Hexar AF?

jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
edited January 8, 2010 in People
Anyone shoot this old film camera? I have a buddy on facebook who won't go to digital because he just loves his too much. The stuff he posts - even with facebook compression - makes me jealous. See below. Maybe I should just get a 35mm prime for my 5DII?

14260_173060456891_522781891_3378511_6113845_n.jpg

10957_178736671891_522781891_3439624_3662733_n.jpg

10957_178736691891_522781891_3439628_135296_n.jpg

14260_173060461891_522781891_3378512_1737380_n.jpg

20972_240701946891_522781891_3786624_1338959_n.jpg
-Jack

An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.

Comments

  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2010
    Nice pictures. I think with an EF 35mm f/2 (if you're on a budget) or EF 35mm f/1.4L USM (if you can afford it), you'd have no trouble getting shots similar to these with a 5D2. I have the cheap f/2 and it's really a pretty nice little lens.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2010
    craig_d wrote:
    Nice pictures. I think with an EF 35mm f/2 (if you're on a budget) or EF 35mm f/1.4L USM (if you can afford it), you'd have no trouble getting shots similar to these with a 5D2. I have the cheap f/2 and it's really a pretty nice little lens.

    I'd have to start with the f/2. Can't fork out $1400 for a fl I already have covered. Maybe if I become an all-prime shooter or a full time pro I'll go for the 1.4.

    So is the f/2 like the 50/1.8? That is, great glass, crappy everything else? I'd hope for 3x the cost of the 50, it would have somewhat better AF.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2010
    So is the f/2 like the 50/1.8? That is, great glass, crappy everything else? I'd hope for 3x the cost of the 50, it would have somewhat better AF.

    It's like the original 50mm f/1.8, not the all-plastic II version they sell now. It has a metal mount, a distance window, a usable manual focus ring, and an AFD auto-focus motor (a little less cheesy than the micromotor in the 50mm f/1.8 II, but it still makes a small buzzing noise when focusing). Like the 50mm f/1.8, it has only five aperture blades, so you get decent bokeh wide open but it turns pentagonal when you stop down.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2010
    thanks for the info. is the AF usable in low light? i found the 50/1.8 to be unacceptable in low light.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2010
    thanks for the info. is the AF usable in low light? i found the 50/1.8 to be unacceptable in low light.

    I've taken perfectly good pictures when the only light was provided by a few candles on a birthday cake, focusing on a face probably about three feet away from the cake. That's probably the darkest situation I've used it in.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Sign In or Register to comment.