the D60's poor AF in low light. I had my eye on the 1Ds but I'm about $6000 short so I think I'll go for the 24-70L when it becomes available.
I can see by your Arizona Scenics and Wildlife you haven't lost your touch. Where have you been hanging out, haven't seen you around lately? I'm still shooting seagulls, old habits are hard to break.

Tom
Tom C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2002, 10:26 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Default

Hey, Tom!

It's been pretty busy lately... I haven't had a heck of a lot of time for casual shooting during the day as I used to, but I think I'm going to try to make some soon. An hour and a half of escape turns into three or four when it comes time for processing, you know?

If I were shooting weddings and such, I'd go for a wide-to-tele zoom too. Fortunately, I don't do that (I've shot a grand total of three). I am however going to be finding myself shooting models a lot more in the future if a meeting today goes right, so I may have to reacquire one of those monster 28-70s. The primes really do a spectacular job, but under the studio lights I can rarely shoot the wide aperture stuff, and at f/8-f/11 the zoom is fine, plus the flexibility of focal length offsets any minor performance penalty.

This next few months ought to be interesting

Speaking of the next few months, the new releases ought to finally allow for effectively unlimited output size. What I'm hoping to see in the next Nikon release is around 6-8MP in a high-speed, large buffer, large photosite "h-series" body, but they are more likely to go with something ridiculous to compete against the 1Ds, which is really designed as a studio/landscape camera. Frankly, I don't envy anyone the workflow hassles involved with storage and processing of 11-14MP files. I guess we'll soon see. For the studio stuff, it might be necessary to go this route, esp. since another part of that studio work will entail product photography for advertising ($$$).

Nice to "see" you, Tom!
RonReznick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2002, 2:15 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 92
Default

Hmmm, shooting models, now that sounds like a job I could live with.
If you shoot models half as good as you shoot birds you will have not problems Ron, best of luck.
I'm looking forward to getting the new Canon 24-70L f2.8, this lens should be excellent for weddings and everyday shooting. I have the Tokina 20-35 AT-X PRO but it's not very sharp wide open. I may have to pick up the Canon 20 F2.8 and sell the Tokina, but I'm not sure how well the Canon does at f.28. Then again the 24-70 is all I may need.

Tom
Tom C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2002, 2:39 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Default



The above was done during a test-shoot. The women are a heck of a lot easier to capture than birds, Tom. No doubt at all.

No zoom is sharp wide open -- not one that I've seen or worked with, anyway. Without exception, 2 stops down is a rule of thumb for best performance. While some can be shot one stop down with minor loss of sharpness and contrast, even they do better two stops down. It all depends on how clean of a shot you want to yield.

Now if they come out with a 24-85mm f/2 with zero distortion at the wide end, optimum performance at f/2.8-f/8 (assuming that you're shooting the middle-to-long end) and optimum performance at f/4-f/11 at the wide end, you can sign me and about a million others up. Heck, I'd buy a Canon body just to use that lens if Canon came out with one...

Ron

PS: The website has had a 20-hour, extreme makeover. Stop by to check out the 2002 Portfolio section if you get some time
RonReznick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2002, 1:20 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2
Default

I'm really liking these pictures of yours, especially the ones in the bird gallery. I think my fav landscape has to be the one of the moon over Mather Point. Excellently done.
jyerger24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2003, 11:51 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 62
Default Arizona Shots

Loved your Grand Canyon shots.
Nice depth of field and detail.
One question though, did you use a polarizer?
It just seems that the shots have an overall hazy cast.
pixrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2003, 4:59 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 157
Default

It was a bit hazy in some instances up there. Humidity was higher than normal and the first day there was a storm over the canyon. A few shots are narrow FOV telephoto-scenics, and on those you can see the effects of going through the somewhat-hazy atmosphere even more.

I shot a few times with polarizer but none of the ones up on the web was taken with it. Sometimes it yields really neat skies and of course for reflective surfaces and certain other situations it is quite useful, but sometimes I just don't like the effect. I was using UV(0) filters most of the time.

Ron
RonReznick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:56 AM.