Pro Member
- Followers
- 13
- Following
- 4
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2022
- Posts
- 1,830
- Likes Received
- 2,529
- Trophy Points
- 313
- Name
- Dave
This is going to get a bit wordy, for me anyway.
I recently treat my good lady and I to four days in the city of light. I should stress that we were taking in a couple of shows in the evening, so low light shooting was a possibility.
I wanted to travel fairly light and so, initially I pondered the A7CR with my 24-70. This lens doesn't make for either a light or compact combination.
I then considered a nice little relatively fast 35 from Samyang. Very light, very compact and wouldn't be a disaster if the samyang got nabbed or damaged. It is a very cheap lens.
Then, I realised that I would miss my A1 and this gnawed away at my inner ear for a few hours.
I checked to see if it would fit in my trendy manbag. It did and left plenty of room for headphones and a still to be read paperback.
Size and weight, no longer being an issue, I opted for the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM, and found that this too would fit. Happy days.
When we got off the bus at Montmatre and the Moulin Rouge came into sight, I became frustrated with the lack of zoom ring on the lens. I'd also deliberately left all my other lenses at home, so I had to move my butt around and wait patiently for a gap in the traffic and all the bloody tourists.
As I wandered around the cemetery at Montmatre, something happened. I slowed down, and I pondered more. Light, shadow, colour and death. Sorry, you can't help but consider your mortality when you're surrounded by the deceased.
I started enjoying the lens, how deliberately, you had to consider everything. f1.2 is both brilliant and flaw revealing simultaneously. You have to be very aware when using it.
Over the next few days, I really did enjoy using it, but the experience wasn't always pleasant. Paris has many facets, and one that cannot be ignored, is that not everyone is out to make your day a pleasant one. It's a big lens, and it's expensive and looks that way. It attracts a lot of attention and in some places, I wished I'd chosen something more pedestrian. We survived though, she who must be obeyed is small and I think that makes people wary of her.
At the end of the day, all this waffle is leading to, would I have been fine with a 1.4 or even a 2.8?
Lighter, more compact, less noticeable. All good points for travel.
Did I need an extra fraction of a stop of light? Is the bokeh that distinctive? And, in the less savoury parts of the city, I could have slipped it in my pocket.
I guess the answer is blatantly obvious, but ultimately, I loved using that lens and wouldn't hesitate to grab it for a similar situation again. Exactly the same for the A1, it's familiar to me and fits my hand like my wedding ring.
I guess that's my point. Sometimes the answer isn't obvious it's a shade of grey, much like photography.
I recently treat my good lady and I to four days in the city of light. I should stress that we were taking in a couple of shows in the evening, so low light shooting was a possibility.
I wanted to travel fairly light and so, initially I pondered the A7CR with my 24-70. This lens doesn't make for either a light or compact combination.
I then considered a nice little relatively fast 35 from Samyang. Very light, very compact and wouldn't be a disaster if the samyang got nabbed or damaged. It is a very cheap lens.
Then, I realised that I would miss my A1 and this gnawed away at my inner ear for a few hours.
I checked to see if it would fit in my trendy manbag. It did and left plenty of room for headphones and a still to be read paperback.
Size and weight, no longer being an issue, I opted for the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM, and found that this too would fit. Happy days.
When we got off the bus at Montmatre and the Moulin Rouge came into sight, I became frustrated with the lack of zoom ring on the lens. I'd also deliberately left all my other lenses at home, so I had to move my butt around and wait patiently for a gap in the traffic and all the bloody tourists.
As I wandered around the cemetery at Montmatre, something happened. I slowed down, and I pondered more. Light, shadow, colour and death. Sorry, you can't help but consider your mortality when you're surrounded by the deceased.
I started enjoying the lens, how deliberately, you had to consider everything. f1.2 is both brilliant and flaw revealing simultaneously. You have to be very aware when using it.
Over the next few days, I really did enjoy using it, but the experience wasn't always pleasant. Paris has many facets, and one that cannot be ignored, is that not everyone is out to make your day a pleasant one. It's a big lens, and it's expensive and looks that way. It attracts a lot of attention and in some places, I wished I'd chosen something more pedestrian. We survived though, she who must be obeyed is small and I think that makes people wary of her.
At the end of the day, all this waffle is leading to, would I have been fine with a 1.4 or even a 2.8?
Lighter, more compact, less noticeable. All good points for travel.
Did I need an extra fraction of a stop of light? Is the bokeh that distinctive? And, in the less savoury parts of the city, I could have slipped it in my pocket.
I guess the answer is blatantly obvious, but ultimately, I loved using that lens and wouldn't hesitate to grab it for a similar situation again. Exactly the same for the A1, it's familiar to me and fits my hand like my wedding ring.
I guess that's my point. Sometimes the answer isn't obvious it's a shade of grey, much like photography.
