Normal lenses compared...

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

What does event videography have to do with anything??

The forum is for users of the camera in the title regardless of the content they produce. I'd love to be able to carry one lens around all day, but my clients wouldn't get the best coverage I am capable of.

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Michael Liebergot

Liam, Event Video is what Joel does most often.

Yes, I realize he does weddings, I was responding to another poster who had written that they didn't want to carry around a lot of lenses and couldn't afford to buy a lot either. I didn't understand why he was quoting me - maybe our wires were crossed:)

The fact is most people can get along just fine with three lenses or less, there's really no need to buy the contents of your local camera shop. Newbies in particular should just get a couple of lenses and go out and shoot.

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

The fact is most people can get along just fine with three lenses or less, there's really no need to buy the contents of your local camera shop. Newbies in particular should just get a couple of lenses and go out and shoot.

True, which is usually the second step after experimenting with a low-cost zoom. There are many examples of one-lens productions in the samples gallery - shorts, music videos, even a few one-camera weddings. I'm dealing with three and four-camera shoots, and each dslr has a different angle within a situation that I have virtually no control over, including lighting, hence my preoccupation with fast lenses. While doing all that I am trying to remain discreet. In a way its like the cinema verite days of film production - something I've studied. The equipment had to be portable and able to gather images in every environment without supplemental lighting. If you can't get the shot you won't be able to tell the story.

[Liam Hall]

Joel, I didn't realize you were the OP. I now understand why you quoted me earlier! My bad!

Anyway, I took a gander at your lens test. Why do the test wide open? I can't imagine you'd often shoot a wedding at f1.2.

[Joel Peregrine]

Hey,

I took a gander at your lens test. Why do the test wide open? I can't imagine you'd often shoot a wedding at f1.2.

Wider apertures mean a lower ISO/less grain. Focusing on a moving subject with a really fast lens takes practice, but its worth the time spent.

[James Donnelly]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Great investment! You'll notice a slight softening wide open - appears most visibly with backlit subjects as a slight halation. This completely disappears one notch closed down at 2.8, but in my opinion the extra 1 1/3 stop gained at 1.8 and the resulting lower ISO more than makes up for the slight loss of sharpness.



The only reason I can see for keeping the slower 135's is that they are so much more compact and weigh considerably less. With the Canon adapter ring and a UV filter the Porst 135 f1.8 gets very close to 2lbs.

The beast has arrived from Germany. Absolutely lovely condition - a really beautiful lens.

The halation is less pronounced than most of my fast lenses wide open - a surprise. The only obvious things were as you say, a slight drop off in sharpness, and I have noticed a touch of vignetting. Agree, extremely usable wide open, and it beats the crap out of my other 135's at f/2.8.

This is going to get more use than I thought, especially as a still lens. It is pretty cool to be able to occupy the frame with a sharp, well exposed image a of a face in low light from 10-15 feet away. It really creates an intimate shot because of the shallow DOF and the fact that the distance of the camera is not a threat to the subject.

Just so you know Joel, I would never have know there was an affordable 135 f/1.8 out there, had I not your read the post you made when you got your Porst, a name I hadn't heard of. Keep sharing the knowledge!

[Taky Cheung]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

...I picked up a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and sold my f4 version of that lens.

Hi Joe, I'm looking to get the Canon 70-200 F2.8... it's $1300 without IS and the new version is $2300 with IS. Do you think it worths the extra $1000 for it? Thanks

[Martin Labelle]

Because seeing your video made me bought the Vivitar 28mm 1.9 today.

I won't say the price I paid for it (only if some of you insist) because it was like buying an old 70s mustang from a grandmother who did not drive it for 25 years and kept the car in a barn, I feel a little bit ashamed.

But that maybe my reward or compensation for buying a Canon EF 17-85mm which broke 1 week after I bought it (lots of how to repair this lens video's on youtube about this one).

Its funny to see the price of the 60s 70s 80s lenses these day, they cost the same as they were sold back then. Just buy a few 80s magazine like shutterbug, or popular photography and check the prices at B&H in the last pages. Maybe in 10 years from now the value of those lenses will have double. So look for old lenses before there is 3 time more video Dslr users.

I said thank you Steve for the video but I don't know If I should thank you for the audio on your video, because hearing it and seeing your set up might cost me a lot of dollar in the next few month.