What lenses are you currently using?

[pseudoid]

That's what I thought, too. Was really surprised that the first F lens I tried on the Z50 worked the same as on my D750. I wondered if the exra distance to the sensor focal plane would matter, but apparently not. AF and metering are pretty much identical.

Don't you lose an automatic f-stop as adapter "punisment"... like a 6dB hit?

 

[SKBubba]

Don't you lose an automatic f-stop as adapter "punisment"... like a 6dB hit?

Nope. You are probably thinking about TC magnifying adapters. Never had much luck with them.

 

[JP]

RF 15-35 f2.8 L IS USM

RF 70-200 f4 L IS USM

EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM + 1.4X III

 

[Prana Ferox]

This one:

This long lens is on my short list (pun intended) for purchase this holiday season. My longest other lens is the Fuji 70-300, which is nice, but this is quite a bit more reach.

 

[pseudoid]

This long lens is on my short list (pun intended) for purchase this holiday season. My longest other lens is the Fuji 70-300, which is nice, but this is quite a bit more reach.

I was checking and found that there are some used ones on the market... but both cost more than my Lumix G5 body.

 

[dualazmak]

My fascination to tilt-shift lens EOS TS-E 17 mm f4/L and high-resolution photos for slideshow and print-mount enjoyments

Hello friends,

Thank you for your interesting and important discussions on shift-tilt wide angle lense Canon TS-E 17mm f4/L in post #48 through #52 as well as #55.

Your use of a tilt-shift lens, the Canon TS-E 17 mm f/4L, is very interesting; results are obviously excellent. I assume that such lenses are complicated by the fact of the tilt-shift mechanism, but also, (as I surmise), because the coverage area must be larger than usual for a given sensor/film format. Generally these factors will result in a more expensive, larger, heavier lens.

Nowadays much of the distortion that eliminate by tilt-shift can be got using Photoshop or similar software. What are you thoughts on relative merits of tilt-shift versus software correction? Fairly obvious is that relying on software, you must start with a wider angle lens since with software correction will need to crop out some portion of the original image to get a rectangular photo; (this is analogous to needing wider frame coverage on the tilt-shift lens).

Yes, I essentially agree with you. We can now do tile-shift type photo retouch quite nicely and easily using Photoshop and other software; of course with a little to a lot of sacrifice of border pixels for cropping into rectangular image.

I still love using TS-E17mm f4/L, however, as shared bellow in this post.

You can use software (perspective control) to fix distortion like a shift lense does. The tilt mechanism however changes the plane of sharpness which cannot be done in software.

I agree that the "tilt" for changing the focus plane is really a unique feature of tilt-shift lenses which cannot be done in software retouch.

HiFi and photography often appeal to the same sort of person. As with hifi there is a broad range of enthusiasm from the mainly the kit to mainly using it. In my case I am far more interested in listening to music than playing around with kit but with photography I am more the other way - I enjoy playing around with, understanding and using the kit more than I do image making.

Nice point! At least for myself, "how to enjoy photograph album" is as important as "how to enjoy taking photos". In this perspective, I really need full-pixel-high-resolution, with little sacrifice of pixels during the retouch processes, is critically important especially in my "large photo print in frame with mat mount" as shared bellow, I know I will go a little bit out of the scope of this "lenses" thread though, I assume it would be worthwhile sharing with you all.


First, let me share with you the maximum pixel size and the resolution of photos with Canon EOS 5D Mark II (or 5D Mark IV) plus TS-E 17mm f4/L which I use now;

In my raw to jpeg and other photo retouch procedures, I often perform retouch munipurations on 1:1 pixel 100% screen mode with my dual PC monitor, dual EIZO FlexScan EV2750 (so 5120 x 1440 pixel) where the screen resolution is 108 dpi;

For JPEG photo album enjoyment after all the retouch processes, nowadays photo slideshow on Panasonic TH-55HZ1800 4K OLED TV (as PC monitor through HDMI), 3840 x 2160 pixel, 1210 mm (47.6") x 680 mm (26.8") effective screen size, is our (my and my wife's) daily relaxation where the screen resolution is 81 dpi (which is still considerably lower resolution than usual printed photos), just like as follows.

and,

At least in my case, I still enjoy "print and framing" of selected photos; every year in January - February, I usually select 10 - 15 photos from my previous year photo shooting sessions, and I DIY print them on 100% cotton (acid-free) rather thick Velvet Fine Art Matte Paper using my inkjet printer with 7-colour pigment ink (not dye ink!) cartridges; according to the manufacturer's (actually EPSON's) report on their heat-humidity-UV acceleration tests, there would be no color change in more than 100 years, even I have no way to confirm it though.

For these large-size prints, you would agree with me that I need high resolution photos; I like black frame with black mat mount (white cut-edge).

and,

I believe the resolution higher than about 250 dpi of such large print, 315 mm (12.4") x 475 mm (18.7"), would be sufficient enough for our far-away, as wll as close-up, viewing enjoyments of our beloved photos.

For some photos, I use simpler aluminium frames without mat mount;

I also select one or two "photo(s) of the year" for extra-large order print on 600 mm (23.6") x 900 mm (35.4") acid-free Fine Art Matte Paper with pigment (not dye) inks, in black frame with light-beige mat mount (white cut-edge) ;

and, I also like rather wide black frame with wide black mat mount (white cut-edge);

In any way, I still enjoy serious and intensive photo shooting procedures (a kind of ceremony?), even not so often, with TS-E 17mm f4/L; attaching 5D-Mark IV with TS-E 17mm f4/L firmly on my carbon-fibre tripod, attaching cable release, setting live-view F/SS manual mode, tilt-shift very carefully to get the best view, and then shooting several photos with F14 or higher by changing the SS several steps. Of course, all the photos in maximum resolution in raw plus jpeg into both of the compact flash and SD memory cards.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Which model is that monster zoom lens?
My 45mm-200mm@f4.5+ (G-Vario H-FS405200) lens has the built-in OIS but freaks out in the dark for auto focus.

AFAIK there has only been one model of the Panasonic (Leica) 100-400 zoom.
It does have OIS and apparently this works in tandem with the in body stabilisation with Panasonic cameras but whilst the mount is compatible the two types of stabilisation are not programmed to work together on Olympus bodies - which is what I have. The OIS works fine for long shots.
Most camera systems don't work that well in low light with slow long lenses IME.
Low light shooting is the one area where the micro 4/3 system is clearly inferior to systems with bigger photo sites, ie a bigger sensor with the same number of pixels will obviously be better in low light.

 

[dualazmak]

I like macro photography.

I too like macro photography, and macro focus-stacking photography.

My posts #606 through #617, and post #623, on the thread entitled "Post pictures of anything, with comment...couple words." would be your reference, I assume.

​

 

[Gorgonzola]

My fascination to tilt-shift lens EOS TS-E 17 mm f4/L and high-resolution photos for slideshow and print-mount enjoyments

Hello friends,

Thank you for your interesting and important discussions on shift-tilt wide angle lense Canon TS-E 17mm f4/L in post #48 through #52 as well as #55.



Yes, I essentially agree with you. We can now do tile-shift type photo retouch quite nicely and easily using Photoshop and other software; of course with a little to a lot of sacrifice of border pixels for cropping into rectangular image.

I still love using TS-E17mm f4/L, however, as shared bellow in this post.



I agree that the "tilt" for changing the focus plane is really a unique feature of tilt-shift lenses which cannot be done in software retouch.



Nice point! At least for myself, "how to enjoy photograph album" is as important as "how to enjoy taking photos". In this perspective, I really need full-pixel-high-resolution, with little sacrifice of pixels during the retouch processes, is critically important especially in my "large photo print in frame with mat mount" as shared bellow, I know I will go a little bit out of the scope of this "lenses" thread though, I assume it would be worthwhile sharing with you all.


First, let me share with you the maximum pixel size and the resolution of photos with Canon EOS 5D Mark II (or 5D Mark IV) plus TS-E 17mm f4/L which I use now;
View attachment 244992

In my raw to jpeg and other photo retouch procedures, I often perform retouch munipurations on 1:1 pixel 100% screen mode with my dual PC monitor, dual EIZO FlexScan EV2750 (so 5120 x 1440 pixel) where the screen resolution is 108 dpi;
View attachment 244987


For JPEG photo album enjoyment after all the retouch processes, nowadays photo slideshow on Panasonic TH-55HZ1800 4K OLED TV (used as PC monitor through HDMI), 3840 x 2160 pixel, 1210 mm (47.6") x 680 mm (26.8") effective screen size, is our (my and my wife's) daily relaxation where the screen resolution is 81 dpi (which is still considerably lower resolution than usual printed photos), just like as follows.
View attachment 245010
and,
View attachment 245011


At least in my case, I still enjoy "print and framing" of selected photos; every year in January - February, I usually select 10 - 15 photos from my previous year photo shooting sessions, and I DIY print them on 100% cotton (acid-free) rather thick Velvet Fine Art Matte Paper using my inkjet printer with 7-colour pigment ink (not dye ink!) cartridges; according to the manufacturer's (actually EPSON's) report on their heat-humidity-UV acceleration tests, there would be no color change in more than 100 years, even I have no way to confirm it though.

For these large-size prints, you would agree with me that I need high resolution of the photos; I like black frame with black mat mount (white cut-edge).
View attachment 245001
and,
View attachment 245002

I believe the resolution higher than about 250 dpi of such large print, 315 mm (12.4") x 475 mm (18.7"), would be sufficient enough for our far-away, as wll as close-up, viewing enjoyments of our beloved photos.

For some photos, I use simpler aluminum frames without mat mount;
View attachment 245003

I also select one or two "photo(s) of the year" for extra-large order print on 600 mm (23.6") x 900 mm (35.4") acid-free Fine Art Matte Paper with pigment (not dye) inks, in black frame with light-beige mat mount (white cut-edge) ;
View attachment 245005

and, I also like rather wide black frame with wide black mat mount (white cut-edge);
View attachment 245006

In any way, I still enjoy serious and intensive photo shooting procedures (a kind of ceremony?), even not so often, with TS-E 17mm f4/L; attaching 5D-Mark IV with TS-E 17mm f4/L firmly on my carbon-fibre tripod, attaching cable release, setting to live-view F/SS manual mode, tilt-shift very carefully to get the best view, and then shooting several photos with F14 or higher by changing the SS several steps. Of course, all the photos in maximum resolution in raw plus jpeg into both of the compact flash and SD memory cards.

... Fabulous work

 

[TulseLuper]

I also use the Canon 17mm TS (on an R5). Such a fun lens! I just ordered the Rogeti frame for it to improve stitching/shifting.

 

[JeffS7444]

35/2.8 Sony Zeiss SEL35F28Z, Sony A7R4

My day-to-day camera outfit is simple: Most often, one camera body and one lens, typically a moderate speed 35 mm or 50 mm prime. It's an old habit of mine, having spent years shooting with film and digital rangefinder cameras, which were really optimized for 35-40-50 mm focal lengths, it's my comfort zone, along with middling apertures in the f/5.6-6.3 range. If I'm shooting film that day, I may carry the Sony RX100 as a backup, or conversely, sometimes I'll pack a compact and lightweight film camera to complement my digital outfit. Unless I'm shooting black and white film, I'll usually also carry a Colorchecker Passport.

Except for tabletop compositions done at home, my photos are rarely planned: The bowl of pho was at a farmer's market, and as I waited for my soup, I did a white balance off the the Colorchecker, and was able to quickly fire off a couple of shots when the soup arrived. And speed is of the essence in such photos, because who wants lukewarm pho?

 

[Prana Ferox]

AFAIK there has only been one model of the Panasonic (Leica) 100-400 zoom.
It does have OIS and apparently this works in tandem with the in body stabilisation with Panasonic cameras but whilst the mount is compatible the two types of stabilisation are not programmed to work together on Olympus bodies - which is what I have. The OIS works fine for long shots.
Most camera systems don't work that well in low light with slow long lenses IME.
Low light shooting is the one area where the micro 4/3 system is clearly inferior to systems with bigger photo sites, ie a bigger sensor with the same number of pixels will obviously be better in low light.

There are a lot of people that use the PL100-400 with Oly bodies and just use the lens OIS.

I won't be a Sensor Size Denialist but with modern 'AI' noise reduction (I use DxO Deepprime) you can get good shots out of high ISO even on a m43 sensor.

 

[Gorgonzola]

35/2.8 Sony Zeiss SEL35F28Z, Sony A7R4
View attachment 245108
My day-to-day camera outfit is simple: Most often, one camera body and one lens, typically a moderate speed 35 mm or 50 mm prime. It's an old habit of mine, having spent years shooting with film and digital rangefinder cameras, which were really optimized for 35-40-50 mm focal lengths, it's my comfort zone, along with middling apertures in the f/5.6-6.3 range. If I'm shooting film that day, I may carry the Sony RX100 as a backup, or conversely, sometimes I'll pack a compact and lightweight film camera to complement my digital outfit. Unless I'm shooting black and white film, I'll usually also carry a Colorchecker Passport.

Except for tabletop compositions done at home, my photos are rarely planned: The bowl of pho was at a farmer's market, and as I waited for my soup, I did a white balance off the the Colorchecker, and was able to quickly fire off a couple of shots when the soup arrived. And speed is of the essence in such photos, because who wants lukewarm pho?

My most common carry is either my Fuji X-T2 with the Fuji 18-55mm, OR if I want to go lighter, I'll take the X-T10 with the TTartisan 27mm "pancake" lens.

I think white balance checking is a great idea I've been neglecting. Some recent experience ought to have taught me that relying on the 'Auto' set is likely to give me inaccurate and inconsistent result especially indoors with close-ups.

 

[pseudoid]

Does anyone remember this "spy-ish" camera system:

At the time of introduction (1978), I was working in LongIsland and commuting from Jersey side (90miles R/T).
I had already purchased my first CanonA1 for candid commute shots, few months earlier.
When I found that this Pentax 'auto110' was the size of my hand; I had to have one.
It was a very handy (even w/110 format lo-quality) and made for some very impromptu shots of car crashes on the LIE... to some hairy predicaments in the seedy zones of metro NYC.
I thought it was such a 'cat's meow' that I bought every attachment available for it and then stepped up to the "Super" version some years later.
EDIT: Add relative size photo:

 

[JeffS7444]

50/2 Zenitar-K2, Zenit 122K, Ferrania P30 film

Even before the Russia debacle, I was starting to cool on Zenit cameras when it dawned on me that Nikkormats and Minoltas can sometimes be had for less money! But I've got to hand it to the Zenit engineers: They knew a thing or two about making a 1960s design look modern in 2005, with an ergonomic plastic outer shell, decently bright viewfinder with LED exposure indicators. Zenit also produced a last-gasp all-new SLR in the form of the KM and KM+, but that's another story for another day. Zenit film camera production seems to have ceased in 2005, though the factory must have built up considerable inventory, because until fairly recently, they were still supplying the likes of Lomography with product bearing quality control dates as late as November 2015, and possibly later.

 

[pseudoid]

50/2 Zenitar-K2, Zenit 122K, Ferrania P30 film
View attachment 245192
Even before the Russia debacle, I was starting to cool on Zenit cameras when it dawned on me that Nikkormats and Minoltas can sometimes be had for less money! But I've got to hand it to the Zenit engineers: They knew a thing or two about making a 1960s design look modern in 2005, with an ergonomic plastic outer shell, decently bright viewfinder with LED exposure indicators. Zenit also produced a last-gasp all-new SLR in the form of the KM and KM+, but that's another story for another day. Zenit film camera production seems to have ceased in 2005, though the factory must have built up considerable inventory, because until fairly recently, they were still supplying the likes of Lomography with product bearing quality control dates as late as November 2015, and possibly later.

Tubes inside?

 

[JeffS7444]

Zenitar-K2, Zenit 122K, Ferrania P30 film

 

[Destination: Moon]

My most common carry is either my Fuji X-T2 with the Fuji 18-55mm, OR if I want to go lighter, I'll take the X-T10 with the TTartisan 27mm "pancake" lens.

I think white balance checking is a great idea I've been neglecting. Some recent experience ought to have taught me that relying on the 'Auto' set is likely to give me inaccurate and inconsistent result especially indoors with close-ups.

Compared to a few other cameras I've used, Fuji usually nails the WB for most situations. My cell phone on the other hand is White Unbalanced and often needs help

 

[pseudoid]

My cell phone on the other hand is White Unbalanced and often needs help

"There is an app for that!"... isn't there?

 

[Destination: Moon]

"There is an app for that!"... isn't there?

Yup - editing