Further Adventures of the Clenis

Tomatoes at Union Square, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.

 

Comments

[dan]

I'm missing something. How is this Clinton's fault?

[The Phantom]

I don't understand how it is that you take such good photos, so consistently. But you do. You really do!

[DefJef]

Luscious image. Lindsay what eyes you have!

[Rob Helpy-Chalk]

The clenis always enjoys being wipped out in front of firm round things.

[mudkitty]

Tomatos! This time of year?! Why I never...

[DAS]

I used to not like tomatoes.

Then I started liking them ... and BAM! I developed an allergy.

I so miss yummy, yummy tomatoes < Homer Simpson gurgle >

[DAS]

Oh (on topic?):

can I blame the Clenis for my tomato allergy?

[sylviasrevenge]

At least the Clenis is gravitating towards more beautiful things and not trashy interns. Lovely.

[jami]

i love the stated reasons your lens is named clenis (huge, white, and could get you in a lot of trouble). it seems appropriate, too, that it properly appreciates the great beauty in the world.

[Rob Helpy-Chalk]

I agree with jami.

The thing I liked about the original clenis was how democratic its tastes were. The Onion headline (written long after the fact) for Clinton's election was "New President Feels Nation's Pain, Breasts." A friend of mine pointed out that this very appropriate, because more than any other president, Clinton really had his hands on the nation's breasts.

A good camera lense should do that, too. It should really be able to fondle anything it looks at.

(or maybe that's just the male gaze talking.)

[John Lucid]

Those are some sexy tomatoes. I like how you captured their shininess. And their curves. Those luscious curves...

Okay, I just masturbated to a picture of produce. I never thought that would happen, yet here we are having this horribly awkward conversation.

God I'm so lonely.

[bigbalagan]

amazing lens---and a good eye. photos of the celebrati might give you your rush (clenises are useful in different ways in different personal situations, and of course, often enough not useful at all!)---me, I like the graffiti and the bread...

[GerwingR]

Great saturated reds. very high resolution; now you know why it costs so much and must shoot until returned. such a big one will give some receptivity anxiety.

[Amanda Marcotte]

I'm stuffed and that made me hungry. Tomatoes....

Man, you guys live in New York, too. You get those mind-bending Jersey tomatoes. I think I had an orgasm eating one of those.

[pecunium]

I like the things you are doing with the lens.

The thing I like most is that you are taking advantage of it to test it, the camera, and your eye.

All in all it seems a decent tool. The question, in the long run, is whether it suits your style enough to plunk the money down to own one.

So you might want, an a littl while, to sit down with your image files, and sift through them, looking for thematic elements you tend to construct.

Then think about what might make it easier to build them intentionally.

[pecunium]

Ok, now that I've gone and looked at the image, in the large size.

I don't know how far you were, or what the f-stop was, but the depth of field is very shallow (not quite a third of the image area). Assuming it was as stopped down as you could get it, and grab the shot, that can be a problem, because people shots are less forgiving than still-life.

So, I'd also be looking to how fast/solid/accurrate the AF is, as well as how easy it is to know when the image is "in" when using manual.

This is why one rents lenses.

[John Lucid]

I think I had an orgasm eating one of those.

See?! I'm not the only one who is aroused by this clearly NSFW display of those ripe, luscious, juicy,...
Gotta go.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Good advice, pecunium. I've been formulating a list of desiderata for my future lens.

My number one criterion is the speed of the lens. I want something with maximum aperture of at least f/2.8.

I shoot a lot of indoor events, and the more light I can capture the better. Aesthetically, I often like to isolate my subjects against a blurred background. Fast lenses are good for that.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

This one is next on my list to try. It's probably not versatile enough to buy, but I'm curious about it.

[pecunium]

If you had a Nikon I could give you feedback from experience. Alas, you have a Canon.

My long, multi-focus (a zoom lens used to be a purely motion picture term, it refers to a lens with a constant f-stop from the one end to the other of it's range. Lenses which lose light as they extend are multi-focus), is a 75-300 5.5/5.6. it's actually pretty fast, but heavy (it was made in '89, and has a metal barrel).

This gives me (with the D2) a relative 450mm lens, at 5.6. Which isn't the fastest thing going, but this is a lot less intrusive than a 2.8 300 (which looks like a megaphone, and costs about $4,000, used).

What I think I'd reccomend, actually, is that you get an IS lens, because the stabilization lets you have a lens with a smaller barrel, and still shoot as if it were a 2.0 lens (though I've used the Nikin equivalent, VR, and they say three stops, they really seem to be more a case of 2 1/2 on the longer lenses, because of the moment arm).

That means, in theory, you can handhold a 300mm lens at 1/60th (though again, I'd say not really much slower than 1/100th, and that after you've practiced), at f-5.6. The greater depth of field is to be preferred, all things being equal.

The next lens you are looking at trying out is nice enough, but depth of field is going to be minimal. A better bet, for the things you are looking to shoot might be the 100mm 2.8 macro.

For things were sharpness matters, macro is a very good choice, because the hyperfocal distance (that point at which everything, from nearest focus, to infinity, is sharp) is hit very quickly, so even at low apertures, they are sharp. This is a feature of how closely they are designed to focus.

I have a 55 2.8 macro, and it is wonderful for that sort of thing. I think my next lens purchase is likely to be the 105mm 2.8, because I do a lot of marco work, and the 200 2.8 is only a 1:2 ratio. I'll trade some minimum working distance to get the larger image area.

For some examples (to make up for all the neepery)

http://pics.livejournal.com/pecunium/pic/0008ffbd/g17>Mantis

http://pics.livejournal.com/pecunium/pic/000487px/g5>Protean Amber 1

http://pics.livejournal.com/pecunium/pic/00068z3w/g5>Lady Bug A color study

http://pics.livejournal.com/pecunium/pic/0006tqqe/g5>Sweat Bee?

That ought to be enough.
Click through to see them a little larger

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Wow, pecunium. Those are beautiful. I especially like the ladybug macro.