The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Jon L]

D3000, not 5000....

Looks good to me. Do you shoot RAW and do any kind of post-processing?

That Nikon 35mm 1.8 must be pretty nice, and at around $188 on Amazon, I sure wish Canon made a good 35mm 1.8 at those kind of prices. Even the ancient, non-USM 35mm F2 runs $300

[Knuckledragger]

Looks good to me. Do you shoot RAW and do any kind of post-processing?

That Nikon 35mm 1.8 must be pretty nice, and at around $188 on Amazon, I sure wish Canon made a good 35mm 1.8 at those kind of prices. Even the ancient, non-USM 35mm F2 runs $300

Due to vignetting, the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 transmits around F/2 at F/1.8. It exists primarily so that Nikon bodies that lack AF motors can use a 35mm prime. The Canon 35mm F/2 is indeed ancient, but it's an amazing lens. It's center sharpness is superior to the $1000-more-expensive 35mm F/1.4L. It also has the advantage (over the Nikon 35/1. of working with APS-H and full frame/film. Other than the curious EF-S 60mm Macro, Canon has show much interest in APS-C only primes.

[Jon L]

The Canon 35mm F/2 is indeed ancient, but it's an amazing lens. It's center sharpness is superior to the $

1000-more-expensive 35mm F/1.4L. It also has the advantage (over the Nikon 35/1. of working with APS-H and full frame/film.

Do you think the Canon 28mm F/1.8 is worth $100 more than the 35mm F/2?

Anyway, FYI Amazon has the Canon S95 for $349 shipped with $50 off coupon code U78ECOP5. I just ordered one. Should complement my T2i/Zeiss setup nicely..

[chuke]

Looks good to me. Do you shoot RAW and do any kind of post-processing?

They're all shot RAW with a bit of tweaking in Nikon's View NX (mostly white balance and exposure comp), then converted to JPEG. Yeah, the 35mm 1.8 feels like a big step up from the kit 18-55. I haven't used the 18-55 since I bought the 35.

[Salt Peanuts]

Do you think the Canon 28mm F/1.8 is worth $100 more than the 35mm F/2?

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Canon Lens: Primes - Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

I know test charts/reviews aren't everything, but at least according to these tests, 28 f/1.8 are really soft at larger apertures especially in the corners (with 35 f/2 being sharper across the board). If I'm spending $450 on a large aperture lens, I'd want it to be useable wide open across the frame.

[Knuckledragger]

The 28/1.8 also has horrid chromatic aberration at wide apertures, and never completely shakes it even stopped down. The 35/2 has some CA, but in real world use, it's seldom an issue.

[revolink24]

f/29 | 1/400 | ISO 100

f/5.0 | 1/100 | ISO 800

f/5.6 | 1/800 | ISO 3200

f/4.5 | 1/100 | ISO 800

f/8.0 | 1/2500 | ISO 12800

All with Pentax K-x and Pentax 100mm 2.8 WR Macro.

[VPI]

Just a couple with the S95 from the resort I am staying at in La Jolla, CA this weekend. Should have a bunch from the USS Midway tonight where we are having our closing party.

[falkon]

But it's a Pentax. That being said, that one at f/29 is pretty cool.how does it manage to stay sharp at that kind of aperture. Or maybe I'm not seeing it correctly because I'm typing this on a phone.

[revolink24]

But it's a Pentax. That being said, that one at f/29 is pretty cool.how does it manage to stay sharp at that kind of aperture. Or maybe I'm not seeing it correctly because I'm typing this on a phone.

What's wrong with Pentax? The K-x is more than a worthy adversary to the D5000 and T1i, plus has in body stabilization.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page29.asp

It's fairly sharp, but not terribly sharp. If I had thought more about it I would have adjusted the shutter speed accordingly, but I was being stupid and had it on 1/400 when the camera supports 1/6000. Having a $700 lens that is sharpest around f/11-f/13 helps as well.

Everyone here loves headphone pictures, right? I've got them too.

f/2.8 | 1/15s | ISO 1600

Taken with Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5

[VPI]

Took some shots at a party held on the USS Midway. A real torture test for a P&S, very low-light with a few random very bright lights thrown in to make it more difficult.

[Jon L]

What do you suggest for a free photo-hosting, photo-sharing website that's better than imageshack?

I've been using imageshack, mostly for its unlimited free upload capacity, but it doesn't seem easy to share your photo's. For example, I can't seem to just send a link to friends to view all my photo's without needing logon/password (?). Also, a few photo's have been mysteriously disappearing/corrupting randomly, which I have read is common from other users.

I guess I'm mainly looking at Flickr and Photobucket, but I'm looking for free version with unlimited total upload capacity and (preferably) no limit on individual photo size uploaded. Imageshack DID do all that..

[Salt Peanuts]

When I looked at various hosting sites a while back, none of them (including Flickr and Photobucket) really offered what you want (unlimited upload, no limit on photo size) for free. I started out with free Flickr account, went to Flickr Pro, then recently started using SmugMug after the big, fat fail of a interface change at Flickr.

Bit dated now, but here's a thread on photo hosting.

http://www.head-case.org/forums/goredwings19s-computer-help-hotline/6022-photo-hosting.html

[Jon L]

Just received the Zeiss 35mm F/2 Distagon. The ebay ad had said, "New in box, this lens was just replaced by Zeiss. It is new in every way." I'll let my photo's speak for themselves. The nerve of some people

[falkon]

That really sucks man. How are the optics?

[Salt Peanuts]

That really sucks man. How are the optics?

x2. I'd request a refund if I were you.

[Jon L]

x2. I'd request a refund if I were you.

I got the response from seller, who still maintains it was new and he "checked it" before sending (??). Anyway, he seems willing to take it back, so I will send it back but will try to take some test shots to post.

So far, it seems to me to have some additive colorations IMO, with colors that are a bit extra "rich" with a bit of push towards more reddish/orangish tone..

[Jon L]

OK, some test shots with the Zeiss 35mm F/2. I think Zeiss does a lot better in daylight than night so far.

[aerius]

A couple shots from my Olympus Pen-FT with the 40mm

[Iron_Dreamer]

OK, some test shots with the Zeiss 35mm F/2. I think Zeiss does a lot better in daylight than night so far.

The 35/2 does seem to be one of the favored Zeiss primes along with the 21 and 100MP. At least the night shot you posted, seems to have issues more to due with exposure and harsh lighting, than anything to do with the lens.

[Jon L]

At least the night shot you posted, seems to have issues more to due with exposure and harsh lighting, than anything to do with the lens.

Harsh lighting is true, but the night shots and indoor portraits with Zeiss just seem more reddish rich than what the eye sees and with Canon 50mm F/1.8 and Tokina 11-16mm. At any rate, I am really not liking the combination of this heavy lens and manual focus; it's difficult to hold this heavy thing steady while trying to turn the manual focus. Tripods are very necessary most of the time. Anyway, some more test shots with the Zeiss.

[Jon L]

Similar shots with Canon 50mm F/1.8 II.

[falkon]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3940[/ATTACH]

[Knuckledragger]

^^ I'd love to see that chart with the D3 and D3s included. I'm guessing that the D700 has nearly identical results to the D3.

[falkon]

That's the D7000 btw, not the D700.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3942[/ATTACH]