pico Posted March 10, 2019 Share #61 Posted March 10, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 34 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said: Here's another. It's from Jono's review of the APO SL 35/2.0. Oh yes! That reminds me of this one with 35mm at 2.8 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 Hi pico, Take a look here 35mm Noctilux Lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
low325 Posted March 10, 2019 Share #62 Posted March 10, 2019 I agree with wide angle and bokeh...you can certainly tell a story with this effect. The 24mm FL is great example of story telling..and I’m not just talking landscapes. Perhaps these looks are not as popular in RF land because with (D)SLR you can get pretty up close to give the desired effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 10, 2019 Share #63 Posted March 10, 2019 (edited) OK, here's a 24/2.8 and it was probably at 2.8. Focus on the guide in the center. But my usual mode in reasonable light is to go to f/5.6, keep a little distance, and get everything in focus. Edited March 10, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted March 11, 2019 Share #64 Posted March 11, 2019 11 hours ago, pico said: Oh yes! That reminds me of this one with 35mm at 2.8 if it was the bokeh you guys were talking about then ok you got it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAL Posted March 12, 2019 Share #65 Posted March 12, 2019 Am 10.3.2019 um 22:03 schrieb pico: 24mm lens at ƒ2.8 Sadly that’s not shallow dof, that‘s out of focus. Of course everything looks creamy then. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike3996 Posted March 12, 2019 Share #66 Posted March 12, 2019 20 minutes ago, SMAL said: Sadly that’s not shallow dof, that‘s out of focus. Of course everything looks creamy then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted March 12, 2019 Share #67 Posted March 12, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can't offer an example of 24mm @ f2.8 but I can offer one of 25mm @ f2.4. (25mm Zeiss Loxia f2.4 0n A7III). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 12, 2019 Share #68 Posted March 12, 2019 5 hours ago, SMAL said: Sadly that’s not shallow dof, that‘s out of focus. Of course everything looks creamy then. It is not out-of-focus. Soft, hazy, or maybe a little camera shake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAL Posted March 13, 2019 Share #69 Posted March 13, 2019 vor 11 Stunden schrieb pico: It is not out-of-focus. Soft, hazy, or maybe a little camera shake. It’s pretty well front focused and someone tried to bump all the contrast and clarity on the face in the hopes to make it look somewhat in focus. I also don’t think these are good examples. The 35mm shot you posted is so over processed that it hurts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 13, 2019 Share #70 Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, SMAL said: It’s pretty well front focused and someone tried to bump all the contrast and clarity on the face in the hopes to make it look somewhat in focus. I also don’t think these are good examples. The 35mm shot you posted is so over processed that it hurts. Point one - You can see that her eye and string necklace are in focus. The negative was underexposed thus contrast to put non-detail to black. Point two - Over-processed? It is a scan from a wet print. Get real Edited March 13, 2019 by pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAL Posted March 13, 2019 Share #71 Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) vor 55 Minuten schrieb pico: Point one - You can see that her eye and string necklace are in focus. The negative was underexposed thus contrast to put non-detail to black. Point two - Over-processed? It is a scan from a wet print. Get real So, you didn’t apply any profiles while scanning it and you didn’t sharpen or post process nor did you apply an processing while exporting the photo? I doubt that, cause it is clearly over sharpened. You can take that critique or not, that’s up to you, but you can’t deny it just because the base was shot on a wet plate. Edited March 13, 2019 by SMAL 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 13, 2019 Share #72 Posted March 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, SMAL said: So, you didn’t apply any profiles while scanning it and you didn’t sharpen or post process nor did you apply an processing while exporting the photo? I doubt that, cause it is clearly over sharpened. You can take that critique or not, that’s up to you, but you can’t deny it just because the base was shot on a wet plate. I don't know what a profile is. Oh, and you are just plain full of irrelevant criticism. And wrong. I'm being kind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zvovchik Posted March 13, 2019 Share #73 Posted March 13, 2019 What are you scanning with pico? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAL Posted March 13, 2019 Share #74 Posted March 13, 2019 vor 12 Stunden schrieb pico: I don't know what a profile is. Oh, and you are just plain full of irrelevant criticism. And wrong. I'm being kind. Since you refuse to answer my questions I am pretty sure I am correct. I just think your examples don´t prove the point you tried to make. I think one is never too old to learn something new, but you of course don´t have to take anything I said at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted March 13, 2019 Share #75 Posted March 13, 2019 13 hours ago, pico said: I don't know what a profile is. Oh, and you are just plain full of irrelevant criticism. And wrong. I'm being kind. dude, you make fun of my typo too, is it a one way street? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAL Posted March 13, 2019 Share #76 Posted March 13, 2019 vor 31 Minuten schrieb jaeger: dude, you make fun of my typo too, is it a one way street? It´s easier to just give critique in the hopes to never receive some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 13, 2019 Share #77 Posted March 13, 2019 1 hour ago, jaeger said: dude, you make fun of my typo too, is it a one way street? I wasn't responding to you, jaeger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeger Posted March 13, 2019 Share #78 Posted March 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, pico said: I wasn't responding to you, jaeger. sure, I appreciate if you do the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yarosuav Posted September 10, 2021 Share #79 Posted September 10, 2021 Reviving this thread. Any news of a possible 35mm Noctilux? I bet it would sell like hotcakes... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 10, 2021 Share #80 Posted September 10, 2021 Still a lens I’d like to buy … 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now