[SunChasersSG] - TCSS Thread (Part XVI)

[ZerocoolAstra]

has it grown too fat or longer?

erm... both?

It's grown these big-a$$ clips for the legs too...

 

[skylover]

erm... both?

It's grown these big-a$$ clips for the legs too...

lolx.. looks like u need more den juz a luggage bag?

 

[Smiles88]

erm... both?

It's grown these big-a$$ clips for the legs too...

Gitzo??

 

[coolthought]

1.4 and 1.8 I can already see the difference, so 2.8 is totally out of the equation

between a 2.8 and 1.4. That is 2 stops different.
For hand held wise, this 17-50 lens has vc and it has a claimed 4 stops advantage. So, I won't be attracted to the f1.4 for this reason.
Rather, how big (or rather how small?) the difference in dof??

 

[coolthought]

lolx.. looks like u need more den juz a luggage bag?

no, he need a porter

 

[skylover]

no, he need a porter

o.0 wah.. in this case.. one porter enough meh? Like tt I think he needs a few liao..

 

[kriegsketten]

between a 2.8 and 1.4. That is 2 stops different.
For hand held wise, this 17-50 lens has vc and it has a claimed 4 stops advantage. So, I won't be attracted to the f1.4 for this reason.
Rather, how big (or rather how small?) the difference in dof??

At f/1.4, the circle of confusion is very great loh... so great that at close range, you can render the background of your subject indiscernible! DOF will be thinner and trickier that you need to make sure you focused on the right thing (eye instead of nose, in the case of portraiture). At f/2.8 yes you can make the background really blur, but most of the time you can still even make out what the background is... Same distance, using a 1.4 - it is even more eye-popping!

 

[kriegsketten]

if you wanna compare VC/VR/IS versus true aperture that's an entirely different thing altogether - the purpose is only to ensure handshake is to be crossed out within the 4 stops worth of shutter speed reduction...but no where can bokeh be compared with between f/2.8 and f/1.4... The latter is going to be MUCH more blurrier and it will win hands down...

 

[coolthought]

At f/1.4, the circle of confusion is very great loh... so great that at close range, you can render the background of your subject indiscernible! DOF will be thinner and trickier that you need to make sure you focused on the right thing (eye instead of nose, in the case of portraiture). At f/2.8 yes you can make the background really blur, but most of the time you can still even make out what the background is... Same distance, using a 1.4 - it is even more eye-popping!

given a choice, I would choose a "clean" background rather than super shallow dof and I do like to know where I have taken the photo.
i remember someone posted something about super shallow dof, that years later when he look back at the photos, he can't remember where his family has been to. ;p
anyway, maybe after I really use one then I can comment on this better.

 

[coolthought]

if you wanna compare VC/VR/IS versus true aperture that's an entirely different thing altogether - the purpose is only to ensure handshake is to be crossed out within the 4 stops worth of shutter speed reduction...but no where can bokeh be compared with between f/2.8 and f/1.4... The latter is going to be MUCH more blurrier and it will win hands down...

if I am looking to getting pic with such bokeh, then probably yes, you are right.

 

[kriegsketten]

given a choice, I would choose a "clean" background rather than super shallow dof and I do like to know where I have taken the photo.
i remember someone posted something about super shallow dof, that years later when he look back at the photos, he can't remember where his family has been to. ;p
anyway, maybe after I really use one then I can comment on this better.

Yes you are right, when using super shallow dof - you care more about the subject than the background. Which is why Fashion or portrait photographer would like such a fast lens. I'm sure Macro/Wildlife too if they can get the subjects THAT close or the lens LIGHT enough to handle... But of course they don't need that which is why f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 would work since there is enough distance for extra long ranges.

But for travelling... please ah har... most of the time a really good PnS would do... Kakakakak.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

lolx.. looks like u need more den juz a luggage bag?

Hahahah Benro tripod bag still can fit.... BARELY :sweat:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

between a 2.8 and 1.4. That is 2 stops different.
For hand held wise, this 17-50 lens has vc and it has a claimed 4 stops advantage. So, I won't be attracted to the f1.4 for this reason.
Rather, how big (or rather how small?) the difference in dof??

Who's talking about shutter speed? Not me!

VR/VC is totally not relevant

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

given a choice, I would choose a "clean" background rather than super shallow dof and I do like to know where I have taken the photo.
i remember someone posted something about super shallow dof, that years later when he look back at the photos, he can't remember where his family has been to. ;p
anyway, maybe after I really use one then I can comment on this better.

No la... not for holiday snaps... Whoever uses f/1.4 on a holiday shot and totally blurs out the background is an (sorry for the crudeness) idiot :bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

Hahahah Benro tripod bag still can fit.... BARELY :sweat:

It won't fit once you get a bh40 or bh55.

You know that the Markins notsotight pan lock will work against you when using the angle column...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Yes you are right, when using super shallow dof - you care more about the subject than the background. Which is why Fashion or portrait photographer would like such a fast lens. I'm sure Macro/Wildlife too if they can get the subjects THAT close or the lens LIGHT enough to handle... But of course they don't need that which is why f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 or f/6.3 would work since there is enough distance for extra long ranges.

But for travelling... please ah har... most of the time a really good PnS would do... Kakakakak.

Depends la bro.. in a studio, a fast lens is also not necessary.
But if the fast lens is sharper when stopped down, compared with cheaper lens at same aperture, then perhaps it still has some value

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

It won't fit once you get a bh40 or bh55.

You know that the Markins notsotight pan lock will work against you when using the angle column...

Damn, bro.... :sticktong

I see how it goes la.... hahahaha

 

[kriegsketten]

Depends la bro.. in a studio, a fast lens is also not necessary.
But if the fast lens is sharper when stopped down, compared with cheaper lens at same aperture, then perhaps it still has some value

Urm... didn't say anything bout studio leh.... Like among the lalangs... beach... streets...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Urm... didn't say anything bout studio leh.... Like among the lalangs... beach... streets...

ok that one my bad... assumed fashion photography = studio, but as you so rightly pointed out, it's not always the case

 

[daredevil123]

The question is:
If you are using smaller aperture, why would you be using a fast prime?
If you are after sharpness at the extreme corners, why use a fast prime with thin DOF?

sometimes it helps to think about the intended use for the lens (as opposed to using a standard zoom, for example) instead of reading technical reviews religiously...

+1

My viewpoint too.