peter_hughes1

April 10, 2002

I own this rather odd combination of lenses: 17-35 f/2.8L, 50mm

f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2L, 135mm f/2L. The zoom gives me freedom and

versatility in the wides, where it counts for me; the inexpensive

50mm f/1.8 is fine from f/2 onward; the 85 and 135 are the ultimate

in portrait lenses, which is what I really need. Put your money where

you need supreme excellence, compromise where you don't.<a

href="http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm">Peter Hughes

Photography</a>

April 6, 2002

Many gearheads, especially those into Leica, are amateur

photographers who shoot travel snaps, family pix and the like with

their cameras--if, indeed, they shoot anything at all. For the

caliber of their work, they deserve to own a Vivitar P&S but, because

they can afford to do so, they own M7's w/Noctilux lenses, dream

Canon/Nikon outfits, Hassys, etc.Personally, I have a "Six Month

Rule": If I don't use a piece of gear in six months, to the trade-in

counter it goes. Right now, my 150mm f/2.8 F Sonnar is hanging right

on the edge, because I have a strong tendency to shoot headshots with

35mm, not 6x6.I also keep only one 35mm and one MF system at a

time. Currently, after much experimentation and testing, I've settled

into EOS and Hassy--which, BTW, I use for both professional and

personal work on an almost daily basis.<a

href="http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm">Peter Hughes

Photography</a>

April 5, 2002

</center>

I agree that National Geo is a rag. But so are all other magazines.

When I was sixteen years old, back in the mid-Sixties, I thought the

pix in rags like Geo & Life were great. Then I packed up my Nikon,

went off to RIT, saw the work of White, Weston, Strand, HCB, etc. and

started to change.Since I don't eat flesh, and regard the killing

of animals as barbaric, I can't relate to the angler analogies.To

actually answer the question, I get just as much "inner

gratification" from using an EOS as I do from a Hasselblad. In fact,

I get greater gratification from an EOS than from a Leica since the

pix from the former are more likely to be in focus.Why don't I

post a picture of a pretty girl? Come to think of it, just where

are the girls?!

April 4, 2002

The EOS lens mount opening is the largest in 35mm photography. Ever

seen the exit pupil of the 85mm f/1.2L? It takes up every square

millimeter of that opening--so much so that the the rear element

group has to be notched to fit the electrical contacts.

April 2, 2002

The motor on the Elan is significantly faster than that on the N80.

April 2, 2002

</center>Girls (that's what they're called in the industry)

sometimes need photos for their portfolios and will work TFP (trade

for prints). If you see someone you'd like to shoot, hand them a

card, explain who you are and what you want. Be sweet, charming and

don't come off like a sleaze. If you can afford to pay, then offer a

modest amount--say $25 per hour.

April 1, 2002

BTW, to say that the 85mm f/1.2L is in a "cheap plastic mount" is

absurd. Its mount is metal, of course, and its build quality is up to

Canon's usual high "L" standards.

April 1, 2002

Nikon's technology is at least 5 - 10 years behind Canon's. To

paraphrase a famous Macintosh slogan of some years back, Nikon 2002 =

Canon 1987.Just as athletes are given equipment, clothes, shoes,

etc., by manufacturers to promote their products, so, I would

imagine, are some photographers. Anyway, the fact that

many 'photojournalists' use Nikon is no endorsement in my book. I

have seen too many incompetent pros with thousands of dollars of

equipment hanging around their necks, which they barely knew how to

use, to care what anyone else uses.

April 1, 2002

It's really not a question of the EOS 1v v. the R8, or even of the

90mm Summicron v. the 85mm f/1.2L; it's a matter of manual focus v.

autofocus. And frankly, AF wins every time.Leitz makes superb

optics, but if I can't get the picture in focus, what good are they?

Everything--bokeh, sharpness, character, etc.--is meaningless if

the picture is blurry due to imprecise focus! Both the 85mm

f/1.2L and the 135mm f/2L excel in the above areas, plus the 1v body

I put them on focuses them perfectly every time. Sure, the R8 is

ergonomically superior in some ways but, again, in today's world AF

simply wins out over MF for people photography. In the time is takes

me to fiddle with the focusing ring, hoping to get the image

in focus, an AF system has nailed the shot ten times over.In the

1950's the M3 was the fastest and most accurate camera in the world.

Today, the 1v is the fastest and most accurate camera in the world.

April 1, 2002

Woman w/Mask, Bring Back the Snakes Day, Berkeley, California,

3/23/02</center>

Get an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L.I struggled valiantly for over

a year, first with an M6 TTL and a 90mm Summicron, then with an R8

with a 90mm Summicron-R, to take portraits in the 3 to 5 foot range,

usually using wide apertures (f/4 or wider). Many, if not most, of my

pictures were out of focus--some extremely so, some only slightly

soft.I fiddled around with a Nikon F100 for a short while, then

realized it was a stone ax compared to the EOS line. So, one day, I

put my entire 35mm outfit--an R8 w/2 lenses and an F100 w/5

lenses--on the counter and traded for an EOS-1v w/the 85mm f/1.2L,

the equally magnificent 135mm f/2L, and a 17-35mm f/2.8L to cover the

wide focal lengths. I have never regretted this for an instant. The

1v brings home the goods.The 85mm f/1.2L is twice the lens that

the Summicron is. And the 135mm f/2L is, quite simply, the finest

135mm lens ever made--and, at .9m, also one of the closest-focusing.

Should you want to get closer, Canon (unlike Nikon) makes two

extension tubes which maintain full automation.Finally, note the

portrait above, shot wide open with the 85mm f/1.2L.

April 1, 2002