joe_lacy

Then if I understand this correct it's best at 1.4-f4?

Thank you Walter for your generous offer. I would not want to take advantage of you. :-)

 

I don't know how much I'm going to really use it but we'll see. Besides the dark receptions and used for panning and ambient light/flash fill maybe I can use it on my nude work. I do quite a bit of that on 150w fresnals with snoots and doors. Usually 15th-30th at 2.8 iso 400. An extra stop might help and at 28mm have enough DOF not to worry. Dunno...we'll see in a couple of days. Better to have than have not I guess. Hopefully it's a decent sample.

Thanks everyone. I have the 17-55dx. I wanted it for 1.4. I'm planning for exsiting light photography along with ambient fill flash. I can't do either very well at 2.8 when these rooms I work are so dark. That extra stop and 2/3rds might help too for my dismal S2 viewfinder. I don;t need it blindng sharp but do need it blazing fast. I got a great deal on it...

I bought this lens for my S2 but it's not here yet. What all do I

need to know about it?

 

Thanks

Joe

to the add another issue to the mix, I shoot both vertical and horizontal. So I think I hear you saying use 60* and don;t get to close to them as a general rule? Any gain by using a Lighthouse Globe over the stofen?

Thanks Bruce,

 

I do use the omni bounce, when should I use 45* and when should I use 60*?

When I bounce my subject is well lit from the waist up. After that

the subject is not lit as well. What's causing this?

 

Thanks

Anyone have any comments on these?

 

Thanks,

Anyone have a guess at who will have this lens first? Anyone know of

any waiting lists?

 

Thanks,

Save and get th S2 used when the S3 hits. PMA is not far away where the S3 sould be announced. S2 is a MUCH better body,

S2 here, will buy s3 when it comes out. Visit the dpr forums and you will see why.

I have the 28-70 and considering the 17-35. Some have said it's even

better, this true?

 

Thanks

Yes, when I go to full frame. Or sell the bodies and the lenses. I think this reluctance to buy dx lenses is a little short sighted. There will be a market for these lenses for some time yet. There are too many perfectly good bodies out there to take this glass. Besides, it's $1300.00, not like the end of the world if you make your living shooting.

Thanks Bruce,

 

As long as it's less than the 70-200 VR then it's worth it. I'd sell my 15-30, 28-70 af-s, 20mm 2.8 and 40P. Keep my 35-70 and 80-200 and still have the range. Seems most say it's going to be $1250 street. Not bad if it replaces all these lenses for me and is very very good.

I sure would like to know. I really need this Focal length IF it's sharp.

Some are saying not until mid next year if even then. Anyone REALLY

know?

 

Thanks

Does anyone know where I can find a manual for this Metz?

 

Thanks,

Joe

When should we see the first reviews?

I'm hoping I can sell off some of my lenses in this range.

 

Thanks

I bought an 87 filter, the Lee 87 gel and my landscapes look awesome.

My people shots all look like ghosts. Even if the person is VERY VERY

still I can't even make out the face. Clothes seem transparent too.

Any ideas here why?

 

Thanks,

Joe

You know how hard it was to get that 20x24 frame in an 8x10 flatbed scanner? Actually, I used a Nikomatic downsizing hacksaw circle of cun-fusion model OOF DOF ED AIS v.1.

 

Bottom line, I think the 50 is sharper but the rounded blades on the 45 has better bokeh and is still VERY sharp.

Hi Fazal,

 

One one my previous post pointed you your website. It's one of the places I visited before making this purchase.

 

Fact of the matter is the 50 1.8 is sharper. Actually more than just a tad, IMHO. I hope you can see this example. This is from a 100% crop. Look at the catchlight in the dogs eye. You can see a starburst! I did the same shot with the 45-P and it just looked like a rounded light. Maybe that's the bokeh? Not sure.

 

Something else I did noticed too. I could run a higher intensity sharpening (USM) on the 45-p than I could on the 50mm without it looking over sharpened. Not sure what's going on there as well.

That was my findings too. 5.6-f8. 5.6 being the sharpest. I still don't think it's as sharp as my 50 1.8 but may be something else going on here.

Here are some other things...

 

Here are a few links to samples and Rons review of the lens:

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

 

http://www.digital-images.net/... .../Scenic/BunkerHill/bunkerhill.html

http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Scenic/AzScenic/azscenic.html

http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Art/NS_Sculp/ns_sculp.html

 

 

Just take some time browsing his gallery and you'll find many shots with the lens.

 

Here's one of the comparisons that he showed with the 45 and the 50 1.4

http://forums.dpreview.com/... .../read.asp?forum=1021&message=4934730

 

another shot with the 45p

http://forums.dpreview.com/... .../read.asp?forum=1021&message=4910939

Here is another shot with the 45-p.