Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED Weapon - How Long Before MF Glass goes nuts...

Having MF glass I think is a good idea in general. I think it's a logical trend. Also most MF glass is really really sharp so even if you use on FF or s35 you will get great image quality
 
Actually MF glass is generally soft and slow.
The larger negative size gives it a huge advantage of effectively doubling the film sensitivity
The lower magnification gives it a huge advantage of cutting the film grain size in half.
The longer FLs give it a huge advantage of shrinking the perspective to flatten (face) features for the more flattering look.
The longer FLs also give it a huge advantages of miniscule DOF while shooting at (closer to) optimal f-stop for the glass.
ALL of these advantages are canceled when using less than MF size imager...
This comes down to understanding the tech and using proper tool for the job....
A painter would not use 3" wide brush to paint eyelashes of the model -would he (she)?
 
True Jacek, but I've seen many MF lenses, especially in the Pentax 6x7 line out perform smaller image circle glass. I tend to shoot at a 4 though. I also rarely use my Pentax lenses on red but when I do I am always impressed
 
Are you impressed with the IQ or because you are using a BIG lens ;-)?
 
It's true just try to frame the same (size in the frame) a face portrait with a 20mm lens and 100mm lens. Can you say "BIIIIIIG nose"? ;-)
 
No it's not- An example is a shot when they dolly while zooming to keep the subject the same size
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
Actually MF glass is generally soft and slow.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Only the cheap, crappy MF lenses are soft and slow. And what is so wrong about f/4? I'd choose MF primes over Nikon primes any day. BTW, the Contax 645 80/2 may not be slow, but it is soft, so I recommend against that lens.

Jacek Zakowicz said:
The longer FLs give it a huge advantage of shrinking the perspective to flatten (face) features for the more flattering look.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Only changing perspective (i.e. camera's position) changes the apparent subject-background distance. Focal length is immaterial.

Jacek Zakowicz said:
The longer FLs also give it a huge advantages of miniscule DOF while shooting at (closer to) optimal f-stop for the glass.
Click to expand...
This is not an advantage or a disadvantage, it's just a characteristic.
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
No it's not- An example is a shot when they dolly while zooming to keep the subject the same size
Click to expand...

The zooming is irrelevant (it merely changes the FOV). It's the movement of the camera (change of perspective) which causes the apparent compression/stretching.
 
OK let me rephrase:
When making a portrait (I hope we all know what a portrait is) what lens would you choose:
20 mm or 100mm ?
no matter what excuses you make there is only one answer.
These are called PRACTICAL not philosophical implications.
As far as softness goes I've proven it hundreds of times in my 27 year lens servicing career...
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
OK let me rephrase:
When making a portrait (I hope we all know what a portrait is) what lens would you choose:
20 mm or 100mm ?
no matter what excuses you make there is only one answer.
These are called PRACTICAL not philosophical implications.
Click to expand...
I am not sure there is a conflict between practicality and philosophy. One informs the other, like, say, theory and evidence.

Anyway, 20mm or 100mm? Well, that's a red herring. We are not talking geometry anymore, we're talking technique. If you're using a 1" sensor, maybe the 20mm is more practical than the 100mm. If you can stand far enough away, you might prefer the 100mm. But, as you know, some lovely portraits have been taken with 21mm lenses, even with a 24x36mm image area. Here is one example:

http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/10/28/window-portrait/

And that was taken with a Leica. A smaller image area would reduce the FOV and therefore would make the 21mm lens even more suitable for portraits.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
I am not sure there is a conflict between practicality and philosophy. One informs the other, like, say, theory and evidence.

Anyway, 20mm or 100mm? Well, that's a red herring. We are not talking geometry anymore, we're talking technique. If you're using a 1" sensor, maybe the 20mm is more practical than the 100mm. If you can stand far enough away, you might prefer the 100mm. But, as you know, some lovely portraits have been taken with 21mm lenses, even with a 24x36mm image area. Here is one example:

http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/10/28/window-portrait/

And that was taken with a Leica. A smaller image area would reduce the FOV and therefore would make the 21mm lens even more suitable for portraits.
Click to expand...


But in that photo the subject is far enough away that perspective distortion of her face isn't an issue. And that shot isn't what we would normally consider a "portrait" - i.e. in normal photographic terms or this dictionary definition:

Portrait: a painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders.


BTW I bought a bunch of Manual focus Pentax 645 lenses back when the epic line was announced. They are quite easy to adapt to Canon or Nikon mounts with adapters, and the mechanics, focus throw, etc. are pretty nice. Very inexpensive and good optics.
 
I used to shoot BMCC with a 21mm lens and it matched almost perfectly with a 5D on a 50mm, except for depth of field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top