Discussion in 'Native X-Mount Lens Forum' started by Alice, Nov 29, 2017.
I finally succumbed to the calling, and put a deposit on one this morning. Will pick it up on the weekend...
I've had the 80mm for over a week, but haven't had a chance to take it out for spin until yesterday. I took a walk through the battlefield near my home to see how it would perform. It's of course winter here and there's not a lot of color. My initial thoughts on the lens is that it's incredibly sharp, very fast focusing (in good light, seems to hunt a bit in low light). It does take some getting used to how noisy the mechanical sound of the focusing mechanism is when the lens is powered off, and kind of buzzy sounding when it is on. I have the 50-140mm and though it has similar characteristics, for at least the clunking sound, it's easily three times as loud as the 50-140. I understand that it's perfectly normal, but it's still disconcerting I primarily got this lens to use for my underwater macro photography and hopefully Nauticam will support this lens soon, otherwise I'll have to go with the 60mm macro setup.
Here's some examples that I took, all straight out of camera (Provia) (Full resolution jpgs and raw files can be found here: Please login or register to view links):
Do you remember what point you were focusing on here? (the knotted barbed wire image)
I would have *assumed* the centre of the knotted part? Which is not sharp - unless you picked another focus point?
my guess was the knot was the intended focal point but for whatever reason it got bumped and landed just behind it. I know from experience that your own heartbeat can throw something out of focus when at 1:1.
I simply had too large of an aperture when trying to get the picture of the barb wire on the concrete fence post. So even if I had focused on the front of the knot, nearly everything else in the image would have been soft. At the distance I was, the depth of field is incredibly shallow, and as digital_noise mentioned, simply breathing or the slightest movement can throw it off. All of these were hand held, in slightly overcast skies, for what it's worth and were mostly hit and run as the primary purpose was to get my walk in for the day.
In other words, it was poor technique on my part.
If I had a tripod mounted camera, a larger display (such as a tablet or laptop) to evaluate critical focus and I got this image and the one where the barb was the point of focus, I'm pretty sure I would select this image as superior. Why? Because it allows me to see some of the texture of what appear to be rocks in concrete while still keeping the barb in acceptable focus. The picture of a barb floating against an amorphous mass just outside the acceptable range of focus would, for my aesthetics, be a less interesting image. To me, that would have looked like the photographer missed the opportunity to split the difference.
If you can't do the "locked on a tripod" method (time constraints, no tripod or why-ever), a steady hold and multi-shot mode often give you one where it is "right" for your intent. Field evaluation is challenging with such narrow DOF.
Nice set of images. And yes, it is easy to miss just a bit when up close and personal on a tiny subject.
I took a look at 100% one of my first posts, the crabapple. At normal size it looks sharp, but actually has camera shake. I believe the SS was low.
I’m happy I’m mentioning it before someone else brings it to my attention! Confession is good for the soul.
most of these samples look good, but no one has posted an example of the horrid swirly bokeh that Ive seen on another site.
it's all good!
In an effort to redeem myself, I went back to the fencepost and took the tripod with me this time, again with full resolution files here: Please login or register to view links
1/25 sec at ƒ/9.0, ISO 200 (tripod)
1/9 sec at ƒ/14, ISO 200 (tripod)
1/4 sec at ƒ/22, ISO 200 (tripod)
1/3 sec at ƒ/22, ISO 200 (tripod)
Then I did this set hand held (Please login or register to view links)
1/125 sec at ƒ/16, ISO 3200 (handheld)
1/120 sec at ƒ/11, ISO 2500 (handheld)
Here's what the fencepost looks like:
1/300 sec at ƒ/4.0, ISO 200 (handheld)
I think they need to throw some more barb wire on there, not nearly enough
Anyway, thanks all for the feedback!
Can’t argue with the sharpness of that set.
The fence post has the ghosts of barbed wire past, present and yet to come.
Oh. That was Christmas, wasn’t it?
Well-there we are. Asked and answered. @Tim Bumgarner I salute you. Excellent reprisal, stunning focus and sharpness!
Not your average beauty model, is it
I am all enthused about you going back to get it right!
For me, the shot at f9 would be better if focused like the original. That would be my aesthetic choice. By f14 I think it is fine.
I need to get out and use mine.
I’ve been busy buying a horse instead. She arrives Saturday so it’ll be a perfect time to test the 80mm.
Oh, you lucky duck. Once upon a time, I spent many beautiful hours on my blood sorrel mare, Torchy. Those days are over. I bred her and got a strawberry roan filly. Quarter horses, you know. Oklahoma!