Wonderful review of the Olympus 8mm f/1,8 fisheye lens over at Mirror Lessons:
Cambo Actus and Nikon D810
Fujifilm XF 90/2 LM WR Lens spec and first product image
PhotoRumors just upped product specifications and the above image for Fujifilm's forthcoming fast telephoto lens.
Meanwhile, forum runners at digicame speculate that given the lens's 62mm filter size, apparent length, and fast glass, it could weigh around 500g, or roughly equivalent to the lovely Leica Summicron 90.
Source: Photorums via digicame.info
Fuji 56mm Vs Canon 85mm 1.8
This thread is raging at DPReview right now, precisely because Canon's second-tier 370$ USD F/1,8 85mm lens from 1992 draws very similarly, and certainly with less DOF than Fujifilm's top-of-the-line 1000$ USD F/1,2 56mm XF lens.
OP Stoneh Ray's camera settings are problematic, but the basic draw styles tell what needs to be told: unless cost, size, weight, and generational misalignment are ignored, equivalence never favours smaller formats.
The Nikon 105mm f/2,5 AiS as a landscape lens
I picked up the Nikkor 105mm f/2,5 F-mount lens sometime in 2010. I was told that it was glass made for portraits. I was told that it had buttery bokeh, and sharpness and colour out the wazzoo. Cool beans I said.
Read moreFujifilm XF 16mm 1.4 R WR - servile journalism; and a sign that X is all right
Press Releases agree: Fujifilm's new fast wide-angle will go for 999,95$ USD. It will be compared to lenses that cover larger image circles with the same apertures. Equivalists and optic-speed-or-deathist will argue till blue in the face.
Read moreLeica 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH
And speaking of Summicrons, Thorsten Overgaard has a wonderful (and long) interview with Leica lens designer, Peter Karbe, that is well worth the read.
Thorsten Overgaard: Leica 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH f/2.0
last Sakura of the season: 90mm Summicron + 50mm Summicron
I always miss sakura season. But this year, my wife and I spent two meals under the cherry blossoms, once with knäckebrot and cheese and wine, once with Japanese fried chicken and rice noodles and beer.
Read moreAm I wrong in thinking I could get MORE subject separation with 23 vs 35?
DPReview member oracle82 writes:
And the award for most confusing answer goes to Christof21 who supplied the link to a website called How Much Blur, which compares the theoretical percentage of blur captured by both lenses at similar distances.
But the question specifically addressed the separation of subject and background at different camera to subject distances. In other words, supplying a link, no matter how erudite it may seem, isn't enough. Relevance is key.
The best response from the same thread attempts to answer the question asked, which distilled simply is this:
I like to shoot [people or other objects] at wider angles. Because of this I have to move farther from my subject when using the 35mm 1,4, which reduces the amount of separation between the subject and the background. Which lens, the 23mm 1,4 or the 35mm 1,4, would return more separation between the subject and the background?
The answer lies in the oracle82's own question: Of course, then I start to lose some of the blurred background because my subject ends up being further away from me.
Any answer concerned with the amount to which a background is blurred and not the degree to which the subject and the background are delineated one from another, is pointless. And so becomes the 35mm's f/1,4 aperture when the subject is moved closer to the background in order to capture a wider view.
The answer is: no, you are not.
The 23mm 1,4 lens will more keenly separate the background from the subject.
Here is the thread: Am I wrong in thinking I could get MORE subject separation with 23 vs 35?
Radioactive Konica Hexanon 57 f/1,2
Some of us are into sharpness. Some of us are into OOF rendering. Some of us are into bokeh. Others, are into radiation.