Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Great shot Barry, he really added some foreground interest :ROTFL:He walked right in front of me as I was taking photos (What a cheek!!!)...I considered pushing him out of the way but then realized I was an EMMET myself!
It takes one to know one
I can probably see what you mean in the first shot but I like the second a lot and it certainly doesn't look "flat" or "dull" to me.Anyways, here are a few shots with the lens I dislike, the boring Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 on the Sony A7.
Google Emmet and Cornish ... :salute:Great shot Barry, he really added some foreground interest :ROTFL:
But you need to help me, what does the term EMMET stand for, tried googling it but all I found were a few towns in the US and a lego figure
Thanks Bart, found itGoogle Emmet and Cornish ... :salute:
Many thanks PieterGreat shot Barry, he really added some foreground interest :ROTFL:
But you need to help me, what does the term EMMET stand for, tried googling it but all I found were a few towns in the US and a lego figure
Yes indeed two beautiful shots Tom ^^^Here are two more recent seascapes - that is, shots from the deck of a rental home near Nanoose Bay, BC, Canada.
Many thanks Jim.^^^ Barry, nice... Wow you are really tall!
I’m sure you did Michiel ........................................It’s nothing to be proud of my friend :ROTFL:Barry, you thought; and now I am going to stand in front of my own picture.
BTW I used to wear pants like that in the sixtys :grin:
Lucille, I'm sympathetic to this argument, though only to a point. I think the rendering of the FE 28mm f2 is far friendlier to human subjects compared to the 35mm 2.8. However, where landscapes are concerned, I find the vibrant warm colors of the 35 much more pleasing than the cool, Leica-esque tones of the 28.I can't stand the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, I will tell you that the 35mm Zeiss f/2 found on the RX1 just destroys this lens, in everything in my eyes, the f/2 has more pop, more contrast, more character, and more MAGIC.
the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 is a real yawner, I don't really get the 'hepkitty' look to the files, my signiture look. I know some love it, I don't, flat, dull, boring, uninspiring. I for one don't put
a lot of stock in this 'corner sharpness' argument. I do a lot of landscape stuff and it if soft corners weaken my images, my eyes don't really see it, as my images tend to draw you into the subject,
which I rarely put in the corners anyways.
My honest opinion is instead of spending the cash on the f/2.8, either step up to the Distagon f/1.4 or score a Rx1. If budget is a concern then get the 'great 28', the cheapo Sony 28mm f/2 prime and save some cash and yet gain some character. Of course this is subjective, and just my opinion.
Lucille, I'm sympathetic to this argument, though only to a point. I think the rendering of the FE 28mm f2 is far friendlier to human subjects compared to the 35mm 2.8. However, where landscapes are concerned, I find the vibrant warm colors of the 35 much more pleasing than the cool, Leica-esque tones of the 28.
But as you've shown, the 28 is certainly a capable performer. Here's a 'high-keyed' shot taken with it.