gdanov
Newbie
hi,
I've got GF1 and I recently bought Canon FD 50/1.8. I notice that the DOF is very shallow when subject is several meters away and is impossible to get the focus right when shooting people, so I practically never use it wide open.
I now want to get something wider (again Canon FD) - 35 or 28mm and am wondering does it makes sense to spend the extra buck and go for 2.0, or 2.8 would still be shallow enough. The 2.8 versions are darn cheap, so I am not sure how big the IQ difference would be if I go for the f/2 versions but use them stopped down. If somebody's got examples to show would be really nice.
I am not shallow DOF addict, however I like to have decent separation of the subject from the background and I do mostly pictures of people.
I have Canon 5D plus the L primes, so I've had enough of bokeh and shallow DOF abuse. I am not looking for a replacement, but rather system that is lightweight and gives me decent results. So long the GF is such fun and so light to carry that the SLR is grounded.
cheers,
Georgi
I've got GF1 and I recently bought Canon FD 50/1.8. I notice that the DOF is very shallow when subject is several meters away and is impossible to get the focus right when shooting people, so I practically never use it wide open.
I now want to get something wider (again Canon FD) - 35 or 28mm and am wondering does it makes sense to spend the extra buck and go for 2.0, or 2.8 would still be shallow enough. The 2.8 versions are darn cheap, so I am not sure how big the IQ difference would be if I go for the f/2 versions but use them stopped down. If somebody's got examples to show would be really nice.
I am not shallow DOF addict, however I like to have decent separation of the subject from the background and I do mostly pictures of people.
I have Canon 5D plus the L primes, so I've had enough of bokeh and shallow DOF abuse. I am not looking for a replacement, but rather system that is lightweight and gives me decent results. So long the GF is such fun and so light to carry that the SLR is grounded.
cheers,
Georgi
principe azul
Ian
Focal length effectively doubles, as you know - but for DOF purposes the aperture effectively doubles as well.
So a 35/2 gathers light at f/2 speed but looks like a 70/4 on film, and a 35/2.8 looks like a 70/5.6. I suggest Googling for 75mm pictures and checking the aperture settings to give you a rough idea.
So a 35/2 gathers light at f/2 speed but looks like a 70/4 on film, and a 35/2.8 looks like a 70/5.6. I suggest Googling for 75mm pictures and checking the aperture settings to give you a rough idea.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Georgi, I find your question is refreshing to me, in that you're implying that the u4/3 format has sufficiently shallow DOF for your practical purposes that you needn't consider a larger format for that specific of a reason. This is in contravention to the usual complaints that the format is too small for shallow-DOF work.
In the time I've had my G1 (since December 2008) I've found lenses like my Minolta MD 50/1.2 has more than sufficiently shallow DOF; in fact, I rarely use it wide open, unless the light is so dim that a sufficiently fast shutter speed demands such a shallow aperture. If I were shooting some uber-expensive glass that were world-class in performance at f/1.2 (like Zeiss) then perhaps I'd reconsider. But many of these legacy optics gave their fastest apertures by sacrificing some optical quality. You stop down a bit for better performance.
~Joe
In the time I've had my G1 (since December 2008) I've found lenses like my Minolta MD 50/1.2 has more than sufficiently shallow DOF; in fact, I rarely use it wide open, unless the light is so dim that a sufficiently fast shutter speed demands such a shallow aperture. If I were shooting some uber-expensive glass that were world-class in performance at f/1.2 (like Zeiss) then perhaps I'd reconsider. But many of these legacy optics gave their fastest apertures by sacrificing some optical quality. You stop down a bit for better performance.
~Joe
gdanov
Newbie
picture with less DOF is better than no picture with very shallow DOF 
this is my new motto after lugging the 5D for several days on our London trip and missing many pictures with my daughter during our daily walks because the 5D is too much to carry everyday.
this is my new motto after lugging the 5D for several days on our London trip and missing many pictures with my daughter during our daily walks because the 5D is too much to carry everyday.