Would you know what 0.95 DOF and inexpensive IQ looks like with a 50mm ?

MaxBerlin

Very few PP commenters noticed.

Consider - moving subjects, low light and hand held.

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/13/on-shooting-at-f0-95-for-wedding-photography/

And consider - static subjects, good light and on a tripod (as evident from the repeatability)

http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:the-50-095-shootout-mitakon-zhongyi-speedmaster-slr-magic-hyperprime&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2

and https://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/sets/72157646254858476/

donaldejose

Very interesting, especially the use of f0.95 for wedding photography. He got some great shots there but to always shoot wide open at a wedding? Seems crazy to me. Especially when the lens is MF. One must have a lot of out of focus shots. Seems to me it would be far better to shoot with a f1.4 AF lens if you want lots of bokeh.

WestEndFoto

Bokeh will vary due to factors beside the lens. You can get good bokeh at 2.8 if the background is far enough away.

I doubt his clients will notice the nuances. They are not even technical nuances, but artistic nuances.

Photographers are always trying to differentiate themselves. I think this is just his way.

snakebunk

The photographs look really nice in my mind.

WestEndFoto

They certainly do look good. But I am saying that the differences in composition will often matter more than a stop. You can also get a really narrow depth of field with a longer lens.

spraynpray

IME shallow DoF is OK for a couple or a few (duplicated) 'special' shots, but the bride (and her mother) usually want to see the trees and flowers or other people in the background as a reminder of the day, not a creamy mush of bokeh.

WestEndFoto

IME shallow DoF is OK for a couple or a few (duplicated) 'special' shots, but the bride (and her mother) usually want to see the trees and flowers or other people in the background as a reminder of the day, not a creamy mush of bokeh.

Yes, we must not forget what the client wants.

haroldp

When I was doing wedding photography , I always had to remember that the clients memories were more important than my art .

.... H

Pistnbroke

Yes all very well if you can get the couple for a few hours in the right location .What do you do when the groom suffers from bored groom syndrome after 15 min? I am sure they both co operate well when they are pi$$ed. Will they aperciate the photos no ....do the average couple even appreciate what a wedding photographer does.
Our australian friend would have done well at my wedding yesterday ..two lesbians both in wedding dresses ..fabulus think of the artistic shots that two dresses provided.......

Shame about both being in wheel chairs ..now try going arty on that ..

The ideas are great for 1 wedding in a hundred and are you pouring profit down the lens ...

sevencrossing

Yes, we must not forget what the client wants.

, I always had to remember that the clients memories were more important than my art .

The ideas are great for 1 wedding in a hundred and are you pouring profit down the lens ...

Nice to hear some sensible advice from people who know what they are talking about

If you are new to wedding photography, forget the arty farty stuff and make sure you capture the day

snakebunk

They certainly do look good. But I am saying that the differences in composition will often matter more than a stop. You can also get a really narrow depth of field with a longer lens.

Yes, I actually think the dof in this article is similar to my standard bird photographs (with 500mm lense). Maybe that is why I like it.

Examples of dof in two of my bird photographs:

MaxBerlin

Sincere apologies to all. My point was that these 0.95 50mm photos don't at all appear to be as described.

1. The resolution is too high (even in these compressed and downscaled photos)
2. The DOF is way too deep - the wedding photos are all hand held, in low light with moving subjects.
Compare that with the static beer bottle photos and dof in good light, and with a tripod.

I took some f 1.4 shots with a 55mm lens and had way more blur/bokeh (photos are on my blog) than what is shown in the wedding photos.

I doubt that an inexpensive lens can shoot that well at 0.95 (I've had very good 1.2 lenses and they don't do that well. And I doubt that the shooter is at that f stop. Looks more like 2.8+ to me.

heartyfisher

@MaxBerlin .. that was my impression as well .. but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the poster.. and will try and note if other 0.95 aperture lenses have similar images to show. :-) grains of salt and stuff like that .. :-)

MaxBerlin

HF - I'd like to give benefit of doubt but there is little to give in this case. The resolution is too high for 0.95 and the DOF is too deep at the same time (all of this hand held on moving subjects). The whole article is a sales pitch for the lens. If $800 0.95 lenses really performed that well, Zeiss, Sigma et al would never sell another lens.

heartyfisher

found a review of the Mitacon lense .. it think it may be what was in the posting http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/08/04/the-mitakon-50-0-95-lens-review-on-the-sony-a7s/

MaxBerlin

Enlightening! Thank you. What I see there is that the lens seems capable of the sharpness (hard to tell without full size images) but the photo series puts the nail in the coffin that the wedding photos were shot wide open.

heartyfisher

Yeah .. the DOF seems not "fat" enough for F0.95. Maybe it was taken from a farther distance and cropped 2x or more.. ( the 100% crop seems to show this scenario )