[The1]

the pews show their age nicely.
I like the shot.

[oneintheory]

Untitled by jsophoto, on Flickr

not a model. not really anything. just a snapshot.

[The1]

would be neat to see an HDR of that structure with the rust on it just to see what happens.

[oneintheory]

haha i hate HDR, and i'm no good at it. but i'll see if i can't do something one day.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

haha i hate HDR, and i'm no good at it. but i'll see if i can't do something one day.

Just noticed...I'll be in your neck of the woods next Friday. Spending the night in Suffolk on my way down to OBX.

Haven't surfed in 2 years now...

[UdubBadger]

so while we are still on the bokeh topic... was thinking of upgrading my 50mm 1.4 to a 50mm 1.2L. any thoughts? my other thought was to keep the 1.4 and add an 85mm 1.8 to my bag but one of my professors said if I have a 70-200mm 2.8 the upgrade on the 50mm would make more sense.

any thoughts for either argument?

[rodi]

The 50L is a solid lens. better build, better out of focus thingies, better contrast. Definitely go for it.

[UdubBadger]

thats what I've read

[sourphish]

Go for it (the 1.2)! Just make sure you get a good copy, some of them have been known to have back focus issues. I went through a few copies so I know what it's like, so personally, I didn't trust it's consistency since it it would be great at times and not so in other conditions. Maybe sending it in for calibration by Canon would help fix that.

[The1]

i've heard some people have trouble focusing the 1.2...

and about the 85mm
I was talking to a pro yesterday and he primarily shoots the 85 1.8 and 135 2, and that's all he uses professionally for portraits.

[The1]

Originally Posted by sourphish

Go for it! Just make sure you get a good copy, some of them (not sure if all) have some back focus issues. I went through a few copies so I know what it's like, so personally, I couldn't trust it's consistency since it it would be great at times and not so in other conditions. Maybe sending it in for calibration by Canon would help fix that.

this is what i meant by focusing, i've heard this from multiple sources...

however i can't provide these sources because i do not remember where i came across them.

[Chewy734]

I've heard good things about the 50mm f/1.2L, but those who have it seems to complain that it probably wasn't worth the huge price difference between the f/1.4 (unless you need the build quality for extreme weather shooting).

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by The1

i've heard some people have trouble focusing the 1.2...

and about the 85mm
I was talking to a pro yesterday and he primarily shoots the 85 1.8 and 135 2, and that's all he uses professionally for portraits.

right and that makes sense but I don't do that many standard portraits and when I do I like my 50mm better than my 70-200

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

right and that makes sense but I don't do that many standard portraits and when I do I like my 50mm better than my 70-200

have you rented the 1.2 yet?

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I've heard good things about the 50mm f/1.2L, but those who have it seems to complain that it probably wasn't worth the huge price difference between the f/1.4 (unless you need the build quality for extreme weather shooting).

I'm looking at it from a large format printing quality point of view.

When printing a 12x18" @ 300dpi you can really start to tell the difference in quality of the bokeh and chromatic aberration.

Although the maximum aperture opening differences between these lenses is obvious, the affect of the lens design and aperture blades on the background blur is not. In the above comparison image, the background blur of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens (left), Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens (middle) and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens (right) are presented. These pictures were taken using identical (neutral) settings (that include an f/2.8 aperture). A tripod was used - the camera was focused on a stationary test target. In the top row of pictures, the difference in background blur harshness is easily seen. In the lower row of pictures, the effect of the shape and quantity of the aperture blades can easily be seen even at the relatively wide f/2.8 aperture. As I noted before, the f/1.2 performs best in the bokeh category - followed by the f/1.4.

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I'm looking at it from a large format printing quality point of view.

When printing a 12x18" @ 300dpi you can really start to tell the difference in quality of the bokeh and chromatic aberration.

If you can justify it, then it's worth it.

Just never look back if you do it

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

Just noticed...I'll be in your neck of the woods next Friday. Spending the night in Suffolk on my way down to OBX.

Haven't surfed in 2 years now...

holllaaaa! i don't surf.

Originally Posted by The1

i've heard some people have trouble focusing the 1.2...

and about the 85mm
I was talking to a pro yesterday and he primarily shoots the 85 1.8 and 135 2, and that's all he uses professionally for portraits.

1.2 definitely has back focusing issues on some copies. and what you need depends on your shooting styles. i have a 35L, 50 1.4, 100 2.8, and 135L...i find myself primarily using the 35 and 100 outside (as far as primes go), and the 50 and 100 inside. f/2 is a fantastic aperture at 135, but it's too long a focal length to be really useful in studio. as far as the 85 goes, i'm swapping my 135 with a local pro for a little while to see if i like the focal length...but i'll buy the Sigma 85 1.4 over the canon 1.8

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I've heard good things about the 50mm f/1.2L, but those who have it seems to complain that it probably wasn't worth the huge price difference between the f/1.4 (unless you need the build quality for extreme weather shooting).

build quality, balance on a gripped full size body, that extra little bit of aperture...they all make it worth the price for me.

[The1]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

build quality, balance on a gripped full size body, that extra little bit of aperture...they all make it worth the price for me.

those alone are good reasons.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I'm looking at it from a large format printing quality point of view.

Do we really need a nude self-portrait of you on a giant billboard? If so, do it in Boston near a bridge.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Do we really need a nude self-portrait of you on a giant billboard? If so, do it in Boston near a bridge.

so people can see it better? so TL can see it when he's shooting bridges? or so suicidal bridge jumpers have one more reason to actually jump?

[Chewy734]

primarily the middle reason... but the last one works too.

[oneintheory]