Lens does matter
All of the photos below were taken on last year’s slo-foto.net fashion photography workshop. I’ve never published these photos on the web (although one of those was on the cover of ONA magazine), because I didn’t find them good enough. And probably also because I took only a few of the photos of Tina (those pasted below are numbered 7594-7596, so I probably took just 3 shots).
The first three somehow work for me. Can’t really put my finger on it. They just do. Please view LARGER, otherwise it’s no use…
This one somehow doesn’t really work for me. Like a butter knife, it just don’t cut it (yeah don’t not doesn’t;)). Oh shit, now I know why!! Because it’s taken with Canon 70-200 2.8@200 mm f3.2. There’s just too much DOF. Ofcourse that’s just one of the reasons…
And now you see why I would never think for a second about which lens to use for a portrait/fashion/nudes or any kind of people photography. Although Canon 70-200 2.8 is a damn fine ZOOM lens, it doesn’t come even close to 85 1.8 for the kind of photography that I do. No min DOF capabilities, no real sharpness below f3.2 and it weights a ton too - I hate that about it as well. Oh yeah, it also costs 4-5 times more;).
Now I know that some photojournalist, sports shooter etc will come across and start whining. Yeah I know all your arguments and that you will write exactly opposite to what I’ve had. But…Write about it on your own damn blog 
. I’m joking ofcourse, everyone is welcome to put their 2 cents in the comment section.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Aleš Štebe-Hakan said
am August 28 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Steklovina je najpomembnejša
Drugače mi pa nobena od fotk ni všeč, ponavadi pokažeš veliko boljše rezultate pomoje
lp
Peter Bernik said
am August 28 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Hakan, seveda niso med mojimi boljšimi. Morda sem to premalo poudaril, napisal sem le da se niso takrat uvrstile v izbor. In tudi danes se ne bi v smislu prikazovanje dobrih fotk, ampak point tega posta je itak v lensih…Pač v tehniki, ne v fotografskih dosežkih (saj se ve kakšne so ponavadi fotke v testih - za en qrac).
Peter Atanackov said
am August 28 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Ja no ce si min dof freak je f/2.8 cist premal
. Meni osebno je bilo kater objektiv med 100mm in 200mm pa f/2.8 cisto vredu za portrete, samo malo bolj moras pazit na ozadje.
Aja ta prve tri fotke so kul, najboljsa je cist ta prva, samo se mi zdi da si prevec glave zgoraj odrezal.
Ropret said
am August 28 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Mal off:D
kaj uporabljaš za slike dodajat na blog? Lahko brišeš ta post in odgovoriš na maiL
Mi ja pa všeč zadnja, čeprav nisi to ti (ni tvoj stil)
Peter Bernik said
am August 28 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Standardni WP vmesnik, nimam nobenga extra plugina. Oz vsaj ne da bi vedel, morda je Luc kaj ušpičil. Pravzaprav, ko pomislim, najbrž je, ker je tudi naštimal velikost thumbov itd. Lahko ti sporočim, ko pride nazaj in ga vprašam - samo spomni me čez vikend.
Ropret said
am August 28 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Te bom še spomnil
stane c. said
am August 29 2007 @ 7:34 am
Objektiva ne gre primerjat. Splo(h). Kakšne so pa pri 85mm na f2,8? Al’ je to že herezija?
Peter Bernik said
am August 29 2007 @ 9:57 am
No saj vem, da nista primerljiva, čeprav nekateri trdijo nasprotno. Pri 2.8 je pa pač že res super oster, čeprav neke hude razlike med 1.8 in 2.8 v praksi ni(jebeš test charte). V glavnem, že pri 1.8 je bistveno ostrejši kot katerikoli zoom na 2.8, najbrž to velja kar do f3.2 ali še celo več (svetla izjema je morda ravno C in N 70-200 2.8).
Ropret said
am August 31 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Sicer pa lahko sam pogledaš kateri vtičnik imaš
pojdi pod Plugins pa boš videl in mi sporoči prosim 
gray said
am August 31 2007 @ 6:14 pm
i have no idea what the above comments said!!! but i love the first photo