nikon 50 1.2 on nikon d300


.:Marta:. by Pablo Ausucua, on Flickr


Untitled by Pablo Ausucua, on Flickr


Untitled by Pablo Ausucua, on Flickr

sebboh - love the crow shot!

deadwolfbones - those are great!

zhangyue - Stunning images of your daughter as well! That first one is a really wonderful use of ultra-shallow DOF...it just tunnels the eye right to her face.

sebboh wrote:
OK, here is a rule on lenses slower than f/1.2: you can post images from lenses as slow as f/1.5 but they must be for comparison purposes – for every shot you post slower than f/1.2 you must also post a shot at f/1.2 (or faster). this should keep us from a deluge of f/1.4 images.

I don't really get the idea of the thread. A 50/1.2 on MFT is like an unsharp 100/2.4 on FF (which obviousy is disqualified), so what's the deal with "only f/1.2" if you don't use the lenses on the format they where intended for?

This is about the lenses, not the camera, but it helps to know what format the lens was on for comparison purposes.

MC PG 58/1.2 on 1DIII @ 1.2 Edit: NOT at 1.2 sorry, I was thinking it was as I went through all the settings, but only picked one shot to PP.


Canon 85LII on 1DIII @ 1.2

LightShow wrote:
This is about the lenses, not the camera, but it helps to know what format the lens was on for comparison purposes.


exactly!
the idea isn't about comparing formats, everybody has already been beaten to death by those differences. no matter which of the common formats you shoot, f/1.2 is the pretty much the speed limit. the idea is to compare lenses and it's important to know the format in order to get a sense for the lens and how well they might work for your preferred format. e.g. the rokkor 58/1.2 is reasonably sharp wide open on FF but pretty soft wide open on 4/3 due to the pixel density. this info helps explain some conflicting opinions about lenses as well as giving an idea to FF frame shooters how their favorite lenses will perform on future higher density sensors (e.g. the NEX-5N has the same pixel density as the D800).

LightShow wrote:
This is about the lenses, not the camera, but it helps to know what format the lens was on for comparison purposes.

MC PG 58/1.2 on 1DIII @ 1.2


fyi - this first shot isn't at f/1.2, i can see the octagons from the aperture in the bokeh.

sebboh wrote:
LightShow wrote:
This is about the lenses, not the camera, but it helps to know what format the lens was on for comparison purposes.

MC PG 58/1.2 on 1DIII @ 1.2


fyi - this first shot isn't at f/1.2, i can see the octagons from the aperture in the bokeh.

Good catch. It must be f2.8 or so.

Fun thread wish I had some to share all of mine are 1.4..... Nice work keep it up!

sebboh wrote:
OK, here is a rule on lenses slower than f/1.2: you can post images from lenses as slow as f/1.5 but they must be for comparison purposes – for every shot you post slower than f/1.2 you must also post a shot at f/1.2 (or faster). this should keep us from a deluge of f/1.4 images.

Makten wrote:
I don't really get the idea of the thread. A 50/1.2 on MFT is like an unsharp 100/2.4 on FF (which obviousy is disqualified), so what's the deal with "only f/1.2" if you don't use the lenses on the format they where intended for?


Well, it's fun to post images. So I guess this is another excuse to do that. But yeah, I don't see a sublime purpose in posting f/1,2 images at random, from random bodies, and with random techniques & amounts of processing. Especially; some of these so far have had the crap processed outuvem. It'll probably still be fun tho.

Saeboh The first bird pic you posted was masterful.

Bifurcator wrote:
Well, it's fun to post images. So I guess this is another excuse to do that. But yeah, I don't see a sublime purpose in posting f/1,2 images at random, from random bodies, and with random techniques & amounts of processing. Especially; some of these so far have had the crap processed outuvem. It'll probably still be fun tho.


how is that any different from all the brand specific threads? this is just the f/1.2 thread. as it fills up with more variety and more people it will be possible to get a sense of the different looks and performances of the various lenses.

here's a couple more from the pen f 42/1.2:

Bifurcator wrote:
Well, it's fun to post images. So I guess this is another excuse to do that. But yeah, I don't see a sublime purpose in posting f/1,2 images at random, from random bodies, and with random techniques & amounts of processing. Especially; some of these so far have had the crap processed outuvem. It'll probably still be fun tho.

sebboh wrote:
how is that any different from all the brand specific threads? this is just the f/1.2 thread. as it fills up with more variety and more people it will be possible to get a sense of the different looks and performances of the various lenses.

here's a couple more from the pen f 42/1.2:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5162/5279732388_5595d5216a_b.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4132/5022763447_849335c320_b.jpg


That's basically what I just said. And of course those brand specific threads don't have any "sublime purpose" either. They're mostly just for fun. No one can tell very much from those threads; until someone comes along and posts a bunch 100% crops in a bunch of different environments, and shows them in comparison with other similar lenses that is. "A sense of" (a notion, a vague general idea) is a very good descriptive phrase defining what's possible to gain from such threads - good word choice! They're still fun tho.

sebboh wrote:
Bifurcator wrote:
Well, it's fun to post images. So I guess this is another excuse to do that. But yeah, I don't see a sublime purpose in posting f/1,2 images at random, from random bodies, and with random techniques & amounts of processing. Especially; some of these so far have had the crap processed outuvem. It'll probably still be fun tho.


how is that any different from all the brand specific threads? this is just the f/1.2 thread. as it fills up with more variety and more people it will be possible to get a sense of the different looks and performances of the various lenses.

here's a couple more from the pen f 42/1.2:

Damn it, Derek! That grasshopper is amazing!!

sebboh wrote:
OK, here is a rule on lenses slower than f/1.2: you can post images from lenses as slow as f/1.5 but they must be for comparison purposes – for every shot you post slower than f/1.2 you must also post a shot at f/1.2 (or faster). this should keep us from a deluge of f/1.4 images.

Here or some comparison shots of f/1.4 and 1.5 lenses. The f/1.2 lens is in the photo.
In hindsight I should have also shot this scene with the CV35 f/1.2 II...
If you've visited the Voigtlander and/or GXR thread this might look familiar, sorry for the xpost in advance.

OK, to make up for my transgression...

Canon EF50mm f/1.2L on APS-H:

f/1.2:

rscheffler wrote:
Here or some comparison shots of f/1.4 and 1.5 lenses. The f/1.2 lens is in the photo.


tricky, tricky.

i've seen this a few times, but haven't commented. imo the lux stomps the others in this comparison. it shows that the supposedly worse bokeh of the lux asph (compared to pre asph) is really just very neutral bokeh. even the front bokeh looks well controlled.

rscheffler wrote:
I'll see if I can dig up some f/1.2 shots...

please do!

edit: i see you did, thanks!

I edited my post, I was thinking I picked the 1.2 shot to PP and upload, obviously I didn't.
I'll have to do up some shots for this thread since I now have a collection of 1.2 lenses.