Project 52 - Q2 - David (Rufus)

[Rufus]

My plan for the second quarter of my P52 is to use my 135mm f/2 lens.

The 135mm is a short to medium telephoto. The angle of view is 10-15 degrees which at first seems quite narrow until you try to shoot a small object far away Also, the depth of field can be very shallow. I shall need to remember this.

The 135mm lens is suitable for portraits but I take very few of those. I take more landscapes and architecture and it will be interesting (for me at any rate) to find out what I can achieve with landscapes and architecture with this lens. Architectural details are likely to be a suitable subject, and maybe animals in a zoo, but I am not sure what I will be able to do with landscapes. It is not a macro lens but it will focus down to 0.9m / 3ft so I will undoubtedly try some close-up work.

For handheld shooting I shall probably use 1/180 sec or 1/250 sec as there is no image stabilisation.

So, having completed this introductory post, Week 14 will appear shortly to kick of this quarter’s images.

[Manfred M]

There seem to be "fashions" in photography and unfortunately the 135mm lens seems to be out of fashion right now.

When I first got into "serious photography", the 135mm lens was the second lens I bought (after the 50mm) and I used one quite a bit until I went digital and switch to a different camera make. Right now, for a lot of people, the 85mm lens seems to have replaced the 135mm as the "go to" short telephoto lens. When I look at both the current Canon and Nikon models, these were introduced in 1996 (Canon) and 1990 (Nikon), so they are due a refresh.

When I bought a short / medium telephoto for my current camera, I went with a 105mm. I found the 85mm a bit too short for my shooting style, but found the 135mm a bit longer than I normally would use, but I did a lot of thinking and talking to people before I decided between the 105mm and the 135mm.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with that lens.

[Rufus]

There seem to be "fashions" in photography and unfortunately the 135mm lens seems to be out of fashion right now.

When I first got into "serious photography", the 135mm lens was the second lens I bought (after the 50mm) and I used one quite a bit until I went digital and switch to a different camera make. Right now, for a lot of people, the 85mm lens seems to have replaced the 135mm as the "go to" short telephoto lens. When I look at both the current Canon and Nikon models, these were introduced in 1996 (Canon) and 1990 (Nikon), so they are due a refresh.

When I bought a short / medium telephoto for my current camera, I went with a 105mm. I found the 85mm a bit too short for my shooting style, but found the 135mm a bit longer than I normally would use, but I did a lot of thinking and talking to people before I decided between the 105mm and the 135mm.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with that lens.

Yes the Canon lens is rather long in the tooth now but was good value pricewise. I have the 24-105mm zoom which all too quickly became my default lens and hence the concentration in the first half year on the "extremes" of the prime lenses I have available. Even the "extremes" are neither ultra-wide nor very long.

If I was staring again, I would probably buy a 100mm macro instead of the 135mm as it would open up another genre, but I am fairly content with what I have to get to grips with.

[Shadowman]

Nice endeavor to undertake, it'll interesting to see what you get for landscapes and architecture and what challenges you face.

[Rufus]

Nice endeavor to undertake, it'll be interesting to see what you get for landscapes and architecture and what challenges you face.

I think there will be plenty of challenges Thank you for commenting.

[Rufus]

For week 14 the rules I set for myself are honoured more in the breach than their observance!

My first image for Q2 was actually taken the week before with my 24-105mm lens set at 105mm but is the closest equivalent I have for Week 14.

What I have learnt is that the depth of field is shallow. Even at f/13 although the texting girl is nicely crisp and the guy next to her is fairly crisp, by the time you get to the further guy who is reading a book, the image has lost its crispness and the distance is obviously blurred even when rendered in a small size on a PC screen. The long wall demonstrates this rather well, too.

I conclude that I shall have to take care when I come to use the 135mm and may not get any benefit from its larger aperture and landscapes may prove problematic – we shall see. I shall have to find subjects where I can capitalise on this characteristic if I am to post at least one image each week.

I shall play with a DOF calculator next to familiarise myself with what this lens is likely to be producing.

By the way is it okay to refer to cripsness as sharpness? Sharpening occurs in post processing and as I try not to misuse termnology I have referred to crispness instead.

Week 14 - Image #35 – Sitting down and texting (1/125 sec at f/13 and ISO 100):

[Rufus]

Week 15 and after a week's delay the 135mm lens is attached and ready to go!

The first image of chimney stacks was taken in a Hampshire village best known these days for having an IBM research facility on a large estate on its borders, not to mention eye-watering house prices. It was taken from an angle to make the most of the bright sunlight on the intricate chimney stacks.

The second image is a close up of a flower which I can confidently identify as a Dandelion, a stubborn weed that grows in many parts of the world. I took it to give me an idea of the size of subject that would fill the frame.

Week 15 - Image #36 – Chimneys at Hursley (1/250 at f/5.6 and ISO 200):


Week 15 – Image #37 – Dandelion (1/350 at f/11 and ISO 200):

[Shadowman]

Week 14-15, nice captures. I was going to say that still life subjects are good for testing the DOF of the lens.

[Wavelength]

Very nice series...

[Rufus]

The pool of images to select from for week 16 is rather small, but I present a couple here, warts and all.

When taking a close up I continue to be surprised at the shallow DOF of this 135mm lens. It creates good blurred backgrounds (eg the tiny blue forget-me-not flowers behind the yellow tulip). The tulip is the size of my fully spread hand. Some petals are in focus others are not and nor is the stamen. I should not, of course, have cut off part of two of the petals.

A potential solution to the narrow DOF when taking close ups could be to take the image from further away (when that is possible) and crop afterwards.

As for the mistletoe, it was never expected to be a great image, but I should have chosen a faster shutter speed than 1/125.

All in all, a disappointing week because I have made these mistakes before - I must try harder to check all these things if I am to progress!

Week 16 - Image #38 – Yellow Star Tulip (1/750 at f/6.7 and ISO 100):



Week 16 - Image #39 – Mistletoe In Spring (1/125 at f/6.7 and ISO 100):

[Geoff F]

Weeks 14 & 15 look fine to me.

Week 16 are difficult subjects. Is the tulip cropped fractionally tight at the bottom?

The Mistletoe is a tricky scene without any clear subject. I wonder about cropping closer at the bottom and going to something like 4 x 5 ratio which looses the bottom clump of a yellowish leaved shrub altogether? I suspect that would reduce distraction and concentrate the view on those branches against the blue sky.

[Shadowman]

Week 16, nice efforts. I often find myself shooting such subjects just to check the capability of particular lenses.

[Rufus]

Is the tulip cropped fractionally tight at the bottom?

It is indeed. I thought I had managed to get it all in the frame but I must have swayed a little.

The Mistletoe is a tricky scene without any clear subject. I wonder about cropping closer at the bottom and going to something like 4 x 5 ratio which looses the bottom clump of a yellowish leaved shrub altogether? I suspect that would reduce distraction and concentrate the view on those branches against the blue sky.

The Mistletoe was meant to be the subject, but I wanted to show how high it was in the tree.

Thank you for your continuing comments, Geoff, they are are much appreciated.

[Rufus]

Week 16, nice efforts. I often find myself shooting such subjects just to check the capability of particular lenses.

Yes, that is certainly what I was doing in Week 16 when time constraints meant it was more important to use the lens than spend time looking for a subject to achieve a brilliant composition. I was concentrating more on gaining a feel for the angle of view and depth of field. I am getting there with the former, but the shallow DOF is taking some getting used to after using a wide angle lens for the first quarter of the year.

Thank you for commenting on the images.

[Rufus]

Week 17.
This week’s photos were taken at a small tidal river and associated mill pond and across the water from the nearby docks. All taken with the 135mm lens.

For the bridge, I guessed the aperture to make the foreground reeds soft. I applied a graduated filter reducing the exposure as the reeds were rather bright at the bottom of the image and competed too much with the main subject.

The bird was taken to see how the lens and camera cope with severe cropping as this is the longest lens I have. I am not a birder so cannot identify it, but I am reasonably pleased with the outcome both in terms of the bird and the interest in water (it was a windy day!). The exposure seems good to me.

With the pylons, I think I have succeeded in getting both pylons in focus. The view point was intended to be one that is not normally seen and tried to make a dull functional structure a bit more interesting. I now see there are some dark spots in the sky so I will attend those. (That has now been done.)

Image #40 - Bridge Across A Reed Bed (1/180 sec at f/11 and ISO 200.)


Image #41 - Bird on the Water (1/180 sec at f/161 and ISO 200.):


Image #41 - Uncropped:


Image # 42 - Pylons (1/250sec at f19 and ISO 200):


This week, as part of this project, I also took 8 images of a series of wooden posts and rails beside a boardwalk through a nature reserve. All were taken on auto ISO at the same speed (1/250 sec) and at apertures ranging from f/2 to f/27. The object was to get a better understanding of the depth of field of this 135mm lens when focused between around 3 and 30 metres. You will be glad to know that I shall not uploading those here!

[Shadowman]

Week 17:
Bridge, nice exposure and framing.
Bird, cropped image-the bird looks fine but the water has a double exposed look that creates too much tension in the scene.
Pylons, nicely framed and exposed.

[Rufus]

Week 17:
Bridge, nice exposure and framing.
Bird, cropped image-the bird looks fine but the water has a double exposed look that creates too much tension in the scene.
Pylons, nicely framed and exposed.

Thank you for looking, John.

I am not too sure what you mean by a "double exposed look". Is it to do with the groups of miniature parallel ripples, for example about half way between the bird and the bottom of the image? I am just curious.

[skitterbug]

Hi David - I'll offer an opinion for what it may be worth.... (2 cents maybe? ). The bridge scene is well done. As always with an image like this, I find myself wondering where I would end up if I crossed over it and headed on. So the image is interesting to me.

Your results of the bird photo is exactly why I've been trying the long lens/extender combo. Capturing a image from the distance and then trying to crop it to bring the subject closer has not worked very well for me. Your image seems just a bit soft on my computer screen? You may be able to sharpen just the bird and especially his eye but I don't know if the end results would help? I may have upped the shutter speed to try and avoid the softness...

I really like the pylons and how you framed it. We have many power lines running on similar structures. I've tried different ways to capture an image of them but everything that I've tried to date seems uninteresting to me. Your framing, the clouds and the structure itself come together for me. I like this image!

[Geoff F]

I agree with the others. The bridge and pylon shots are good, but the bird is just too far away so it has come out looking soft. I assume it is a Black-headed Gull. Sometimes I take shots like this just for identification purposes.

[Rufus]

...Your results of the bird photo is exactly why I've been trying the long lens/extender combo. Capturing a image from the distance and then trying to crop it to bring the subject closer has not worked very well for me. Your image seems just a bit soft on my computer screen? You may be able to sharpen just the bird and especially his eye but I don't know if the end results would help? I may have upped the shutter speed to try and avoid the softness...

Sandy, thank you for your kind comments on the bridge and pylons.

The bird was taken mainly to find out how well it would come out when cropped. When I printed it, the cropped image showed the bird approximately 10 times its size in the original uncropped one.

It makes me wonder what focal length would be needed to produce the bird at same size in an uncropped image! Maybe it would be similar to your long zoom with the extender.