| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2007 04:00:01 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:00:43 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:00:54 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:01:06 PM · #4 |
Oh no! Everyone run for cover.....
Congrats Laurus.
*-Rich
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:01:16 PM · #5 |
Don't worry. It's so heavy its bound to slow him down ;)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:01:33 PM · #6 |
| Geez... I can't even get a refund on my membership. Does Canon make "L" knitting needles? |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:02:35 PM · #7 |
| Holy Cow! 18 hundo that is allot of Samolians! |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:03:52 PM · #8 |
remember, it's not the gear that makes the beautiful photo...
oh well. we're screwed anyway
;) |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:03:52 PM · #9 |
it's a lens like that ... and the t/s offerings ... that make me consider jumping ship.
Not that they'd help a suck like me, I just like cool things. |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:03:54 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does Canon make "L" knitting needles? |
What would be the point?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:06:04 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Holy Cow! 18 hundo that is allot of Samolians! |
If that's too pricey, you can always just purchase the L lens converter kit for the 50mm & 85mm. Much more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:06:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does Canon make "L" knitting needles? |
What would be the point? |
Well if I'm gonna take up knitting, I'd at least want sharp needles. They'd be weather sealed, too, so I could knit raincoats. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:07:03 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:07:46 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Holy Cow! 18 hundo that is allot of Samolians! |
If that's too pricey, you can always just purchase the L lens converter kit for the 50mm & 85mm. Much more reasonable. |
LMAO Very funny! But I just always wanted to use the word Samolians. :-P |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:08:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
LOL! |
and a hell of a lot cheaper :D |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:08:44 PM · #16 |
I didn't even notice that there was a separate listing for the mkII version previously. I wonder if there are other owners who have listed theirs under the mk I.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:09:42 PM · #17 |
May as well change the name of the name of an upcoming challenge:
Shallow DOF IV Larus Challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-02-13 16:11:17.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:22:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Brad:
May as well change the name of the name of an upcoming challenge:
Shallow DOF IV Larus Challenge. |
Though there are tons of lenses that will give much shallower depth of field than that one will...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:25:25 PM · #19 |
| And ofcourse Mr_Pants just went out and bought one for 0 dollars and attached it to his SiPix Camera..... |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:25:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Brad:
May as well change the name of the name of an upcoming challenge:
Shallow DOF IV Larus Challenge. |
Though there are tons of lenses that will give much shallower depth of field than that one will... |
Uh, really? How so? |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:29:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nards656:
Though there are tons of lenses that will give much shallower depth of field than that one will... |
Uh, really? How so? |
Because Depth of Field is a function of subject distance, focal length and aperture, not just aperture alone.
Get a lot closer (e.g., a macro lens) and you have much shallower depth of field, even at a higher aperture. I doubt you can get that close with that 85mm 1.2, compared to a dedicated macro lens.
Get further away with a longer lens (e.g, a 200mm f2.8) and you have much shallower depth of field for the same subject size.
The 85 1.2 sure is an awesome lens, but it isn't the ultimate in shallow DoF by a long way.
Here's an example:
The shot below is a patch of showy primroses. Each flower is about an inch across, for scale.
This is a macro shot I took of the inside one of them. You can probably judge the DoF. It might, just be a millimeter. Maybe. Because I'm very close and shooting with a 5x equivalent magnification lens at around f2.8
Message edited by author 2007-02-13 16:35:53.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:36:28 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The 85 1.2 sure is an awesome lens, but it isn't the ultimate in shallow DoF by a long way. |
Doesn't matter. It's presumably attached to a Canon 5D in the hands of the Ribbonator and pointed at some Scandanavian supermodel amid a surreal landscape of snow and auroras. That's worth 6 points with the lens cap on. :-/ |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:37:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Doesn't matter. It's presumably attached to a Canon 5D in the hands of the Ribbonator and pointed at some Scandanavian supermodel amid a surreal landscape of snow and auroras. That's worth 6 points with the lens cap on. :-/ |
Oh, I know. I know. I think he could shoot with a coke bottle and do equally well. That's my problem, I've only had a Miss Texas contestant in my shots, while he has access to Miss Iceland. He's at a whole different level :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-13 16:40:17.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:37:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's worth 6 points with the lens cap on. :-/ |
hahaha! |
|
|
|
02/13/2007 04:46:20 PM · #25 |
Also note that he's added the 24/1.4L in the past couple weeks... sorry to say I had a bit of a hand in that. Now even his night skyscapes will look better.
:-P |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 08:45:12 AM EDT.
