Good morning Z and what a fine little snack video to wake up to. I have been up since 4:00 AM PDT. Enjoyed your round the yard shots. Wish the rain were here. Have a good day and thanks again for a sweet video.
So did you determine that the 135 and 85 were not good for macro but the 50 mm 1.2 was good for macro? And why did you switch away from your 105 macro lens because it was too windy? have you ever tried the 100 to 400 for macro? It lets you get close it’s very good
@@loonytoongonemad8304 not macro. A particular shallow depth of field look. Macro is macro and the 105 is the choice. I tried the 135 and 85 for the SDOF I shoot in spare time and the 50 just grabs the amount of scene that I like that style. I started with some macro, switched from Macro because it was too windy to pull off focus stacking and there isn’t enough light to shoot at a stopped down aperture 🤙🤙🤙🤙
@@ZWadePhoto wouldn't the 105 still be a good lens for that look, no focus stacking just a shallow depth of field? is it about the bokeh that the 50mm 1.2 has?
@@Remote-Animator kind of. But the magic of the 50 is the distance relative to the scene and subject is exactly what I like. To get that scene you have to step back at f/2.8, maybe, it may automatically stop down as macros do. It’s more about the 50 just working perfectly at a certain distance for the composition I tend to like and it make thing perfect inherently
How it performs with vintage and low resolution lenses (ex contax zeiss, helios 44-2)? I use them on 24 mpx cameras, and I’m afraid that the image could get worse on an Hi resolution camera
@@lorenzonarwhal it wouldn’t be surprising if older lenses didn’t quite resolve impressively at high megapixels. I haven’t done a lot of testing in that regard, that’s just word in the streets
Talking to plants and instects, wandering around looking for droplets of water, pretending there's an audience... you're setting up a good defense here.
