Wide Aperture Lenses

Yup, it's not me - loads of shallow DOF in my shots. I only claimed to shoot wide open most of the time anyway, not allthe time. here are times when I want a wide DOF, but my style mostly prefers shallow DOF.

btw - I took my A50/1.2 and my A50/1.4 out today to a stock car meeting and mad3 sure I used them both. particularly the 1.2 @ 1.2, which I'm learning to focus in live view as phase focus confirm just can't cut it and neither can the focus screen

I left my Sigma 30/1.4 at home today. Wish I hadn't, but I already had 7 lenses on my person

This thread was in part responsible for me taking a few shots around the neighbourhood today with my Vivitar Series 1 28mm f/1.9. Though I wouldn't normally use it wide open, it is useful for effects like the following.

[IMG]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/5919879131_496ce28c1b.jpg[/IMG]

I've just finished writing up a review of this lens in two parts: here and here. Lots more photos to see.

Interesting.

I've just realised I had a 35mm lens fitted yesterday and spent all day, that's 168 frames, with it set on f8!

I admit to being a lazy photographer but unless light levels drop appreciatively or I need either maximum depth of field which is so easy to achieve on my old lenses with proper barrel markings, or minimum depth of field to, say, isolate an object, I tend only to use f8 or f5.6.

I do enjoy the bright viewfinder image you get with 2.8 lenses (I've nothing larger): it makes focusing so much easier.

I should have qualified my "thin DOF is for art, thick DOF is for sales" comment as somewhat of an oversimplification. Of course thin.DOF pics can be sold, and thick.DOF pics can be artistic. But as mentioned, looking at published photos and top photo sites, we see much more thick than thin DOF. Perhaps thin.DOF shots MUST be artistic in order to sell, just as vegan food MUST taste good in order to get anyone to eat the stuff. But I digress.

Mention was made of replicating a Fast Fifty's DOF with a longer lens. To roughly compare degrees (not absolutes) of DOF, I compute the very simple DOF INDEX which is just: FL/AP, focal length divided by aperture. The larger the number, the thinner the DOF. Thus a 135/2.5 (54) has thinner DOF than a 50/1 (50) or 58/1.2 (48.3) but thicker DOF than a 200/3.5 (57.1) or 300/4 (75). Again, FL/AP doesn't give the range of DOF, just the comparative thickness with different FL/AP combinations.

Looking at the photo on the Dimitrov site, and the few technical details he has, I would guess it to have been similarly sized to the M 35-70mm f2.8-3.5 retracted (at 70mm, in other words).

That's quite a chunky lens by M series standards but not massive!

Interesting thread, I took just my Samyang f1.4 - 85mm lens for a walk-about in Inverness yesterday.

I tried to use f1.4 for most shots, but had to close down when the sun made it's infrequent appearances.

I haven't had this lens long, but I wanted to see what it could do, I'm liking it a lot.

" Across The River Ness @ f1:1.4 "

I have to admit, reasonably fast primes are the one thing I miss moving over to Pentax. 35mm 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 1.8 all readily available for very cheap to very reasonable prices. Even stuff like 105mm 1.8 does not cost a fortune. On the other hand to fall below the f2.4 barrier you gotta spend 500+ pounds on FA limiteds.

Of course I did not move over for the fast primes, I knew they did not exist and what exists does serve my very modest needs very very well but I wouldn't complain if I got my extra 1-2/3 stops faster. Having said that my 40mm pancake after having its focus adjusted (it is backfocusing a bit as I found out) is really very good even at 2.8.

Or, buy older fast manual primes. My used Kiron 24/2, Komine 28/2 CFWA, and Nikkor 35/2 (modded for PK) did not cost much. The Tomioka 55/1.4 and planar Yashica ML 50/1.4 cost even less. Unless I gain another inheritance or rob a minimart, I likely won't be in the market for FA Ltd's in this decade.

LOL well I could afford a couple without much of a problem I just cannot justify them especially I could get AF 35mm or 50mm 1.8 for 90-140£....

35mm f2.4 is not really that much slower than the Nikon 35mm f1.8 and since we are talking about shooting wide open, it will perform superbly wide open.

Pentax don't have a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens, but you can opt to spend a bit more on an FA 50mm f1.4. Perhaps they don't have a 50mm f1.8 because so many people pick up a m/f 50mm f1.7 for thirty quid for the M version and fifty quid for the A.

No probably you are right, and also thinking about it the 70mm Pancake is not a bad proposition either, a fraction of the size of most 85s and at the same price as a 1.8 85mm just a 1/2 a stop or so slower. Maybe I am being too harsh really.