|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jun 23, 2008 0:58:37 GMT -5
I finally took the Super Paxette III Automatic out for a trial. Lenses were the Enna Braun - Lithagon SLK f3.5/35mm and the Enna Braun - Color Ennit f2.8/50mm. Guiping (my wife) Color Ennit Tough conditions for a rangefinder. I think it is reading short - Guiping's eyes aren't pin sharp, but her jacket collar is. Still, I don't think than the softness is unpleasant. Red cast comes from the annexe's red canvas roof. Lithegon. The better image IMO. I like this lens. 35mm focal length makes me frame more confidently. Lithagon Ray Frost has a "batch" (holiday cottage) at the beach. He's experimenting with the trim on his kite, hoping to use it to carry a fishing line beyond the breakers. I think the Lithagon is cracking in this situation. Guiping tries the kite. Again, I love the warmth of the lens. I'm getting more confident with rangefinder framing and the 35mm lens. More pleasing composition than the previous picture. looking up the beach. Kids on dirt bikes have left deep ruts. The Pacific rolling in regardless.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 23, 2008 5:58:26 GMT -5
Looks like you did well with that Paxette outfit. If you are saying that you feel that the 35mm FL is more of a general purpose lens than a 50mm, I would have to say I find the same thing. The 50 feels more like a short tele.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jun 23, 2008 6:30:02 GMT -5
Thanks Bob, I think I agree with you on the 35mm FL =standard. I remember reading a photography manual that suggested the 35mm lens actually mimics our field of view better than the 50mm "standard lens". I've also read an argument that 35mm and 38mm are redundant focal lengths, not wide enough to be useful, and that the 28mm & 50mm lenses that found their ways into most consumer SLR kits were a better choice. You pays your money, etc, etc. I like my super wides: the old Tokina 17mm I had in AE mount was great fun as long as I remembered not to get my toes in the photo! Now though, I'm learning to like the 35mm lens. I can see it being my main lens on the SP III A. I can't resist adding a couple more. This, I think, was with the Color-Ennit 2.8/50 Same lens. I just swung and shot. Nothing is in focus - the Paxette III's worst feature is its heavy shutter release, the opposite of the older Paxettes which all had hair triggers. It can be easily overcome by squeezing the whole right hand, not just the "trigger finger". Here I forgot that rule and jerked the camera. Still, I like the light and the motion of the bikes.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 23, 2008 8:02:38 GMT -5
Stop posting these photos or it is going to cost me a trip to NZ just to see if it is as nice as your photos make it seem. Just kidding of course about the first part. I really enjoy a 28mm lens and agree it pairs well with a 50, it is also enough different from a 35 to be viable part with one. If that was a Tokina 17/3.5 I would have to agree that it was a good lens but you had to use it with are. Sold mine and regret it.
Bob
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 23, 2008 14:09:01 GMT -5
Michael,
I too like the second picture of Guiping better. Quite apart from her being a very attractive lady I think it's a better composition, triangular with a good firm base. It also looks, to me, more spontaneous, a moment in everyday life.
It's strange. Years ago when I was first learning about photography the pundits always said that for portraits with a 35mm camera you must use a longer focal length lens than standard to get better perspective and a more natural look. Like many aspiring photographers I accepted this and never thought to query it. You still see and hear this stated.
Yet here's this lovely portrait taken with a 35mm focal length lens. It just shows that while some of the old 'rules' of photography have held good and been proved right over the years others have been repeated in text books and magazine features ad nauseum without the writers ever stopping to think whether or not they always apply.
Makes you think.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jun 23, 2008 19:14:16 GMT -5
Peter, it is interesting, isn't it, that between 85mm & 135mm is considered ideal for portraits. For these candid portraits of friends and family, who don't mind me pointing a camera at them from only a meter away, the advantage of the shorter lens is a more intimate feel. Hopefully this imparts upon the viewer the feeling that they too are sitting just beside the subject.
My excuse for getting away with the distortion is that my wife, daughter and in-laws all have small, southern Chinese noses. I, on the other hand, have the big beak and small chin bestowed upon me by my Irish forefathers. Use a wideangle on me and all you see is shnoz.
Bob, it is beautiful here, and you are welcome to come down any time. It is odd that I was most homesick for NZ when it the equally stunning states of Utah an Wyoming. So beautiful, so similar to home in some ways and so different in others. Quite disorientating at times. My home city of Christchurch is quite similar to SLC in many ways, physically and historically, including a conservative, buttoned down and oddly religious culture. Though SLC remains more strongly influenced by its Mormonism than Christchurch is by its Anglican roots.
|
|
|
Post by renaldo on Jun 24, 2008 9:33:16 GMT -5
That 'old' adage that still exists today I believe was/is for allowing comfortable space between the photographer and subject. But with the right person as subject a shorter focal length can be quite rewarding for what you obtain. And, I think, a more natural overall depiction...if you are carefull on composition!
I have never used a 35mm or 38mm for portraits, but often use a 50mm, and especially if I am shooting a model who is used to being in front of the camera. But of course, as was mentioned in regards to distortion, you must consider than their features that may or may not contribute positively to the image.
For me...I just have never been able to appreciate ultrawide. Had a Tokina 17 in Nikon mount for awhile...found I hardly ever used it, so begone. They just seem to further distance the main subject from eyeview. Oh...I have managed to get an acceptable image a few times, but more at the focal length of 24mm.
I have a Nikon 20-35/2.8 and once I have composed and take a gander at the focal length, it is generally in the 24mm to 28mm range.
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Jun 24, 2008 10:06:52 GMT -5
Nice pictures Michael from NZ, the colors are quite extraordinary. What film was this?
Good luck with the camera and lens. I like the 35mm you have, though I don't own any prime lenses anymore.
New Zealand looks beautiful. Love to get there one day too.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jun 26, 2008 5:02:25 GMT -5
Tommy, re: the colours. These were taken in a Nor'wester, which is a type of foehn wind (like the Chinook) that brings warm, dry air to east Canterbury. We are having a lot of them this winter (& another today), but they are always followed by Southerly fronts, i.e., rain and snow storms. The Nor'wester brings a clear, golden light, especially in the pm (these were taken between 3:00 & 4:45 pm). Right on the east coast however, there was a sea breeze blowing in underneath, the Nor'wester, meaning a lot of spindrift and haze. Those mares-tail clouds in the last two pics are a sure sign that something nasty is coming in the way of a storm. All this makes for dramatic light. The film was plain old Fuji 200 print (Sensia?) bought from the Supermarket, processed at the minilab straight onto CD. It'd be interesting to try my favourite E6 film (Kodak E100) in the Paxette just to see how it processes, but I must admit to not having shot E6 in years now, & I'm getting to like the latitude of common garden ISO200 print films. I sometimes wonder why I'm contemplating packing up & heading back to China. NZ IS beautiful, & compact too. Don't like the scenery? Drive for an hour and you'll go from beach to high mountains. But I do miss the street life of China. 20 years ago there was a Sci-Fi film shot in NZ called "The Quiet Earth". It was about the world with only 3 living people in it. NZ was probably the ideal location for the film. In the great outdoors it's fantastic. In the cities it's, well, eternally suburban. China is filled with a different kind of colour.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 26, 2008 6:29:03 GMT -5
Michael, It sounds all wrong to UK ears that a Nor'wester brings warm conditions and a southerly wind brings rain and cold weather. Here, a Nor'wester or Nor'easter usually means cold weather (the north wind doth blow and we shall have snow, etc) while southerly winds bring fine warmer weather . The exception is a Sou'wester that usually brings in lots of rain from the South Atlantic. It's all upside-down in NZ ... but then I suppose countries down-under are upside-down. I've heard that 666 isn't necessarily the sign of the Devil, it could be an Aussie or Kiwi calling 999 for the emergency services. "Poor little upside-down cake, troubles you have got 'em. Because, little upside-down cake, your top is on your bottom." (Sorry!) PeterW
|
|