Let's Talk Photography!

[Tinkaroo]

Some interesting photos Solist! =D>

Very dark and moody!

[Solist]

Those were the "brightest" I could find.. :D [-o<

[Tinkaroo]

I've been trying to upgrade my lenses, especially for my full frame Sony A850 so decided to try out 3 of these new to me lenses on the same subject just for practice. It was early morning and overcast with light fog.The subject was a lobster boat which was on the boat slip for maintenance and repainting.

Scotia Voyager A850 20 R.jpg

(137.59 KiB) Downloaded 94 times

This was with a Minolta 20mm 2.8 prime lens.

Scotia Voyager A850 24-70 R.jpg

(186.61 KiB) Downloaded 91 times

This was with the Sony Zeiss 24-70 2.8 zoom at 50mm.

Scotia Voyager A850 85.jpg

(166.92 KiB) Downloaded 93 times

This was with a Minolta 85mm 1.4 prime lens.

I can also use these lenses on my Sony A700 with a C sized sensor but they end up with the crop factor of 1.5 meaning the 20 mm acts like a 30 mm.

[gullkeoby]

I am in photography from 1983-84. Field of interest is 99 % black and white...via film or digital...I was work like a photo reporter one period of my life but mostly i enjoy in photography in streets or nature -landscapes...as time passing i care less for people in my pictures...(to easy to make a good pictures with people in...challenge is without them..some of my pictures you could see here https://www.deviantart.com/denis2....
Through year i was use many cameras but most dear are old Canon f1 ( still have that one from 1969 i think),Yashica mat 124 6x6...now i use Canon 5d and 6d...i find for tech talk lenses are more interesting then cameras...one of my dearest is Leica zoom 35-70 that i use on Canon 5d and it is a great lens (maybe a little to sharp for digital)....

[Tinkaroo]

I am in photography from 1983-84. Field of interest is 99 % black and white...via film or digital...I was work like a photo reporter one period of my life but mostly i enjoy in photography in streets or nature -landscapes...as time passing i care less for people in my pictures...(to easy to make a good pictures with people in...challenge is without them..some of my pictures you could see here https://www.deviantart.com/denis2....
Through year i was use many cameras but most dear are old Canon f1 ( still have that one from 1969 i think),Yashica mat 124 6x6...now i use Canon 5d and 6d...i find for tech talk lenses are more interesting then cameras...one of my dearest is Leica zoom 35-70 that i use on Canon 5d and it is a great lens (maybe a little to sharp for digital)....

Thanks for sharing your interest in photography as well as some of your photos Denis! =D>

Some of them are quite stunning!

I'm curious what you meant about your one lens being maybe a little too sharp for digital?

[gullkeoby]

It is a lens that is made when digital not exist...i don't know if modern lenses have some different coating (they probably have) but sensor is different thing than film...film is not perfect and it is more forgiving ...sensor is less just because his "nature" is...We have same light that goes through lens but recipient (sensor) is very diff. than film. This lens for example is more "demanding" when it come to precision of exposure...if i made a wrong one i will have some corner darkening (vignette) but i could resolve this through raw converter... ( i also like sometime vignetting but i like to control that effect). Everything is ok when i take a picture of some street scenes or portraits (here is superb) but when i take a picture of some field with grass it is too sharp...because digital sharpness is contrast i have to decrease that in raw converter which i don't have to do with my canon 17-40 lens...
That grass is like over-sharpen ( like you increase sharpening in Photoshop too much)...So i usually use that lens when i walk through town and replace it when i take landscapes...(it sound like absurd ...i know)...but "my" landscapes are not representative in a way of "accuracy" it is more for transferring to a observer a specific atmosphere or mood...

[Tinkaroo]

It is a lens that is made when digital not exist...i don't know if modern lenses have some different coating (they probably have) but sensor is different thing than film...film is not perfect and it is more forgiving ...sensor is less just because his "nature" is...We have same light that goes through lens but recipient (sensor) is very diff. than film. This lens for example is more "demanding" when it come to precision of exposure...if i made a wrong one i will have some corner darkening (vignette) but i could resolve this through raw converter... ( i also like sometime vignetting but i like to control that effect). Everything is ok when i take a picture of some street scenes or portraits (here is superb) but when i take a picture of some field with grass it is too sharp...because digital sharpness is contrast i have to decrease that in raw converter which i don't have to do with my canon 17-40 lens...
That grass is like over-sharpen ( like you increase sharpening in Photoshop too much)...So i usually use that lens when i walk through town and replace it when i take landscapes...(it sound like absurd ...i know)...but "my" landscapes are not representative in a way of "accuracy" it is more for transferring to a observer a specific atmosphere or mood...

Thanks for sharing your experience with your lenses.

I have some lenses from the film days and also some newer ones from the digital era. The each have their bonuses and sometimes issues with how well they work on either my C sized or full sized sensor cameras. Getting something that works well on the full sized format is more of a challenge.

Ultra wide lenses such as your Canon 17-40 or my Konica-Minolta 17-35 present challenges in terms of sharpness across the field, distortion, vignetting etc.. I have a couple of newer wide angle lenses, the 16-80 Sony-Zeiss and a Sony 16-50 that are strictly for my C sensor camera. Also a Sony-Zeiss 24-70 2.8 which is meant for the full frame.

I agree capturing a mood or atmosphere is more satisfying than accuracy or detail which sometimes detracts from that feeling. 8)

[gullkeoby]

yes...it is more easy that will be good for APS-c or Myfourthird sensor ...real challenge is full frame...but out of that for me (now i use almost only full frame -in past i use Olympus four-thirds and Apsc) it is not a big problem for kind of photography that i do...for example 17-40 is less sharp in corners then 16-35 but more sharpness is sometime more problems - chromatic aberrations and similar...to me it is somehow a way that human eye also see things -less sharp in corners then in center...of coarse - when i take pictures for money and is some house apartments and similar things i want more sharpness in corners...it all depend on photographer needs...
I remember that one of biggest shock was when i buy new enlarger machine for film (i dont know proper name in english for that) and it was some Durst with Schneider lens ...before that i was use some old Czech machine with meopta lenses...i try both lenses on Durst and diff. was enormous...and that was a lens where you want a sharp corners...That was best thing in my darkroom....
Now i loose my eyes in front of PC.

[Alec124c41]

My hands do not seem to be as steady as they were 50 years ago, but technology comes to the rescue.This is a shot of a migrating Monarch, shot at 200mm, 1/60 sec, handheld. The camera is a Fuji X-E2, with a 55 - 200mm zoom. The autofocus is perfect, and the image stabilization is amazing!

Cheers,
Alec

[Tinkaroo]

My hands do not seem to be as steady as they were 50 years ago, but technology comes to the rescue.This is a shot of a migrating Monarch, shot at 200mm, 1/60 sec, handheld. The camera is a Fuji X-E2, with a 55 - 200mm zoom. The autofocus is perfect, and the image stabilization is amazing!

Cheers,
Alec

Thanks for sharing those beautiful Monarch photos with us Alec! 8)

Yes, I agree image stabilization helps in such situations. I will use props,railings or buildings if needed to steady things and have a monopod with a quick release plate that I can use with some of my longer lenses if the light isn't optimal.

It is sad that Monarchs aren't as numerous as they once were in our childhoods. I see some very interesting looking caterpillars around right now which might be worth a photo, but not today since it's rainy!

[Tonybro]

Alec, we've been photographing the same subject! :-)

Butterfly6.jpg

Tortoiseshell

(45.86 KiB) Downloaded 21 times

Butterfly12.jpg

Tortoiseshell

(146.56 KiB) Downloaded 22 times

Butterfly19.jpg

Tortoiseshell

(138.06 KiB) Downloaded 22 times

[Alec124c41]

bee on garlic.jpg

(92.27 KiB) Downloaded 17 times

It is, sadly, true. The numbers of butterflies as well as birds and bees, and other insects, have fallen drastically. I hate to think what might happen over the next fifty years.
Meanwhile, some of us can express our gratitude for these beautiful things by taking the time to make images of them.

Cheers,
Alec

[Tinkaroo]

I've heard that Monarch butterflies like milkweed.

Here is a link to a photo of a Monarch in the caterpillar stage. Just in case you see one in your travels. https://inaturalist.ca/observations/33308487

[Alec124c41]

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and the caterpillars feed on the leaves. This is what makes them bitter and toxic to predators.
The butterflies will feed fro many other flowers.
It is fascinating to see one emerge from the pupa, with tiny wings and huge abdomen. Then they pump fluid tnto the veins in the wings, to spread them out. THis is the best opportunity for leisurely photography, because the colours are fresh, and they wait for the wings to dry out, before flying away.

Cheers,
Alec