 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2004Canon EF 28/1.8 USM Diaphragm Blades
I used my canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 to take some snaps as a guest at a wedding recently. The out-of-focus point-light sources are so pleasingly rendered that I am thinking of upgrading my 28/2.8 to the 28/1.8. I know the 2.8 is said to be sharper, but the zoom produced very good images wrt sharpness, and I'm figuring the 28/1.8 will do at least slightly better than the zoom. Anyone know how many diaphragm blades the 28/1.8 has? The five blade diaphragm on the 28/2.8 produces unappealing out-of-focus highlights; it is this lens' only drawback. Michael > 28/1.8. I know the 2.8 is said to be sharper, but the zoom produced > very good images wrt sharpness, and I'm figuring the 28/1.8 will do at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Michael There's been some quite recent threads (like showing on the most recent page last night) about this lens ( EF 28 f1.8) in the Canon forums at www.dpreview.com . Probably worth checking them out before making a purchase. Seem to remember that's there are other issues to consider. I have the f2.8, and get on with it OK, when I'm not using the 35 f2 or 24 f2.8! But I rarely use any of them for bokeh sensitive images.  SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm The EF 28 f1.8 USM has 7 blades. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks The only other EF prime that has 7 blades is the 24 f1.4L USM. Only one EF wide angle prime has more than 7 blades and that is the 35 f1.4L USM. http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks Here they are in order by number of blades. EF lens Number of blades 35 f1.4L USM 8 24 f1.4L USM 7 28 f1.8 USM 7 24 f2.8 6 The rest of the EF wide angle primes have 5 blades. The 28 f1.8 USM is truly a lens for the above average photographer who wants good bokeh in a wide angle lens. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks > Here they are in order by number of blades. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > truly a lens for the above average photographer who wants good bokeh in > a wide angle lens. The number of blades is a partial contributor to pleasing bokeh, but not the whole answer, optics (glass) is the main contributor. Another factor is the blade edges: traditional straight edges do not fare as well as curved edges that lead to near circular apertures at the open end through about f/8 to f/11. I have no idea whether any of the lenses you present above have straight or curved blades. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. (Alan Browne) wrote: The number of blades is a partial contributor to pleasing bokeh, but not the whole answer, optics (glass) is the main contributor. Another factor is the blade edges: traditional straight edges do not fare as well as curved edges that lead to near circular apertures at the open end through about f/8 to f/11. I have no idea whether any of the lenses you present above have straight or curved blades. Cheers, Alan. =============================I don't know, but I would think that the primes would have the better "curved" blades, at least the ones with more than 5 blades, since there are only four of them. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks >I don't know, but I would think that the primes would have the better >"curved" blades, at least the ones with more than 5 blades, since there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks Interesting to see that the latest Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Aspheric (clear photo on p35 of this week's "Amateur Photographer", dated 27/11/04) has 9 blades and that their shape is such that at around f4 - f5.6 the blades make a distinct petal shape, with very distinct cusps where the blades overlap. This is quite unlike the shape at around this aperture from my EF 50 f1.4 where the blade shape tends to hide the point of the cusp, and the aperture isn't far from being circular. SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm (Malcolm Stewart) wrote: Interesting to see that the latest Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Aspheric (clear photo on p35 of this week's "Amateur Photographer", dated 27/11/04) has 9 blades and that their shape is such that at around f4 - f5.6 the blades make a distinct petal shape, with very distinct cusps where the blades overlap. This is quite unlike the shape at around this aperture from my EF 50 f1.4 where the blade shape tends to hide the point of the cusp, and the aperture isn't far from being circular. SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm ===============================Do you think that the 9 blade Summilux has more pleasing bokeh than the 8 blade EF 50 f1.4 USM? Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks >Interesting to see that the latest Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Aspheric >(clear photo on p35 of this week's "Amateur Photographer", dated [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >point of the cusp, and the aperture isn't far from being circular. >================================= >Do you think that the 9 blade Summilux has more pleasing bokeh than >the 8 blade EF 50 f1.4 USM? >Cody, Now that's an interesting question! I'd certainly expect the Summilux to produce more "star" images from pinpoint highlights, but the night-time example shown in the AP review article is very clean in this respect. If anyone would be prepared to lend me this expensive lens for two or three weeks, plus a suitable body, I'd willingly test it against my EF 50 f1.4 on both film and digital. Unfortunately, the only item of Leica taking equipment in my possession is an old 50mm Brightline viewfinder. SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm (Malcolm Stewart) wrote: If anyone would be prepared to lend me this expensive lens for two or three weeks, plus a suitable body, I'd willingly test it against my EF 50 f1.4 on both film and digital. Unfortunately, the only item of Leica taking equipment in my possession is an old 50mm Brightline viewfinder. ============================ Here is a comparison, but it don't show much bokeh. http://www.pbase.com/amanpil/leica_vs_canon Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks It does not look like the 50 f1.4 R is worth $2800 more than the EF 50 f1.4 to me, but I guess some people think so. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks >Here is a comparison, but it don't show much bokeh. >http://www.pbase.com/amanpil/leica_vs_canon >Cody, Nice set of comparisons - particularly that you were able to use the same sensor. I wasn't aware that you could get an adaptor to take the Leica R lenses on a 10D. All I've done is to simply hold a Pentax 50 f1.4 SMC-M lens in front of my 10D, but I didn't take any precautions against light leakage. SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm (Malcolm Stewart) wrote: Nice set of comparisons - particularly that you were able to use the same sensor. I wasn't aware that you could get an adaptor to take the Leica R lenses on a 10D. =============================I forgot to mention that I did not do this comparison, I just found it. I did not know you coud mount Leica lenses on an EF mount either. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks Here are a couple of pics taken with the 5 bladed 50 f1.8 that seem to have pretty good bokeh. http://www.pbase.com/image/32020967 http://www.pbase.com/image/21662193 Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks > The number of blades is a partial contributor to pleasing bokeh, but not > the whole answer, optics (glass) is the main contributor. Another factor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "curved" blades, at least the ones with more than 5 blades, since there > are only four of them. The point on that is either they do or don't, but you didn't mention it. I recently rented some Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Sonnar's... 5 simple straight blades, but the bokeh was smooth in most cases. In some cases, strong pentagon's were in the highlights which all be ruins the shot. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. (Alan Browne) wrote: The point on that is either they do or don't, but you didn't mention it. I recently rented some Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Sonnar's... 5 simple straight blades, but the bokeh was smooth in most cases. In some cases, strong pentagon's were in the highlights which all be ruins the shot. ==============================The same thing happens with the 5 bladed 50 f1.8. The blades on my 7 bladed 28-105 zoom look strait too. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks Here are some lens sample photos from the EF 28 f1.8 USM. http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks Oops. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28_18u > I used my canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 to take some snaps as a guest at a > wedding recently. The out-of-focus point-light sources are so > pleasingly rendered <snip> try that 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 lens close up on plants - stems/grass blades that are out of focus double very badly. Just awful. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.