Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MARINERMAGNUM

Resurrection

5 posts in this topic

The new lens dilemma [16-35L] took a nose dive and now I have to start over. Our county fair starts this week,and I really needed a wide angle lens. I stopped by a local photo shop and came across the lens I took this photo of our 2 girls with. What a deal,the oldest looks like me [she's a brute,I told her to stick her belly out!] and the youngest looks like mom-blonde,blue eyes,thin. We call them Slim & Sluggo.

Man,this lens is ancient! but it really don't do too bad. Enough to get me by in this pinch. This was shot in jpeg and cropped in photoshop-that's it.

The lens is an old 35-70mm Canon with the old arc drive focus. The old bugger still focuses pretty quick for not having usm-plenty fast for portraits. For $50 I can't gripe too much. 2702999810_9067a36de8_o.jpg

I may remove the photo after while,because whether we like it or not,I'm sure the ocassional pervert rolls thru.

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM, I know a candid pregnancy photographer who still uses the 35-70 because she knows it well and it does what she wants it to do.

Portrait lenses in structured settings don't need to open to f1.2 or focus lightning fast, and many, many portraits require a bit of softness to make them really sing for the customer (how many customers want their stretch marks and wrinkles, their kids' zits, or fleshy pockets emphasized by a razor sharp lens?)

And this looks plenty sharp to me, as do the portraits from the photographer I mentioned. You've got a good tool that works well for you. What else should there be? And when you want wider than 35mm, a new 17-40 f4L is sitting there for way less than even a used 16-35 f2.8L Mk1. And a used 17-40 will be quite a bit lower. You rarely would need the extra stop of aperture anyway unless you're doing low-light performance photography.

And if you want something really sharp, the Canon 50mm f1.8, the so-called "nifty fifty," is about $80 new. Plastic body, slow and loud focus, but golly does it have sharp glass! I know half a dozen pros who keep it in their camera bags at all times. And if it happens to be a little too sharp in wrinkly situations, a little gaussian blur in photoshop goes a long way. gringrin

I agree about zapping the pic. Creepy crawlies are everywhere, and DEET does not protect against that kind of vermin. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a .357 of cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will strongly consider another 17-40,point very well made-and taken!

Now,candid pregnancy photography??..........nope,I'm not going there. Tried it once,and my Sony point and shoot hit the wall and shattered. Guess i should have told the wife I was being "tasteful" eek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM, there's a market for everything, and photographs of pregnant couples, particularly B&W images in good taste, are becoming very popular.

So much to be done with lighting, angles, shades, lines and composition there, all complementing the most fertile and symbolic of human forms. I'm reminded of the Alfred Hitchcock signature that was a single line showing his distinctive (and pregnant-like) physical profile. gringrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
I'm reminded of the Alfred Hitchcock signature that was a single line showing his distinctive (and pregnant-like) physical profile

Never thought of it that way! grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0