h00ligan wrote:
I am thinking of replacing my gf1 with one of them, the nex7 is sure expensive and frankly, I don't really need the vf a lot of the time.. what I really want to do is check out some mf glass used - with focus check.. see how it goes. It seems the corners on wide lenses are better than the last gen, and 16mp is more than enough.. however I have no idea what 50mm to get, I'd prefer to keep the kit under a grand!
Yeah, I'm thinking of exploiting Amazon's very generous 30 day return policy if the NEX7 doesn't ship by my trip date.
From using my X100 a lot, I've found I use the EVF almost 95% of the time and I only use the screen when I'm doing an awkward angle shot. I only use the OVF for street photography because it's very convenient to see outside the framing lines to see what will enter your frame.
Aug 28, 2011 at 07:40 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
h00ligan wrote:
I am thinking of replacing my gf1 with one of them, the nex7 is sure expensive and frankly, I don't really need the vf a lot of the time.. what I really want to do is check out some mf glass used - with focus check.. see how it goes. It seems the corners on wide lenses are better than the last gen, and 16mp is more than enough.. however I have no idea what 50mm to get, I'd prefer to keep the kit under a grand!
A very nice performing and cheap 50ish lens is the Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4. Usually about $75 and a very nice performing lens. It weighs about 300 grams, so maybe that is too big for you, but if not you might want to check it out.
Luka - Gotcha, well I'd agree, except it offers af and much much better high iso.
The thing about the nex7 to me, it would be for me to dip a toe into mf glass without spending a fortune on a body. I'd like to get a 50 equiv f2 or faster, but I really am out of my depth on which to get - I was thinking the distagon, but then I recall others saying it's not so great. I don't want to be at 35mm equiv anymore, I've shot far too much there and want to move more to 50 for now.
So, were one to get a ~50mm equivv that doesn't break the bank, what would the general recommendation be?
Sorry steve and others, I should have mentioned 50 equiv, not 50mm.. so really we are looking at performance of a 35 on crop. my bad!
Aug 28, 2011 at 07:46 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
For a 50mm equivalent, I would look at a Minolta Rokkor 35mm f/1.8 (get the MD version to keep it small). It is a lovely little lens and I just sold one converted to EOS for $250, you should be able to get an unconverted one for around $175. For my tastes it has a lot of the look of a 58 f/1.2 Rokkor.
FlyPenFly wrote:
On Sony Rumors. I wish the NEX7 was shipping this soon, I'm really getting worried about having a backup camera for my trip in October.
Not only on Sony Rumors but the U.S. Sony store lists the NEX-7 not shipping until around Nov. 9.
50mm choices are a very subjective thing and the very reason many people own more than one lens in that focal length.
Take the Zeiss 50 Sonnar vs Planar for example, both very popular lenses, nearly always out of stock, but with a very different rendering style. One is quite classical and the other is modern and sterile, and for a given subject, one or the other could be a better choice.
For the best bang for the buck though I think a VC Nokton 50mm f1.5 is hard to beat. I think its got a very nice way of rendering and is quite sharp, darn near up their with a Leica 50 ASPH, and you can get one for around $500, its just a heck of a lens for the money.
h00ligan wrote:
Pen - That's how I used it.
Luka - Gotcha, well I'd agree, except it offers af and much much better high iso.
The thing about the nex7 to me, it would be for me to dip a toe into mf glass without spending a fortune on a body. I'd like to get a 50 equiv f2 or faster, but I really am out of my depth on which to get - I was thinking the distagon, but then I recall others saying it's not so great. I don't want to be at 35mm equiv anymore, I've shot far too much there and want to move more to 50 for now.
So, were one to get a ~50mm equivv that doesn't break the bank, what would the general recommendation be?
Sorry steve and others, I should have mentioned 50 equiv, not 50mm.. so really we are looking at performance of a 35 on crop. my bad!...Show more →
h00ligan wrote:
I am thinking of replacing my gf1 with one of them, the nex7 is sure expensive and frankly, I don't really need the vf a lot of the time.. what I really want to do is check out some mf glass used - with focus check.. see how it goes. It seems the corners on wide lenses are better than the last gen, and 16mp is more than enough.. however I have no idea what 50mm to get, I'd prefer to keep the kit under a grand!
Have you thought of instead of replacing your GF1 instead getting some new glass for it ? If it otherwise works for you in terms of form factor etc.
Lots of new m4/3 glass coming out.
Panasonic 25mm f1.4 for $600 looks to be a sweet lens, quite small and compact yet with AF and from what I've seen so far, very good IQ. Or there is also the 45mm f1.8 which is another featherweight little lens that also looks optically very good, and provides a pretty fast 90mm equiv.
millsart wrote:
For the best bang for the buck though I think a VC Nokton 50mm f1.5 is hard to beat. I think its got a very nice way of rendering and is quite sharp, darn near up their with a Leica 50 ASPH, and you can get one for around $500, its just a heck of a lens for the money.
I'll have to disagree with you there Jeff. Having used both side by side, I'd say the Nokton is closer to the 50 Sonnar than to the 50 Lux ASPH. This is very visible when it comes to OOF rendering and it can give very rough bokeh. In terms of sharpness, it's what you'd normally expect from a fast 50. At f/4 it reaches roughly the sharpness of the Lux at f/1.4. Their general rendering style, including sharpness-to-blur transitions, distortions, vignetting etc are all different. So I would not call them comparable.
I'll agree with you that it's very good value for money - much better than the twice as expensive (and optically inferior) Sonnar. On the other hand it lacks the quirky character of the Sonnar, which some like while others don't.
For those that don't feel like spending the money on a 50 Lux ASPH but want a modern, optically competent lens, my vote would be for the 50/2 Planar ZM.
millsart wrote:
For the best bang for the buck though I think a VC Nokton 50mm f1.5 is hard to beat. I think its got a very nice way of rendering and is quite sharp, darn near up their with a Leica 50 ASPH, and you can get one for around $500, its just a heck of a lens for the money.
Definitely my experience with the lens as well. Kind of ridiculous for the price. I'd say it renders differently than most Leica glass, more like a Zeiss/Pentax hybrid with a bit of Minolta OoF transition.
denoir wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you there Jeff. Having used both side by side, I'd say the Nokton is closer to the 50 Sonnar than to the 50 Lux ASPH. This is very visible when it comes to OOF rendering and it can give very rough bokeh. In terms of sharpness, it's what you'd normally expect from a fast 50. At f/4 it reaches roughly the sharpness of the Lux at f/1.4. Their general rendering style, including sharpness-to-blur transitions, distortions, vignetting etc are all different. So I would not call them comparable.
I'll agree with you that it's very good value for money - much better than the twice as expensive (and optically inferior) Sonnar. On the other hand it lacks the quirky character of the Sonnar, which some like while others don't.
For those that don't feel like spending the money on a 50 Lux ASPH but want a modern, optically competent lens, my vote would be for the 50/2 Planar ZM. ...Show more →
h00ligan - my recommendation for a 50mm equivalent on the NEX for under a grand would probably be the contax g 35/2 (if you mean a grand for the lens not the lens + camera then maybe the nokton 35/1.2 or zm 35/2.8 depending on whether you want speed or optical perfection). the contax 35/2 has the classic zeiss color and contrast and performs better than the voigtlander 35/1.4 on pretty much every measure. it has weak corners wide open, but gets pretty good stopped down, and it is excellently compact.
millsart wrote:
Have you thought of instead of replacing your GF1 instead getting some new glass for it ? If it otherwise works for you in terms of form factor etc.
Lots of new m4/3 glass coming out.
Panasonic 25mm f1.4 for $600 looks to be a sweet lens, quite small and compact yet with AF and from what I've seen so far, very good IQ. Or there is also the 45mm f1.8 which is another featherweight little lens that also looks optically very good, and provides a pretty fast 90mm equiv.
yes, I've thought about it, but honestly the nex does video better (for my girlfriend to take to the animal shelter) I think - maybe I'm wrong... but the thing for me is ISO..also it doesn't help that I'm shooting full frame now.. I look at the gf1 files and they just seem flat.. with bad DR, etc. I know it's not much worse than aspc, but...it is worse.
Also, the key thing is for mf - and the sony focus check system seems pretty good for that, not sure I want to have to magnify and wait, I would think the nex system is faster - no?
Honestly, I mostly think I'm just finding a way to shift money around, losing a bit, until I finally give in and buy a M9 - but with the current economy my consulting has lightened up, so that would be the wrong move financially right now.
The GF1 to me doesn't look flat. The DR is bad but sometimes can help make stuff pop kind of like Canon :P
What's sad about the GF-1 and MFT in general for me was that noise was apparent at base ISO in sunlight. In the field of blue, in larger prints, you'll see ISO noise. If you don't plan to print larger than 8x10 or perhaps even 11x14, I think its a minor issue. I love printing huge though.
Those are both nice shots - and I agree about base iso noise.. But I also think to get a fair bit of pop you have to really drive up contrast, and you lose black detail - IME.
So are you still shooting that pen or... moved on?
I've moved on but sometimes get nostalgic about the GF-1. It was such a nice handling camera.
I'm pretty sure if Panasonic put an excellent EVF in a GF-1x with D90 levels of performance, I'll probably buy into the system again.
Its just that because I like to print large, I don't feel comfortable using MFT right now. And if I have to use the GH series it completely negates the point of MFT to me.
You're right though, I do CRUSH the blacks... but honestly nobody except other pixel peepers notice if it's a good photograph with a strong subject.
sebboh wrote:
are you sure about that luka, maybe your copy of the nokton wasn't calibrated properly? from the tests i've seen the nokton only loses out to the lux in the corners. in fact looking at the crops it seems the nokton is actually a tad sharper than the lux wide open in the center but noticeably weaker in the corners (on an m8). i'm always a little wary of sharpness tests done on rangefinders though.
Sure I'm sure. I've used two different copies on two separate occasions. One I actually had for over a week.
It's not that the Nokton isn't sharp. For a fast 50 at f/1.4, it is. It's at least as good as say the Canon 50/1.4 and a lot better than the Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM.
No, the thing is what people apparently miss is that the 50 Lux ASPH is something completely different. A decent 50/1.4 can usually start to match its wide open performance when stopped down two or three stops.
from the tests i've seen the nokton only loses out to the lux in the corners. in fact looking at the crops it seems the nokton is actually a tad sharper than the lux wide open in the center but noticeably weaker in the corners (on an m8)
Yeah, but you've got the wrong Lux. It's the pre-ASPH 50 Lux you've seen compared and indeed the Nokton does outperform it center frame. The pre-ASPH has nicer (smoother anyway) bokeh though.
It's actually a common choice - the Nokton 50/1.5 or 50 Lux pre-ASPH v3. You choose the Lux if you want character and the Nokton if you want a bit better optical performance.
FlyPenFly: It's just different sharpness-to-blur transitions. The "p-channel" text is in center focus. That's why one shoots a text from an angle - you can see the blur-sharpness-blur transition. But yeah, that full scene thing confuses the issue as the transitions are quite different. I've simplified the post now to stick to the crops only where the focus / DOF transition is more clearly visible.
Another good practice is to focus bracket - at least if you are not entirely familiar with the lens and know for certain that it's calibrated:
