Timeline for Does shooting landscape at lower f-stop produce reasonably sharp images?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 20:09 | comment | added | Michael C | Those HH shots at 1/13 were not landscapes, they were events in dark places like meeting halls and restaurants. Back then if folks saw a camera they would hold still while you took their photo! | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 20:06 | comment | added | Michael C | Yeah, but a 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.2 or f/2.5 is still a lot sharper than most kit zooms shooting wide open at f/5 or f/5.6 when set to 50mm. That was the original premise of the article. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | MirekE | @MichaelClark handheld landscape. You can stop down and still use comfortable exposure times. There is only handful of 50mm lenses that are sharp and contrasty at f/1.4 (and they do not qualify as lightweight alternatives) and 1/13s may not work when hiking in the mountains. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:49 | comment | added | Michael C | Although I must admit as I age I now rely on IS for longer focal lengths in low light I've not found the need yet to own a short lens with IS. In my prime I could get about 50% keepers shooting handheld at 1/13 or so with a 50mm lens. Back then film was all we had. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:39 | comment | added | MirekE | @MichaelClark One stop slower with approx. 3 stop IS. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:38 | comment | added | Michael C | Yeah, I misread that as "lighter". Still, in the context of the article, we're talking 35mm film for all of the landscape images from Argentina. You can't just crank up the ISO with low speed film. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:36 | comment | added | Michael C | It is lightweight at 11.8 oz., but it's not lighter than the EF 50mm f/1.4 at 10.2 oz. It is also one stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 lenses are 20.5 oz. and 26.8 oz. respectively. the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/… | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:36 | comment | added | MirekE | I said "there are other lightweight options" in my post. Not "lighter". | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:21 | comment | added | MirekE | I would still consider lenses like the 35mm IS from Canon lightweight. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | Michael C | My 50mm f/1.4 is the lightest lens in my bag. The only thing that would conceivably be lighter would be a plastic 50mm f/1.8 or a pancake lens. Wider angle lenses made of the same materials tend to be heavier due to the necessity of their retro-focal design unless designed for use on a camera with a very short registration distance. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:11 | history | edited | MirekE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 486 characters in body
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 18:03 | history | answered | MirekE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |