I recently spent roughly ten days in San Francisco. In reality I went there to attend a technology summit but I managed to spare some time during the weekend to explore the city a bit. I cannot really say that I was (positively) impressed by what I saw: this part of California summarise everything that could go wrong in our modern society, and it is really hard to understand how a place where the wealthiest companies decided to put their HQs can have such a high percentage of homeless and desperate people roaming the streets 24/7 like invisible ghosts.
For that reason I decided not to take many street pictures as I felt quite uncomfortable in my position of well-paid, wealthy tourist. Was it the right thing to do? I don’t know…in any case I decided to move my attention to one of the nicest aspect of the city…the cars! At every corner you can see those magnificent examples of engineering, ready to hit the road and climb the incredibly steep hills that made my feet and heels burn with pain for so many days. This is just a random collection of what I have seen:
Technical info: Nikon FM2n > Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/35 zf.2 > Tmax400 and Trix400 in D-76
The reasons I bought this lens is that I wanted to use the 35mm focal length and, although my Nikon 28mm f2 AI-S is very similar in rendition and perspective, the myth around Carl Zeiss micro-contrast won me over and convinced me to open the wallet. The construction is of course on the highest end and manual focusing is a pure joy. I decide to shoot three rolls of film exclusively with it (two TMAX 400 and a Fomapan 400) but also took it for a ride with my Nikon D810 (the “toy” camera I use with my children). With this high megapixel beast you can really appreciate the quality of the lens: the colors are just incredible, the contrast is just right and even at f2.8 and in a backlit situation (only one stop down from max aperture) there is no cromatic aberration at all, as you can tell from my son’s picture (image taken straight out of camera).
I still don’t understand the Canon layout, it seems to me like there is no logic. I realise it’s just a matter of habits but I don’t get it. What I still love about Canon’s system is the quality of colours, the rendition in general. The noise at ISO1600 is incredibly high for such a pricey camera but the autofocus is precise.
3000 euro for a prime standard lens on 35mm camera? After holding it in the hands you realise why! The focusing ring is the most sensual experience I ever had with a metal thing (I know the phrase turned out weird…!!!!). It is just incredible. I’m still not sure whether the price is right but hey, it’s CZ…you can pay ridiculously high amount of money for Leica’s counterpart which are not at this level of quality.
Let’s talk first about the lens, which has the same price as the Zeiss Otus mentioned above. It is tiny…and light…hyper light. Focus on a Leica lens is not easy, especially if like me, you’re used to fast autofocus lenses or manual ones on medium format viewfinders. I cannot really appreciate why you should spend such a crazy amount of money on a 35mm digital system. I do recognise holding a Leica camera gives you an aura of poetry and nobility but I would rather buy a Sony Alpha 7r (see below) if I wanted to go down in termes of size without losing quality. When it comes to the cameras, I still don’t like the Monochrom. The files are flat (but I think that’s the way the should be straight out of the camera in order to give you plenty of latitude in postprocessing).
Sigma is rapidly becoming a real threat for camera makers. Their products have nothing less than their more expensive counterpart from Nikon, Canon or Sony, and sometimes exceed them in terms of quality. That is probably the case for the 35mm which has a great build construction and gives pleasant results. What really impress me though was the 105 macro: the Nikon counterpart is a bit better and way faster, but for the price you pay the Sigma cannot be beaten.
The fastest autofocus I ever tried. Incredible quality. This lens is nothing short of fantastic, crisp results and good handling. I cannot judge if it’s better than the Sigma one but the VR is not that bad if you use it as a general portrait lens.
Buying a 4000 euro lens has a great advantage (besides its quality): you can save the money of your gym tickets for one year since holding this beast for 10min will give you a pumped up bicep like you can’t imagine. The amount of out-of-focus you get from a 200mm at f2 cannot be described without images. The autofocus is fantastic, the front element glass is humongous (only drop in filters can be used).
I can understand why Nikon has quick filled the gap for sport photography that once gave Canon the leadership. The files you get out of the D4 are nothing short of perfect. Couple it with a 400mm f2.8 beast and you are ready to shoot for the next Sport Illustrated cover! The razor thin sharpen details and the perfect colours are nothing short of impressive. This combo beats any Canon 1-D hands down.
davide rizzo photography 