Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Dec 2013 (Saturday) 13:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is your most artistic lens?

 
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 09, 2013 13:43 |  #61

Jerobean wrote in post #16513495 (external link)
yeah, I stopped looking at MF lenses a few years ago because I thought the cat was out of the bag and it was getting really hard to find any deals.

fast forward a couple years and all the lenses I was looking at have doubled in price :mad:

I bought the "Bokeh Monster" for $80 and sold it a couple years later for $375.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 09, 2013 13:44 |  #62

cdifoto wrote in post #16513911 (external link)
All my lenses must be defective because none of my photos are artistic.

That's cause you hang out on here too much and don't shoot enough. Pot calling kettle...


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Dec 09, 2013 13:53 |  #63

I had an immediately brow furrowing response to the premise of the question in the OP--I can walk around and employ an artistic gaze at anything; and depending on what that thing is and how I want to render it, I'll choose a different tool (lens in this case) to make that happen. Most of the time it's really about pragmatics and nothing really highly intellectual--mostly it's like: the area of this scene that interests me is far away, ergo I need a long lens.

But, yes, I too can read the OP more charitably and presume that they could mean: 'the photos that I think look cool and artsy--well, what lenses are they generally using ?'. Even if I don't agree that, e.g., a photo with small dof suddenly becomes imbued with artistic properties because of that lens choice, it's pretty clear in the modern era dof has distinguished shots that professionals / artists can render with their gear from those by amateurs with their generally point-and-shoot gear (this is obviously changing).



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,643 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 232
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Dec 09, 2013 13:53 |  #64

Jam.radonc wrote in post #16513305 (external link)
Been eyeing a few Trioplans for quite sometime but they are not cheap, especially the M42 ones.

I bet after reading these threads the price is going to go up even further :)

Probably yes, but after visiting my webpage, some could find a cheaper alternative. It is not only the Trioplan 100 - but I think this is probably the best and best looking lens for this effect. And easiest to get.
For me the Trioplan 100 is my most significant lens. It helps me to make my best images (ok, my nude photos have more visitors) and I have learned much with this lens.
For what I get from the Trioplan it would be worth more than the Canon FD 85mm/1.2L, or 400/2.8L. And I am happy that I got it much cheaper than these lenses. It is a bargain for what it could do :D

phantelope wrote in post #16513705 (external link)
I'd probably call my Lensbaby collection my most "artistic" lenses since I never use them for "normal" photos..

I love lenses with anormal quality much - but at the moment I love when one part in the picture is sharp.
Thinking about this, I have forgotten my DIY tilt lens - tilt lenses could be used as a artistic tool with different possibilities than normal lenses too.

IMAGE: http://4photos.de/camera-diy/Hochhaus%20in%20Hamburg,%20Tilt.jpg

But I want to emphasize: With bloody normal lenses like the EF 50mm/1.8II it is as well possible to make artistic images.
But sometimes special lenses are helpful - or the only way to get the image one want.

DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 09, 2013 13:58 |  #65

All the people who think this thread is stupid think the OP is talking about composition and think he believes that lenses can turn a **** scene into a masterpiece.

anyone with any ability to discern will come to the conclusion that the OP is talking about rendering.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:00 |  #66

What do you mean by rendering ?

Jerobean wrote in post #16513962 (external link)
All the people who think this thread is stupid think the OP is talking about composition and think he believes that lenses can turn a **** scene into a masterpiece.

anyone with any ability to discern will come to the conclusion that the OP is talking about rendering.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:07 |  #67

There's also film... film holga... lomography cameras... vivitar wide and slim... let's dig up pictorialism from the 1930s...

And lets not forget the instagram, where **** scenes turn into creative masterpieces at the click of a button.

And anything made by Apple.

Turns out to be creative, all you need is to buy the right lens, upload the picture to the right laptop and click on the right filter.

What value does "the look" have if you bought it? Or if somebody made it for you?


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:15 |  #68

cdifoto wrote in post #16513911 (external link)
All my lenses must be defective because none of my photos are artistic.

Thread winner:D


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:17 |  #69

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16513970 (external link)
What do you mean by rendering ?

unique qualities a lens imparts on an image.

are people really trying to pretend that all lenses are neutral?

maybe if your only exposure to lenses is from the past 10 years this is somewhat true, but a ton of old lenses have really unique qualities to them.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:39 |  #70

What I'm saying is that you and I own lenses that 'render' better than the lenses that Edward Weston or Man Ray [or insert your own favorite photographer of yore] used; and yet--well, you can finish this sentence.

In the most important sense--yes, I see my lenses as being neutral. When I scan over my work over the past 8 years (and I'm talking wedding as well as fine arts stuff), I can see no pattern in terms of one lens resulting in more print-worthy photos over another lens. There are so many variables that define what makes an image 'good' or 'artistic'; and I think 'rendering' ability is way way down at the bottom in terms of importance--the threads in this forum notwithstanding. This isn't to say that it's not important or worthwhile talking about which lens is sharper or results in cool bokehs (not sure people realize it's entirely subjective to say that round bokeh dots are somehow better than pentagonal ones..). I just think it's important to at least include some perspective.

Jerobean wrote in post #16514016 (external link)
unique qualities a lens imparts on an image.

are people really trying to pretend that all lenses are neutral?

maybe if your only exposure to lenses is from the past 10 years this is somewhat true, but a ton of old lenses have really unique qualities to them.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,643 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 232
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Dec 09, 2013 14:51 |  #71

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16513970 (external link)
What do you mean by rendering ?

Bokeh for example - please read my posts with pictures.
The Meyer Trioplan has - as far as I know - a bokeh no Canon EF lens has.
If you are able to use this kind of bokeh, you could create images with boosted background detail - but still with small DOF.

Nikon has the two Defocus Control lenses with 105 and 135mm, they allow the same, or nearly the same. Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron have nothing similar. Tamron ones had a lens that could create images a bit like the Trioplan.

So when you like this way of image rendering, you need one of these lenses - or much time and knowledge in Photoshop. And you must see images that could fit for this rendering.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16513988 (external link)
...Turns out to be creative, all you need is to buy the right lens, upload the picture to the right laptop and click on the right filter.

What value does "the look" have if you bought it? Or if somebody made it for you?

Have you build your own lenses? Or is their neutral near perfect look bought too?

I am not sure whether many musicians make their own instruments.
I don´t think Manfred Mann could create his sound without the Moog synthesizers?
What would have happened when Mozart would only get drums?

You like your instruments, your lenses. Others like other lenses.
You probably prefer neutral near perfect lenses - others like lenses with some imperfections.
Probably you do not see the differences between an lens with neutral spherical aberration correction and an over corrected spherical aberration. Good for you, you don´t need extra lenses. Others see the differences and use them.

By the way: I do a lot of experimentation with lenses, and do optical modifications to get more of the effect I want. But I do not see this as as special artistic knowledge, more as technical tinkering.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,643 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 232
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Dec 09, 2013 15:01 |  #72

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16514084 (external link)
What I'm saying is that you and I own lenses that 'render' better than the lenses that Edward Weston or Man Ray [or insert your own favorite photographer of yore] used; and yet--well, you can finish this sentence....

Not sure about that. Back then they had more Petzval lenses. Or lenses with variable softing capabilities. Or apodization due to the in lens shutter.
Today we have very small and fast lenses. Probably pretty sharp (for the small image format). I would not say current lenses have a better rendering.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16514084 (external link)
...
I see my lenses as being neutral. When I scan over my work over the past 8 years (and I'm talking wedding as well as fine arts stuff), I can see no pattern in terms of one lens resulting in more print-worthy photos over another lens. ...

I do see differences. I have made some nice images with the Canon 800/5.6, 400/2.8, 300/2,8, 85/1.2 or 24/1.4 - but I have made about same number of good images with the Trioplan 100 alone. I would say some of my Trioplan pictures are far better than the stuff I made with Canon and Zeiss lenses.
I made some crappy pictures with the Trioplan as well - need to delete some of them from my website.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Dec 09, 2013 15:13 |  #73

It sounds to me like your aesthetic judgements place a huge emphasis on technical aspects, the bokeh in particular. While I'm fully capable of seeing differences from one bokeh to another, those differences have near to nil effect on my judgment regarding whether a given photo is good.

ZoneV wrote in post #16514158 (external link)
Not sure about that. Back then they had more Petzval lenses. Or lenses with variable softing capabilities. Or apodization due to the in lens shutter.
Today we have very small and fast lenses. Probably pretty sharp (for the small image format). I would not say current lenses have a better rendering.

I do see differences. I have made some nice images with the Canon 800/5.6, 400/2.8, 300/2,8, 85/1.2 or 24/1.4 - but I have made about same number of good images with the Trioplan 100 alone. I would say some of my Trioplan pictures are far better than the stuff I made with Canon and Zeiss lenses.
I made some crappy pictures with the Trioplan as well - need to delete some of them from my website.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Dec 09, 2013 15:36 as a reply to  @ Christopher Steven b's post |  #74

I was going to add that in today's day and age, processing and processing software plays a huge part in "artistic" images.

Now I would argue that although as was said " take a photo and select the right filter..." it takes an artistic eye to process photos, not a simple one adjustment click of the " perfect processing for this photo" button and there are huge differences in people's ability to use software to get results their artistc mind wants. I would argue that today, the processing is as important as the picture for artsy stuff.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 09, 2013 16:27 |  #75

Jerobean wrote in post #16514016 (external link)
unique qualities a lens imparts on an image.

are people really trying to pretend that all lenses are neutral?

maybe if your only exposure to lenses is from the past 10 years this is somewhat true, but a ton of old lenses have really unique qualities to them.

I bought mine because they pretty much are neutral. Exactly how I want them. I don't want clients going "oh that one was taken with the 135L and this one wasn't."

That would be a bad thing.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,150 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is your most artistic lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HamPhoto
1085 guests, 306 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.