Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with the 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 when stopped down to around f/16 or f/18. I am currently using a 50mm 1.4 for multi-row Panorama shots. I'm just curious if the 1.2 will give any better performance in this range. I realize they are being affected by diffraction at these apertures, but the test websites don't go beyond f/8 or f/11.
a 50/f2 macro would be mostly likely designed for sharpness at small apertures. Contax may have some slow macros in the 50 - 60mm range.
With diffraction on a dense sensor it may not make any difference.
If movements can be used, the TSE 45mm might be a way to more resolved detail.
Focus blending is another work around.
dcmiller wrote:
a 50/f2 macro would be mostly likely designed for sharpness at small apertures. Contax may have some slow macros in the 50 - 60mm range.
With diffraction on a dense sensor it may not make any difference.
If movements can be used, the TSE 45mm might be a way to more resolved detail.
Focus blending is another work around.
I've tried the 45mm TS-E, but the CA was very problematic. That was actually my first lens of choice. The 50mm solved nearly all of the issues.... I'm just checking to see if there are any better options when stopped down. I'll have to compare it to the 50mm compact macro.
Ben Horne wrote:
Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with the 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 when stopped down to around f/16 or f/18. I am currently using a 50mm 1.4 for multi-row Panorama shots. I'm just curious if the 1.2 will give any better performance in this range. I realize they are being affected by diffraction at these apertures, but the test websites don't go beyond f/8 or f/11.
You are probably stopping down too far for your needs F11 should do about 10 ft to infinity...
