Go Back   The Come Up Board > PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEO.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2010, 08:48 PM
Dude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lens Discussion

Lets talk about lenses. What do you have? What ones do you like? What do you use the most? What lenses would you like to own? What lenses dont you like? Lens reviews are plentiful on the internet but it should be nice having a discussion just among BMX photogs. If your not interested in this or dont have anything helpful to contribute please hit the back button.

Current quiver:

Nikkor 10.5mm 2.8
Nikkor 28-70mm 3.5-4.5
Nikkor 50mm 1.4
Nikkor 70-300mm 4-5.6
Nikkor 180mm 2.8 ai-s

Im considering selling some and buying some more also as im not super happy with what i have. Im not saying that im gonna get better lenses for better pictures, but i have many lenses that overlap and some I dont use.

The 28-70mm isnt that bad of a lens. Its cheap walk around lens and can be had for around 60 bucks. The f/3.5-4.5 is faster then most lenses in this range. The construction and mechanics arent great but its still a good value. The lens is rather sharp and handles well. Biggest complaint is the zoom range. 28mm isnt wide enough to be a wide angle, and my next widest lens is the fisheye so im kinda stuck not being able to shoot in that range. I use that range mostly for general walk around shots of my family and for travel and stuff like that. Also its pointless to shot it at the longer end when i could just use the 50mm

Sample Shots (all photos for reference only, do not critique):







The 50mm 1.4 is an amazing lens. Super sharp, super easy to use. f/1.4 is a dream. Biggest issue is i dont really like the focal length. Maybe im just saying this now but its not long enough to be long, and not wide enought to be wide. For the longer stuff that ive shot with it that ive needed the low light performance (shows, concerts, portraits) its just doesnt have enough reach. 50mm on a DX sensor is just a little to much reach to be a decent walk around lens length that 50mm was on 35mm.

Sample Shots:







The 10.5mm doesnt really need much said. Its an incredible lens for what it does. Ive tried several other fisheyes from other companies and they just dont come close. Although it is definetly not my most used lens i dont think i could get rid of it. I could buy a backup body for how much this cost me but i know its worth holding onto.

Sample Shots:







The 70-300mm is a bargain lens. Its not sharp past 200mm or wider then f/5.6. But its $130 new and if its sunny out and your subject isnt to far away you can get some incredible stuff. I bought this lens just to shoot a 5k last 4th of july and it worked rather well. Ive also shot some studio product shots and you couldnt tell that it was a sub $1000 lens. No its not made well and im sure a hard enough bump against something could snap it in half, but this is a miracle lens for most people. I want to get rid of this lens becuase it rarely see's use but i want to keep it becuase its the only telephoto AF lense i have. While my 180mm is faster and better quality, theres no way in hell i could track something like basketball or anything like that.

Sample Shots:








The 180mm 2.8 ais lenses is amazing. Its super duper sharp even at 2.8. I got this lens for about $175 dollars and its been great. It has a limited use though. Cant use it for sports becuase no AF, and its to long for bmx or anything like that. What it is great for is portraits and landscapes detail shots. You can shoot amazing candids and the bokeh is amazing. This lenses will see more use once i start shooting some up comming events i have scheduled (weddings, band promos). I would consider selling for the AF version and that would replace my 70-300 for sports but i dont think im gonna do that. This lens makes me wanna trade my d90 for the d300 so i could get automatic exposure. Its easy enough to do this via histogram but its just not very fast.

Sample Shots:







Lenses im interested in:

35mm 1.8 afs is a great lens from what i hear. It would make a good walk around lens. Im just worried it wouldnt be as sharp as my 50mm.

85mm 1.8 AF-d/ AIS f/2. This would be that short telephoto lense that would fit where my 50mm isnt long enough for. The AF version would be nice for sports but if i sold my 50mm for the 35mm i wouldnt have enough for the 85m af too.

20-35 2.8 is also looking good to me. Would filll that wide end that i love for walk around shots and the area the 50mm is to long for. Expensive but i also want lenses that can take a beating. Would replace 28-70 for walkaround zoom.

50mm 1.8 MF versions. If i was to sell my current 50mm i might want to pick up one of these just incase i really need that length (usually bmx) if 35mm is to wide and 85mm is to long.

What I want to sell:

28-70mm - Barely use this becuase I usually use my much faster 50mm or my fisheye becuase 28 isnt wide enough for things like shots inside cars or at dinner tables.

70-300mm - Dont use it that much and its limited to the amount of light outside. Also very cheap construction so im afraid to take it snowboarding around my neck and stuff like that.

50mm 1.4 - As said before not long enough for telephoto and not wide enough for walk around.


What Im looking to have:

Now this is never a solid list as im always changing. I want a setup that covers all the lengths i use most in the fewest amount of lenses while having good contruction quality and low light performance. Now i know that sounds like what everyone wants but its differs in what we all shoot the most. I really like to have a wide to mid range zoom handy. While i dont shoot much serious work with that its key for travel and family stuff when i cant move around. If other companies lenses were higher quality this wouldnt be an issue becuase many other companys make inexpensive lenses in this range. For example when i had my d40x and was limited to af-s/hsm lenses and didnt care about quality or reliability my kit consisted of; Sigma 10-20mm 4.0-5.6, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. While that was a really nice range with impresive apertures and low price. Eventually each of the lenses started having issues and i eventually switch back over to an all nikkor kit, which has treated me great. Now I know all this shit sounds stupid, its just a lense take a few steps forward or backward if its to long or to wide. Or just be happy with what you have. But I'd like to refine my kit for convenience and image quality.

Please forgive any spelling errors
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2010, 09:27 PM
fatman's Avatar
fatman offline
"the nigga could wear a bra" - muffin
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 838
fatman is on a distinguished road
Default

Lens i have..:
Tamron 17-50 2.8...Reason. Needed a wide angle for doing parties and what not with tight spaces. Couldn't get the Canon 17-55 2.8 on my budget so i picked this up.
Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5. Great lens for 200 dollars. Sharp all around and durable body. Cant complain. I use it for portraits and studio work and for walking around bird hunting. Most of my photos are shot with this.
Canon 50 1.8. Nifty 50. Need i say more. It Stays on my camera when walking around. Nice and light.

Lens i want...:
Canon 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8
Canon 100 2.8 macro
Sigma 30 1.4....Its pretty much a 50 1.4 on a crop
Canon 20 2.8....If i were to sell my 17-50
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2010, 09:41 PM
CarryingDaily's Avatar
CarryingDaily offline
Double Platinum.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,731
CarryingDaily is infamous around these partsCarryingDaily is infamous around these parts
Default

^my dad has the Canon 70-200 2.8, it's so good! I've used it a few times and is definitely worth the buy if you're serious, huge piece of glass...
__________________
www.lastempirecartel.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2010, 09:54 PM
s-t-e-v-e
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

super basic stuff for me so far

18-55mm kit lens...not as bad as you might think, atleast it's pretty sharp.
50mm 1.8...i shoot all my film with this lens, and will probably be my main digiatal lens too whenver i get a body that can autofocus it. can't fault this lens at all, best $140 i will ever spend.
70-300mm vr...i don't really get much use out of this thing because of the size/focal range, but it's good to have. really sharp, only problem is it's not the fastest lens out there but it's a worthy alternative if you can't afford a 70-200 f2.8...all the bird shots on my flickr are with this lens.

what i want...
a good standard zoom lens, i'd kill for a nikon 24-70 2.8 but i can't see myself affording that lens any time soon. other options i like are the 28-70 that dude has, if i ever see one used in good shape i'll probably pick that up. also seen the sigma 24-70 2.8, but i'm not a huge fan of 3rd party stuff and it has a weird 82mm filter size.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2010, 10:38 PM
Dude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatman View Post
Lens i have..:
Tamron 17-50 2.8...Reason. Needed a wide angle for doing parties and what not with tight spaces. Couldn't get the Canon 17-55 2.8 on my budget so i picked this up.
Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5. Great lens for 200 dollars. Sharp all around and durable body. Cant complain. I use it for portraits and studio work and for walking around bird hunting. Most of my photos are shot with this.
Canon 50 1.8. Nifty 50. Need i say more. It Stays on my camera when walking around. Nice and light.

Lens i want...:
Canon 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8
Canon 100 2.8 macro
Sigma 30 1.4....Its pretty much a 50 1.4 on a crop
Canon 20 2.8....If i were to sell my 17-50
From what i here the sigma 30mm is pretty crappy. Isnt there a cheaper canon equivalent?




Quote:
Originally Posted by s-t-e-v-e View Post
super basic stuff for me so far

18-55mm kit lens...not as bad as you might think, atleast it's pretty sharp.
50mm 1.8...i shoot all my film with this lens, and will probably be my main digiatal lens too whenver i get a body that can autofocus it. can't fault this lens at all, best $140 i will ever spend.
70-300mm vr...i don't really get much use out of this thing because of the size/focal range, but it's good to have. really sharp, only problem is it's not the fastest lens out there but it's a worthy alternative if you can't afford a 70-200 f2.8...all the bird shots on my flickr are with this lens.

what i want...
a good standard zoom lens, i'd kill for a nikon 24-70 2.8 but i can't see myself affording that lens any time soon. other options i like are the 28-70 that dude has, if i ever see one used in good shape i'll probably pick that up. also seen the sigma 24-70 2.8, but i'm not a huge fan of 3rd party stuff and it has a weird 82mm filter size.
You shoot d60 right? If so dont bother with my 28-70mm. Manual focusing on dslrs is hard enough, when you add the zoom aspect it makes it harder. Hang onto those lenses you have now until you upgrade to a body with the AF motor, then sell them. I made the mistake of building a whole lens aresenal based the af-s/hsm and i ended up having to get rid of it all.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2010, 11:13 PM
italianbmxer's Avatar
italianbmxer offline
In Training.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 299
italianbmxer is on a distinguished road
Default

Nikon55-200
Sigma 18-50.

Thinking on trading/selling the Nikon for a 35 /1.8
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2010, 11:37 PM
creepinonthecomeup's Avatar
creepinonthecomeup offline
Platinum.
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: prison
Posts: 1,839
creepinonthecomeup is on a distinguished road
Default

a broken 18-55mm haha
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2010, 11:47 PM
Fender5388's Avatar
Fender5388 offline
Platinum.
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: KCMO
Posts: 1,711
Fender5388 is on a distinguished road
Default

good thread i'd say

i shoot a D40
currently i have

nikon 50mm 1.8 series E lens from the 80's i really enjoy the 1.8
nikon 28mm 2.8 lens just got it and love it

manual focus on both of these for now, hoping to upgrade to a d90 by summer time

just sold my

nikon 55-200mm VR i never shoot long and when i do My girlfriend had a tamron 28-200 i think it is, it's not great but gets the job done.

nikon 18-55 kit lens

will sell
nikon 18-55 vr lens i will sell with my camera body sometime

the only lens i really want right now is the Bower 8mm fish
i know it's a cheap lens and all but i dunno if i'm dedicated enough to having a fisheye so i don't wanna go all out. i can always sell and upgrade if i decide i like it.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2010, 11:51 PM
Panic!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nikon 24-70/2.8 - An expensive, beautiful piece of glass. Fast internal AF, completely silent, sharp at all apertures. There's thousands of reviews and they're all positive. It's heavy because it's a 2.8 zoom, but it's built like a tank and I happen to like my bodies and lenses on the heavy side.

Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM II - This lens is...okay. The AF is fast and silent, but has a lot of trouble locking as soon as the lights dim. It's alright at f/2.8 and sharp after f/4. When I look at it compared to higher quality glass it pales, but it's still definitely a decent lens. It's built well and is a keeper in sufficient light. For me, I'm willing to pay the premium for the Nikon 70-200VR, and since the prices have started to come out a little since the release of the VRII, I'll be looking to trade the Sigma in soon.

Sigma 15mm fisheye - Sigma makes some quality wide angle lenses. I've used the 10-20 and this 15mm and they are/were both used very often. This is a 180 degree angle on an FX body, is sharp and vibrant at all apertures and gives me no reason to want any other fish. This lens is a steal on FX.


Nikon 50/1.4 D - Yea, fast and sharp. But, I dropped mine about 6 months ago and now the focus sticks sometimes. It's like a $100 repair, and I've just been procrastinating sending it in.

Nikon 24/2.8 D - Sharp, built well, reliable. I almost sold it but decided to keep it as a wide angle backup. If my 24-70 goes down at a wedding it makes wide shots impossible with my next widest lens being a 50mm other than a fisheye. I hate weddings.


Next on the list is the Nikon 14-24 after I swap the Sigma 70-200 for the Nikon VR1 and probably sell my D300 towards a D3 or D700s if it comes out.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-14-2010, 01:38 AM
lafbmx's Avatar
lafbmx offline
Platinum.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,575
lafbmx is on a distinguished road
Default

my main lenses for my 35mm camereas are the canon 15mm 2.8 50mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm 4. i really dont like anything between 15 and 50 for bmx and never use anything under 50 for anything else. i just dont like the look of it so i dont own any. but the 15 is an amazing lens. pretty much everything a fisheye should be. the 50 is a pretty good lens for the price. nice and light and pretty sharp but id still much rather have a nicer 50mm. the 70-200 is also a very good lens. always focuses fast and is sharp and is a significantly cheaper alternative to the 2.8 or whatever it is.

for medium format all i have at the moment is a mamiya 90mm 3.8 (which is the equivalent to 50mm in 35mm format) but its a good lens. its pretty sharp for the price. i wanna get a 210mm 4 for it in the future. lenses for this camera are awesome because theyre all real nice glass and hardly over $100

for large format i only have a rodenstock 150mm 5.6.(also equal to 50mm) this is probably one of the nicest lenses i own. extremely sharp. ive only used it for black and white so far but ive read that the color repetition is also very good. as soon as i can i plan on getting a 90mm for it but will probably go old and used on that one.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-14-2010, 01:46 AM
Dude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lafbmx View Post
my main lenses for my 35mm camereas are the canon 15mm 2.8 50mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm 4. i really dont like anything between 15 and 50 for bmx and never use anything under 50 for anything else. i just dont like the look of it so i dont own any.
This is mainly how i am for bmx or similar stuff. Anything wider then 28mm on a crop sensor is just to wide, but some people (im looking at you streettrailpark) that can really pull off that range around 28mm-35mm. I do like wider stuff for some travel/landscape shots. If i could only have 2 lenses it would be the 50mm and the fish for sure
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:17 AM
lafbmx's Avatar
lafbmx offline
Platinum.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,575
lafbmx is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude View Post
This is mainly how i am for bmx or similar stuff. Anything wider then 28mm on a crop sensor is just to wide, but some people (im looking at you streettrailpark) that can really pull off that range around 28mm-35mm. I do like wider stuff for some travel/landscape shots. If i could only have 2 lenses it would be the 50mm and the fish for sure
for bmx i really just dont like how that range looks and all i really use for that is 35mm but like you said for landscapes and shit like that i can definitely get into it. thats why id like to get a 90mm for my LF because for somethings it def works for me. plus the price of a good lens in that range is way too much to justify me getting it. i think the 17-40 is like 700 or something.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:32 AM
Panic!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lafbmx View Post
for bmx i really just dont like how that range looks and all i really use for that is 35mm but like you said for landscapes and shit like that i can definitely get into it. thats why id like to get a 90mm for my LF because for somethings it def works for me. plus the price of a good lens in that range is way too much to justify me getting it. i think the 17-40 is like 700 or something.
I wish Nikon had f/4 alternatives in their lens lineups. I want an ultrawide bad, but the 17-35/2.8 is $1,700 and the 14-24 is $1,800 so it will have to wait. I'd kill for something L quality for $700 in that range. I know a lot of Nikon shooters would really like a 70-200/f4 too.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:39 AM
s-t-e-v-e
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panic! View Post
I wish Nikon had f/4 alternatives in their lens lineups. I want an ultrawide bad, but the 17-35/2.8 is $1,700 and the 14-24 is $1,800 so it will have to wait. I'd kill for something L quality for $700 in that range. I know a lot of Nikon shooters would really like a 70-200/f4 too.
this


they do have the 80-200 f2.8 for a decent price though...but no vibration reduction.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:42 AM
Dude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panic! View Post
I wish Nikon had f/4 alternatives in their lens lineups. I want an ultrawide bad, but the 17-35/2.8 is $1,700 and the 14-24 is $1,800 so it will have to wait. I'd kill for something L quality for $700 in that range. I know a lot of Nikon shooters would really like a 70-200/f4 too.
Agreed. Although if your flexible there are always other options...


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-Ult...#ht_500wt_1182
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:46 AM
Panic!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s-t-e-v-e View Post
this


they do have the 80-200 f2.8 for a decent price though...but no vibration reduction.
Yea, I've never really used VR before so it's not something I'm dying for. But the VR is faster, more accurate and more silent focus than the 80-200, which is what I'm looking for that I don't have now. 80-200's a rad lens for sure, but I'm getting anal with my stuff and if I'm going to switch I think I'm going for the gusto.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:47 AM
Panic!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude View Post
Agreed. Although if your flexible there are always other options...


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-Ult...#ht_500wt_1182
Not that flexible, unfortunately. Need fast, AF glass.

Speaking of which, you mentioned shooting a wedding in the future and getting more use out of your 180mm. Of course some people still shoot weddings with manual focus, but once you shoot one or two and miss a bunch of shots because you were focusing or you take them and they aren't entirely in focus then you'll really wish you had AF and a zoom. At least for ceremonies. The less you have to walk around and risk making noise during quiet moments the better.


Good thread, BTW. Discussion is healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-14-2010, 03:54 AM
DBUNN's Avatar
DBUNN offline
Double Platinum.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 610 PA
Posts: 2,250
DBUNN is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DBUNN
Default

i have 4 lenses that come out with me now when i go out.

50mm 1.8
28-70mm3.5-4
70-210mm
an 8mm fisheye.

50mm 1.8
i bought this lens over the 35mm 1.8, was it a good decision, yes and no. dont get me wrong i love this lens, and i rarely shoot with anything else, but thats just because i really like long lens vs wide angle/fish. but there are certain situations where i really wish i went with the 35mm. but all in all, i love this lens, for 100 bucks, its brand new, really sharp for the price, and fast as all hell. obviously not as sharp as the 1.4 or probably as well made, but this is deffinatly a lens i love to have in my bag. and recomend it to anyone still using the 18-55 kit lens. its deffinatly a goood upgrade.





28-70mm
i will start off by saying, that i havent really had this lens to long, and have only used it about 4 times. so i cant really say how great or how bad this lens is, but what i will say is, im not a fan of its focus. i tend to get a soft focus even in broad daylight. not to soft, but soft enough to irratate me. now i bought this lens to cover that spot between 8mm and 50mm. so although i havent really used it to many times, im not to impressed with it, but it is a gennerally cheap lens so i dont really expect much from it.





70-210mm
i will start off buy saying i love this lens. i picked it up used for 140 bucks off keh, and its awesoem. Just what i wanted in a zoom lens. i was gonna go with the new plastic 70-300 for about the same price, but after reading a ken rockwell review and a few others i went with this one. reasons i like this lens, are that its fast, real sharp, and has great depth of feild. i use this on my film camera mostly, and havent gotten any of them developed yet, but from what ive shot on my digital, i love it. i love shooting natural light with this lens. i recomend this lens to anyone looking for a decent zoom lens for a great price. im real glad i went with it.





rikinon 8mm
last but not least, the fisheye. like ive said before, i am not a big fan of fisheye at all, not sure why, i just really like long lens. but anyway, the lens itself is pretty cheap for the most part, its mostly metal witch is nice, but you can just tell its a cheap lens. the wide 8mm is pretty nice for a real close up, sometimes its to wide i feel, i always feel i am in the way when im shooting with it, i guess thats why i love long lens, i really dont get in the riders way at all, and they probably feel more comfortable as well. one thing i really hate about this lens, is flare! it flares almost 99.9% of the time, probably due to the fact that the glass bubbles out so far, and the shade doesnt even cover the whole thing, so any time i use flashes i have to keep them far out of the shot, or i will get tons of little ghosts in the shot. so as for this lens, yeah its fun to use, ive gotten some great results shooting this with natural light, but im not a huge fan of it.




__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutstains View Post
Haven't been feelin your stuff for awhile.
Go to the strip club, you need some tittes in your face.

east coast
http://thebunngeon.blogspot.com/

flikr
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2010, 04:06 AM
Dude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panic! View Post
Not that flexible, unfortunately. Need fast, AF glass.

Speaking of which, you mentioned shooting a wedding in the future and getting more use out of your 180mm. Of course some people still shoot weddings with manual focus, but once you shoot one or two and miss a bunch of shots because you were focusing or you take them and they aren't entirely in focus then you'll really wish you had AF and a zoom. At least for ceremonies. The less you have to walk around and risk making noise during quiet moments the better.


Good thread, BTW. Discussion is healthy.
I completly understand. Im on a whole different plane from you when it comes to lens selection. You need glass that works perfectly and predictabily and quickly, while i need glass that i can buy simply selling other shit i have laying around, haha. Also if i miss a shot my income doesnt take a hit.

I see where your comming from. One of the weddings is not a serious thing, just in family. The other is a little further off and Ill most likely be renting lenses and a back up body.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-14-2010, 04:56 AM
brokencivilian's Avatar
brokencivilian offline
Quadruple Platinum.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,572
brokencivilian is on a distinguished road
Default

What i have:

nikkor 50mm 1.8
nikkor mf 28mm 2.8
nikkor 10.5 2.8
nikkor 50-200
lense baby muse

What i would like

85mm 2.8
or
105mm 2.8

Im sure there is more that i want but right now i just want a really good/sharp lense for portraits.
__________________
THE Flickr
BIKECHECK:V5
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.