GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !

Here's a couple of test shots I did today with strong backlighting and
fill flash provided by the 550EX (off camera) with the Gary Fong
Lightsphere.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507

Note the lack of harsh shadows. The flash was off to the left of the
camera, about where Mr. Divs is looking.

"Annika1980" wrote:
Here's a couple of test shots I did today with strong backlighting and
fill flash provided by the 550EX (off camera) with the Gary Fong
Lightsphere.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original

Ew. Yuck. Ugly ugly bokeh. Sheesh, guy, do NOT stop that lens down that far.
Bad boy, Bret.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507

That's better.

Note the lack of harsh shadows. The flash was off to the left of the
camera, about where Mr. Divs is looking.

You really do overwork that cat. I hope he gets lots of fish.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote:
Here's a couple of test shots I did today with strong backlighting and
fill flash provided by the 550EX (off camera) with the Gary Fong
Lightsphere.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original

Ew. Yuck. Ugly ugly bokeh. Sheesh, guy, do NOT stop that lens down that
far. Bad boy, Bret.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507

That's better.

Note the lack of harsh shadows. The flash was off to the left of the
camera, about where Mr. Divs is looking.

You really do overwork that cat. I hope he gets lots of fish.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I actually liked the sparkly bokeh in the first one, but then I do like
shiny things. ;-)

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original

Ew. Yuck. Ugly ugly bokeh. Sheesh, guy, do NOT stop that lens down that
far. Bad boy, Bret.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507

That's better.

I actually liked the sparkly bokeh in the first one, but then I do like
shiny things. ;-)

The bokeh in the first one is only half bad: the disks have bright edges
(which is classic bad bokeh), but at least they're disks and not pentagons,
as my Fuji GS645S produces.

The lighting is gorgeous in those shots. Bret really nailed it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:

snip
The lighting is gorgeous in those shots. Bret really nailed it.
/snip

I agree -- I preferred the first one. What is the source of backlight?
Ray

On Jul 27, 7:28 am, Ray Paseur
wrote:
The lighting is gorgeous in those shots. Bret really nailed it.

/snip

I agree -- I preferred the first one. What is the source of backlight?
Ray

The backlight was provided by a large light I sometimes use.
Its called the Sun.

I was shooting almost directly into the sun on these pics. Hence, the
strong "sparklies" coming through the trees. It is a torture test for
background bokeh, but this lens handled it as well as could be hoped
for.

On Jul 28, 7:09 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
The bokeh in the first one is only half bad: the disks have bright
edges (which is classic bad bokeh), but at least they're disks and
not pentagons, as my Fuji GS645S produces.

Sadly the 85/1.2 really isn't a stellar performer in the bokeh department.
He would have definitely done much better with the 85/1.4 Nikkor and an
adapter ring. Then again, he could have pulled this shot off with much
better results if he had used the Larry Thong Lightbottle with this.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/best_mates.htm

Getting off topic now, but it is interesting to note that 16-9.net
said this.....

"So what have we learned? The fact that the Zeiss 21mm is the finest
of its type is no surprise. What might come as a shock if you haven't
scrutinised the MTF charts is that a healthy Canon 17-40mm f4 L is
better than a Canon 16-35mm Mark I, and makes an evenly matched
challenger to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 for the title of 'best ultrawide
zoom'."

Full test here http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon...40vn1735a.html

Cheers

Rusty
http://www.pixelpix.com.au
http://blog.pixelpix.com.au

On Jul 28, 8:06 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
PixelPix wrote:
Sadly the 85/1.2 really isn't a stellar performer in the bokeh
department. He would have definitely done much better with the
85/1.4 Nikkor and an adapter ring. Then again, he could have pulled
this shot off with much better results if he had used the Larry
Thong Lightbottle with this.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/best_mates.htm

Getting off topic now, but it is interesting to note that 16-9.net
said this.....

"So what have we learned? The fact that the Zeiss 21mm is the finest
of its type is no surprise. What might come as a shock if you haven't
scrutinised the MTF charts is that a healthy Canon 17-40mm f4 L is
better than a Canon 16-35mm Mark I, and makes an evenly matched
challenger to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 for the title of 'best ultrawide
zoom'."

The key word here is "healthy" and finding a sample that even remotely
resembles this has the same odds as winning the Lotto. The old 17-35/2.8
Nikkor still rules the roost!

Rita

Well I guess I am lucky and mine must be a good one, because in direct
comparisons to both the 16-35 and 16-35 MkII Canons it comes out on
top as 16-9 suggests.

Plus I and about 1/2 dozen of my mates with this lens better buy some
lotto tickets for tonight's draw, cause their 17-40ies are just as
good as mine.

If anyone is in SEQ has the Nikkor and would like to get together for
a shoot, I would love to do a direct comparison. ;-)

On Jul 27, 5:09 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:


Much improvement would have been realized with the Larry Thong Lightbottle.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/lt1.htm

Rita


I knew that all I had to do was to mention Gary Fong and you'd come
running with the hook in your mouth, ala Pavlov's dog.

On Jul 28, 7:46 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

I knew that all I had to do was to mention Gary Fong and you'd come
running with the hook in your mouth, ala Pavlov's dog.

LOL! No, you just had a subconscious desire to have me reaffirm you of how
stupid you feel after paying all that money for a gimmick that can be made
for next to nothing from common household materials.

Once again you show your ignorance.
The Gary Fong Lightsphere outperforms your silly alcohol bottle and
even my Lumiquest Softbox for that matter. If it didn't I wouldn't be
touting it. People that think they can get the same results by using
plastic or taping an index card to their flash for bounce are living
in their own delusions, kinda like someone else I know.

My only problem with the Lightsphere is that I got the one designed
for the 550EX and it won't fit on my 430EX. Shortly after I got it, I
broke the base of my 550EX making it unusable on camera. It will
function as a remote slave, however.