Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

A ticket is in on the forum glitching.

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

Looking like we are going to pick up NVX.

[MKader17 332]

4 hours ago, ///M5 said:

135 prime or 70-200

 

$200-$600 camera, $300 lens, $150 lens, then !boom! $2000 lens lol

[MKader17 332]

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Shooting crop the 17-55 is near L quality and more useful as a wide as well.

What exactly is L quality?

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

What do the numbers on the front mean. I see 25mm and 40mm

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

21 hours ago, dem beats said:

Needs twin turbos.

Everything needs twin turbos. Even twin turbos need twin turbos.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

I went to Salisbury!

[MKader17 332]

https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

Can one of you guys disect this for me? Really doesn't make me want to spend 3x on the 1.4

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGi9gLxRRJ8

[///M5 2,833]

9 hours ago, nem said:

Sean do you want to come take build pictures for me in June?

I would love to.

[///M5 2,833]

8 hours ago, Aaron Clinton said:

Looking like we are going to pick up NVX.

Sweet.

[///M5 2,833]

7 hours ago, MKader17 said:

What exactly is L quality?

What do the numbers on the front mean. I see 25mm and 40mm

Means i posted the wrong lens. 40mm is the focal and 52mm is the screw on filter size

[///M5 2,833]

6 hours ago, MKader17 said:

https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

Can one of you guys disect this for me? Really doesn't make me want to spend 3x on the 1.4

It was a dumb test in many ways....will post more later, but would have told tou before thr 1.8 is rhe bang for the buck king....but i would still grab the 1.4

[dem beats 1,223]

6 hours ago, MKader17 said:

https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

Can one of you guys disect this for me? Really doesn't make me want to spend 3x on the 1.4

 

The 1.4 is much better If you shoot in low light or do video.

 

The 1.2 is magic.  

 

The 1.8 is one incredible lens especially at that price.

[dem beats 1,223]

9 hours ago, nem said:

Normal first day for me. The tricky part is tomorrow, I may nap and I may not.

I took a nap today!

 

It's amazing.

[///M5 2,833]

Matt summarized the end, but the problem with the article is that it compares the wrong things.

-DOF is related to the distance to the target.  Long distance, long DOF.  Getting a full body shot with a 50mm means you are long ways off.  Not the ideal use of the lens.  In that case the background is also disproportionately close minimizing bokeh.

-The compared 1.2 to 1.4 to 1.8.  Should compare 1.2 to 1.2, 1.4 to 1.4 and 1.8 to 1.8.  Then they jump to F2 to compare.  Almost all lenses are a bit soft shot wide open.  Of course the further from center the softer they are (by definition wide open means you are using the whole spherical portion of the optic).  Closing that optic down and getting closer to the center of it will ALWAYS sharpen it.  That being said more curvature being exposed (1.2 most) will also always give you the best bokeh.

-They forgot to worry about chromatic aberration (typically worse wide open) as this is also from the non-center of the lens.  The 1.4 is much better than the 1.8 here

-They also ignored lens flare.  Often with in situ portraits there will be bright lights around you.  The 1.4 deals with flare significantly better than the 1.8.

-They also did this on a full frame.  The 1.4 is completely different on a crop as much of the outer portion isn't used.

The whole article is basically crap.  Problem with a ton of them on the net.  Almost like they expect their readers to not think.  Drives me nuts.

[///M5 2,833]

This you will not get with the 1.8

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff492/SeansPhototbucket/Children/May 2016 6 of 9_zpsru0ii9qw.jpg[/img]

Sure it isn't "sharp" but sharp is a stupid reason to shop for something.  There is a time and place for it, but it is akin to xmax on a sub.  Tells very little of the story.

You will also notice they didn't test the lenses at f11.  That of course would make sense for sharpness, when opting for max bokeh sharp is somewhat irrelevant.  Obviously need some semblance of it, but sharpness in a shot like that has as much potential to make it worse as it does to make it better.

[///M5 2,833]

img or not, that is broke.

[///M5 2,833]

If you are truly budget driven the 1.8 is a great buy.  Makes kit lenses look like donkey dung, but it is trumped in every way by the 1.4 except sharpness at 1.4 compared to 1.8 which is dumb in particular since the 1.8 can't shoot in 1.4

[///M5 2,833]

24mm and back cap lol

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SphCFILQd7w/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

[///M5 2,833]

wtf img

[MKader17 332]

1. 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SphCFILQd7w/maxresdefault.jpg

 

insert image from url

[MKader17 332]

[///M5 2,833]

Was doing it automatically until that last one

[///M5 2,833]

The quoting is also really fucked up atm in google on Android.  Almost unusable.