/p/ - Photography » Thread #2931034

[88 / 20 / ?]

34KiB, 550x399, Attached.jpg

Bokeh/Sharpness compromise?

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 04:58:56 No.2931034 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2931035 >>2931040 >>2931325 >>2931433 >>2931435 >>2931808 >>2932373

Lense/Info help.

I've been looking at paying a bit more for a decently priced lense ($1000-1500ish AUD). After some research it seems most lenses are either sharp and compromises the bokeh (think Sigma 50mm ART) or dull with terrific bokeh. (think Nikkon Nikkor 58mm).

Is this always the case? currently I'm leaning towards the Sigma as the sharpness is amazing but I hate compromising the bokeh.

Additionally, would fuzzing up the bokeh in photoshop afterwards help the bokeh look nicer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:06:32 No.2931035 Report

Quoted By: >>2931036

>>2931034
>Additionally, would fuzzing up the bokeh in photoshop afterwards help the bokeh look nicer?

what, are you gay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:07:42 No.2931036 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931035
no sir, but please continue

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:17:40 No.2931040 Report

Quoted By: >>2931042

>>2931034

Bokeh is a one-trick pony and shouldn't be of any concern to you. You'll use it three times and get sick of it and realize that no good, serious photographers use it all the time.

Sharpness is also of no concern, as you'll quickly realize that content, story and even just basic shit like composition are more important.

Basically, you're getting hung up on trivial concerns.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:20:39 No.2931042 Report

Quoted By: >>2931044

>>2931040
>content, story and even just basic shit like composition are more important.

gtfo faggot. there is more to photography than street and journalism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:22:26 No.2931044 Report

Quoted By: >>2931048 >>2931049

>>2931042

What I said applies to essentially every kind of photography except for maybe commercial, and even then "story" is important.

You'll realize this when you get older. Stay patient.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:32:32 No.2931048 Report

Quoted By: >>2931162

>>2931044
even if story etc is more important, the better the technical aspects the nicer on the eyes it ultimately is, or else we would all be just using our phone cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:34:12 No.2931049 Report

Quoted By: >>2931057 >>2931059

>>2931044
>LIsten, kid..

lmfao!

sharpness not mattering is the literal mark of the poorfag pleb with shit lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:47:36 No.2931057 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931049

Arguing about sharp miniature lenses is for poorfags who don't shoot large format. ;)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 05:52:40 No.2931059 Report

Quoted By: >>2931144

>>2931049
>everything should be in focus every time

Pretty boring

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 08:35:14 No.2931144 Report

Quoted By: >>2931280 >>2931313

>>2931059
/p/ has been bending over for street photogs and journalism for a long time, they think that every shot needs a story and that it has to be hard and gritty and boring, kind of like a liberal arts student who overanalyzes a book and tries to find meaning that isn't there.

Not every picture needs to have some sort of story behind it, sometimes a photo can just be done a certain way because it looks pleasing to the eye or because that's the way your client wants it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 09:57:51 No.2931162 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931048
Sometimes bad image quality can add to a particular mood.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 10:59:38 No.2931190 Report

Quoted By:

lense? lindsay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:12:55 No.2931280 Report

Quoted By: >>2931303

>>2931144
>/p/ has been bending over for street photogs and journalism for a long time
>bending over for

You seem like a reasonable guy with reasonable thoughts on photography. We should definitely consider your opinion.

Also, I'm not quite sure a liberal arts degree means what you think it does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:45:30 No.2931303 Report

Quoted By: >>2931307

>>2931280

he added his points to the discussion in a clear way.

what have you to offer? your useless passive aggresive garbage?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:50:24 No.2931307 Report

Quoted By: >>2931311

>>2931303

I already said my piece in this thread in a clear, constructive manner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:52:26 No.2931311 Report

Quoted By: >>2931315

>>2931307

whats your post?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:57:42 No.2931313 Report

Quoted By: >>2931437

>>2931144
bc anything that isnt a graphic novel is just m'aesthetics

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 14:59:19 No.2931315 Report

Quoted By: >>2931327 >>2931730

>>2931311

I mean, does it matter? You're the idiot defending the retard who says we have gay buttsex with a photography genre. Nothing that you say in response to anything I've written in this thread will carry much weight.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sigma_50_14art_apsc_bokeh.jpg, 64KiB, 724x552

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 15:12:36 No.2931325 Report

Quoted By: >>2931446

>>2931034
> compromises the bokeh (think Sigma 50mm ART)
That Bokeh is next to perfect. Almost perfectly circular across the whole frame - very easy to crop your 40MP or whatever shot with that.

If you want more speshul swirly bokeh, get a fucking lomo petzval or some nonsense like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 15:23:32 No.2931327 Report

Quoted By: >>2931330

>>2931315
>gay buttsex

where was that said? i re-read anons post and cant find it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 15:28:10 No.2931330 Report

Quoted By: >>2931342

>>2931327

Re-re-read it, and slower this time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 15:45:28 No.2931342 Report

Quoted By: >>2931731

>>2931330

literally did it and didnt see any reference for gay penetration. are you sure you arent projecting at this point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:05:27 No.2931351 Report

Quoted By: >>2931353 >>2931355

How can you guys honestly say the shot doesn't need to be in focus... At the the main focus of the photos needs to be in focus and the rest can all be bokeh, but you faggots ALWAYS have nothing in focus!!! Always blurry shit!! And you fucking love it!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:07:19 No.2931353 Report

Quoted By: >>2931355

>>2931351
At least the main*

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:10:43 No.2931355 Report

Quoted By: >>2931361

>>2931351
>>2931353
There are no rules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:21:28 No.2931361 Report

Quoted By: >>2931366

>>2931355

Hell, there is no such thing as "in focus".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:24:35 No.2931366 Report

Quoted By: >>2931367

>>2931361
In focus = sharp

Having nothing in focus looks like shit to 90% of people

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:25:44 No.2931367 Report

Quoted By: >>2931369

>>2931366

"Sharp" is relative and poorly defined.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 60KiB, 493x467

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:29:54 No.2931369 Report

Quoted By: >>2931388

>>2931367

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 16:38:53 No.2931374 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNxDBn0Fh_A

focus and sharpness can be dismissed only when your subject is overwhelmingly powerful. it can also be used as an aesthetic statement too.

/p/ only takes pictures of cats, walls, grass and trash cans, so, they better be some sharp ass photos of trash cans and walls.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3389.jpg, 61KiB, 720x540

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 17:01:01 No.2931388 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931369

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1137s-8940-3.jpg, 3MiB, 2000x1333

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Thu 22 Sep 2016 17:05:06 No.2931390 Report

Quoted By: >>2931396 >>2931445 >>2931554 >>2931809 >>2931869 >>2931875 >>2931890 >>2932098

Daily reminder bokeh and sharpness are gimmicks used to sell overpriced glass to gearfags and nubs

Daily reminder this was shot on a 20$ kit lens from 1987 with a 5$ polarizer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 17:26:10 No.2931396 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390

Thanks for succinctly and expertly proving my point that it's not enough to have everything sharp and in focus to make a photo good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:00:09 No.2931433 Report

Quoted By: >>2931441

>>2931034
Why the fuck would anybody sacrifice image quality for bokeh
>hurr durr look at my polka dots everybody

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:01:39 No.2931435 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931034
Generally, yes.

Complex lenses are better for sharpness.
Simple lenses are better for bokeh.
So there is a trade-off.

Although I'm not sure it's also true for telephoto lenses.
Long primes have a lot of elements, but still produce very nice bokeh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:02:55 No.2931437 Report

Quoted By: >>2931447

>>2931313
Have you ever heard of something known as the death of the author?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:05:38 No.2931441 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931433
A distracting background can impact a shot far more than a few % less pixel peeping sharpness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:09:02 No.2931445 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390
Nice one shugah!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:12:28 No.2931446 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931325
The shape is only important for bokeh whoring shots.

Far more important are the edges.
On the older Sigma 50 those edges fade off when shot wide open, so you get a very smooth background.
On the 50 art those edges stand out, so you get distracting lines in the background.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 19:13:18 No.2931447 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931437
yeah what are you saying

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 21:57:27 No.2931554 Report

Quoted By: >>2931734

>>2931390
> Daily reminder this was shot on a 20$ kit lens from 1987 with a 5$ polarizer.
It looks quite much like it might have been shot on a modern $200-400 or so lens, so I'd say you chose these well.

I feel it makes the opposite point though: Since you *had* something pleasant with details to look at, it would have been nice to get a better shot of it, with a sharper lens and higher resolution camera...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 05:04:22 No.2931730 Report

Quoted By: >>2931757

>>2931315
Eat shit. He's right about /p/'s bias in favor of boring fucking "edgy" street photography. Almost all the photos praised are of people just walkiny around doing nothing. Just because you have the confidence to take pictures of people overtly in public doesnt make your photo interesting or especially good.

Street photog is 99% boring shit. It's only interesting when there is something going on, like a festival, celebration, riot, ceremony, etc.

No one cares about "how normal people look in 2016 i mus photograph dis for posterity" there is so much media out there now that 100 years from now people will be able to see everything about 2016 and it wont include your gay photos.

There is more to photography than edgy street garbage. Sometimes photos are worth looking at simply because they are beautiful. A concept completely lost on a modern thinker such as you sound. You actually sound just like the kind of person who sneers at classical art and thinks statues of shit and solid colored paintings are mindblowing. I agree with him completely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 05:06:55 No.2931731 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931342
>bending over

Are you fucking retarded or an uncreative troll?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 05:17:38 No.2931734 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931554
>I feel it makes the opposite point though: Since you *had* something pleasant with details to look at, it would have been nice to get a better shot of it, with a sharper lens and higher resolution camera...

Gonna have to agree with this anon here.

I feel like different kinds of photos should be handled by different types of cameras.

If we excuse the matter of expense, we can all agree if Alex took this shot on his 4x5 it would look incredibly more colorful and detailed. While I think your subject is pretty, I dont feel your photograph itself is pretty. I dont get a sweet emotion out of it.

IMO,
Events, family activities, sports, vacation and other fast paced things but also simple things should be handled by a 35mm.

Formal portraits, landscape, formal architecture, and other slower paced things should be shot on either MF or LF, situation and ease depending.

On top of that, there is no reason to reject the thought of owning superior lenses if you can afford them. There's no need to gloat about a $20 lens even though I think it's fine, it just makes you sound like a hipster with hubris.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 06:59:55 No.2931757 Report

Quoted By: >>2931768

>>2931730

It's strange that the two of you (you and the guy you're defending) have an obsession with stuff you don't like being "gay". I won't read into it too much, but have you ever considered that you yourself might be a macho manly man who ain't got no time for none of that queer shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 07:45:07 No.2931768 Report

Quoted By: >>2931825

>>2931757
>muh Freudian psychology is the answer to everything

No you're just a cunt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 11:08:17 No.2931808 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931034
Sony 55 f1.8 is stupidly sharp and has arguably the nicest bokeh of any oem normal prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 11:10:11 No.2931809 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390
>purple tinge to highlights
>soft corners
>not really sharp anywhere
>low contrast

Thanks for showing that cheap/'affordable' lenses produce bad image quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 12:09:26 No.2931825 Report

Quoted By: >>2932180

>>2931768

That's not Freudian, dummy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 14:27:25 No.2931869 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390
Wow! It's dominated by a big, ugly, boring rock that's almost sharp, with all the interesting and colorful jungle and water features blurry and out of focus! Great work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 14:31:20 No.2931875 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390

all of that looks man made. boring and gay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 15:03:47 No.2931890 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931390
>"yep that's a rock alright"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 18:28:50 No.2932025 Report

Quoted By:

I really don't think Bokeh is as big a deal as you make it out to be. In the end, nobody really cares if the bokeh is more round or more frantic other than autists who seriously read dpreview.
Go for sharpness.

Bunny

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _C010041.jpg, 126KiB, 720x540

Bunny Fri 23 Sep 2016 20:43:53 No.2932098 Report

Quoted By: >>2932146

>>2931390
>Bokeh and sharpness are gimmicks
That's why I only use a 15mm bodycap lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 21:46:04 No.2932146 Report

Quoted By: >>2932148

>>2932098
I'm confident I'll finally see a good photo by you eventually.
Eventually.

Bunny

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pattern obsession.jpg, 470KiB, 675x900

Bunny Fri 23 Sep 2016 21:49:11 No.2932148 Report

Quoted By: >>2932181

>>2932146
I hide all my world class award winning prints from P in a secret locker due to copyright concerns.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 22:50:38 No.2932180 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931825
Freudian is not limited to everything being phallic

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 22:52:01 No.2932181 Report

Quoted By: >>2932297

>>2932148
Post one without memegrain

Bunny

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO P1020688.jpg, 141KiB, 555x740

Bunny Sat 24 Sep 2016 01:41:46 No.2932297 Report

Quoted By: >>2932357

>>2932181
Why you ever wouldn't add grain is beyond me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO OM20HP532.jpg, 196KiB, 559x800

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 03:17:44 No.2932357 Report

Quoted By: >>2932358 >>2932360

>>2932297
>failing at such a simple photo

Bunny

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160128_215340.jpg, 339KiB, 1000x669

Bunny Sat 24 Sep 2016 03:21:54 No.2932358 Report

Quoted By:

>>2932357
What about it is "failed"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 03:26:02 No.2932360 Report

Quoted By:

>>2932357

dslrscan shill bringing the visual bantz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 03:48:04 No.2932373 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931034
>24-70 meme

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 11.jpg, 253KiB, 1008x1512

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 14:11:50 No.2932635 Report

Quoted By: >>2932642

Picture taken with Samyang 35mm f1.4

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 14:24:33 No.2932642 Report

Quoted By: >>2932775

>>2932635

looks like a bad 50 1.4 lens from the 70s open wide.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160622-DSC06997.jpg, 200KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 18:36:20 No.2932775 Report

Quoted By: >>2932812

>>2932642
I'm pretty ok with a bokeh with "personality. Doesn't look bad to me.
>taking about 50mm from the 70s
pic related is Pentax-M 50mm f1.7

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 19:57:09 No.2932812 Report

Quoted By: >>2932813 >>2933059

>>2932775
completely ruined by the window glare

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 19:58:57 No.2932813 Report

Quoted By: >>2933059

>>2932812
This...should have moved a smidge farther to the right.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160622-DSC06998.jpg, 285KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 05:16:22 No.2933059 Report

Quoted By:

>>2932812
>>2932813
Thanks. I spray-and-prayed, beautiful place there.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1551L.jpg, 228KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 10:10:17 No.2933142 Report

Quoted By: >>2933171

The main benefit of Bokeh is that is isolates the subject and draw focus to the subject in the frame. In addition to this, the human eye seems to find bokeh pleasing in many instances.

However, if you want to shoot wide open with a wide aperture lens (eg f/1.2), you may need to add a filter (or use a faster shutter speed) - depending on your camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:18:18 No.2933171 Report

Quoted By: >>2933174 >>2933176

>>2933142
What a waste of a 85mm f1.2. Give it to me, scrub!

>1/2500
>freaking underexposure
>f/1.2
>that framing
>those horrible shadows on the face

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_8198L.jpg, 329KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:30:47 No.2933174 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933171
>>1/2500
>>freaking underexposure
>>f/1.2
>>that framing
>>those horrible shadows on the face

Looks like a candid taken in sunlight without a flash to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:34:22 No.2933176 Report

Quoted By: >>2933184

>>2933171

Looks like a candid shot taken on a beach without a flash. Framing? Looks like the user had a 6D and made sure the center AF reticule was used but didn't bother to crop the picture.

This thread is about Bokeh, not framing and exposure. It looks to be a good example to me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2251L2.jpg, 629KiB, 1536x2048

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:47:36 No.2933182 Report

Quoted By:

Two different cameras. One with a shallow DOF lens. I can see why architecture and landscape photographers don't want bokeh or shallow DOF but it's great for drawing attention to a subject.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160724-DSC00183.jpg, 744KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 12:05:23 No.2933184 Report

Quoted By: >>2933266

>>2933176
>candid shot taken on a beach without a flash
You meant to tell me that it wasn't staged at all? Wow, it looks like those pro shoots in the magazines...
>made sure the center AF reticule was used
That's what the other points are for.
>but didn't bother to crop the picture
Cropping wouldn't even fix it.
>This thread is about Bokeh, not framing and exposure
His camera in green square mode would have calculated a better exposure and deliver a far better result than this turd. But you're right, the bokeh is nice.

Pic is russian 135mm sonnar-copy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 15:59:28 No.2933266 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933184
>russian 135mm sonnar-copy.

had that one. its freakingly sharp. ended up selling it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 16:53:10 No.2933311 Report

Quoted By: >>2933325 >>2933326 >>2933360 >>2934094

My depth of field remains exactly the same if I set my 50mm to 1.7 or 22. Am I retarded?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160731-DSC00755.jpg, 271KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 17:11:14 No.2933325 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933311
That's not how a lens work, so yes, you're doing something wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 17:12:58 No.2933326 Report

Quoted By: >>2933342

>>2933311
Lenses on a lot of cameras are wide open for focusing and composition, and stop down very quickly when you press the shutter release. You'll probably find a DoF preview button somewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 17:53:14 No.2933342 Report

Quoted By: >>2933346 >>2934094

>>2933326
Its a manual lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_6722L.jpg, 278KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 17:58:31 No.2933345 Report

Quoted By: >>2933357

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 18:02:17 No.2933346 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933342
Even for manual lenses. This is almost (?) always the case for SLR lenses. Do the photos you take at different apertures look the same? How about exposure length at different apertures?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 18:37:43 No.2933357 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933345
>dat sharpness
>dose unholy chromabs even with in-camera corrections

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 18:53:12 No.2933360 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933311
Yes the lens will stay wide open until you take the picture. The lens doesn't stop down until then because you wouldn't be able to see anything in the viewfinder at f22 from it being so dark.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 18:56:16 No.2933362 Report

Quoted By: >>2933364

To confess, fast lenses give me a semi, just bought a 50 2.0, although I normally shoot 4.5 or lower... the glass just looks sexy.dgaf about bokeh though...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO GX7_Oly17_45big.jpg, 134KiB, 800x531

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 18:59:41 No.2933364 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933362
Fast glass is often pretty sharp stopped down. Not typically as sharp as slower ultra high acuity centric lenses, but pretty damn sharp. I don't find a problem with not shooting wide open personally. It's also nice to have the f1.4 when you need the light.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Sep 2016 19:54:59 No.2934094 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933311
>>2933342
>Not knowing that old film cameras will keep the aperture open until you take the shot for focusing and metering

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Bokeh/Sharpness compromise?