My Dad just bought a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L.

<------ is jealous.


-Mark.
[Reply]

I LOVE that lens. Definitely on my wish list.

Closeup portraits with that lens can product stunning results given the right backdrop.
[Reply]

Awesome lens! I couldn't swing that one, so I compromised and picked up a older model 17-35L 2.8 a while back, and it has served me well. I don't notice the missing 1mm difference too much because I also have a sigma 14mm 2.8 aspherical prime.
[Reply]

Just gotta watch out for perspective issues when shooting portraits with a wide-angle lens.
[Reply]

DxO will correct any and all lens distortion issues.
[Reply]

I wasn't refering to lens distortion, I was referring to perspective issues which are affected by the camera's distance relative to the subject, which is a different issue. The reason a headshot done with a wide angle lens will make the nose appear abnormally large is because of it's closer distance to the sensor relative to the rest of the face. Compression which occurs when the distance to the subject is greater can have a pleasing effect on the face in portraiture. This is not to say wide angle portraits can't be done, but just to make people aware of another consideration in doing so.
[Reply]

This is very true. I have been working in Photoshop (at work) for 25 years.
When I watch some tutorials or read people's suggestions-instructions, I often think,
"WHAT??" WTF is he talking about, the WHAT tool?" That's the beauty of Photoshop.
You do with it what you need to do with it and very little else. It's a thousand
different programs in that way. Things exist in there that I have no clue about,
cause I don't use them in my work. That said, I am as fast as anyone in Photoshop
and can produce great work.
My way, lol.
[Reply]

:-) :-)

Same story for me. Learned PS as a kid (still am a kid I guess), thought I knew it... then went to work for a newspaper, learned a different set of stuff.... then went to work for myself doing weddings, learned another set of techniques. I'm pretty good in PS, so that means I know 5% of the program. The really good people know 10% of it :-)
[Reply]

Picked up an old Sears 135mm f/2.8 in m42 mount and a cheap adapter. Here are a few shots:

First the lens:
Image

Sample shots:
Image

Image

Image
[Reply]

Nice! :-)

what did that package cost you?
[Reply]

I think right around $35 including shipping and the adapter. I've started getting into these manual focus lenses because they're ridiculously cheap compared to AF ones.
[Reply]

DxO will still fix it. Perspective issues like nose bulging is still distortion.
[Reply]

Yes, but it is the specific type of distortion that matters. Can it be fixed in photoshop? Sometimes, but it depends on the quality of the distortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspec..._(photography)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=672913

Pincushioning and Barrel distortion are easily corrected and are usually corrected. Compression and perspective distortion caused by focal length are different and cannot be as easily adapted in post processing. Now I'm not familiar with DxO, so I'm not sure of it's capabilities, but I still think it would be difficult to change the relative sizes of background items based on the focal length of the lens, though I haven't tried so it might be easier than I think.
[Reply]

DxO has separate modules that you have to download for each different camera body and lens. Where it reads the meta data and has the algorithms to stretch the picture for pincushion, barrel, fisheye, perspective, chromatic aberration, and color.

before
Image


after
Image
[Reply]

Great lens!

My next lens will be a 135 f2 L.
[Reply]

I had that one for a while, ended up using the 85 1.8 more.... BUT at the time I was shooting cropped bodies. Now that I shoot 5D's, I wish I had the 145 2L back :-)
[Reply]

Image
[Reply]

Nice Ken. Creamy smooth background too. :-)
[Reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about but I really like both photos.
[Reply]

Thanks Bro!
My actual pics are sharper than the hosted ones but still not to bad.
[Reply]