Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I can fully relate with your bane... (Er.. Maybe too much of Tolkien :-) )
Portraits are my favorite too, as, what can be more interesting for a human being then another human fellow!

Lately, when buying my latest camera, I got the 50/1.8 AF (the cheap plastic contraption) because I had the original 50/1.4 S (the F's one) as the 55/2.8... The new camera (D700) surprised me in many ways, but mostly because it was spot on in MF, as the "little green LED" (the focusing aid) is framed with arrows (left or right) telling you which side you need to turn the focusing ring to achieve focus...(Phew, that was a long phrase for a simple move).
Even in dark settings and at f/1.4!

When I compare the pictures I've made, the MF lenses usually wins... But then, my best lenses are MF (180/2.8, 85/2, 35/2 O.C., etc) because either I already had them from older times or because they where cheap enough to try...

I'm wondering if those lenses were AF, it wouldn't be exactly the same :-)
So, I'm still torn in choosing the next lens to get at the Photo Fair !
(Actually, I'm leaning toward the 105 Micro AF, VR or not) because of portraits and critters...)!

Following are two examples: One of Paul Virilio (good friend and ex co-teacher) in bad light and at 5600 ISO (!) with the 180/2.8 and one of a student in a recent trip to Istanbul in good light with the 50/1.8...

Paul again... Moody...


"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 03:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series