p.7 #1 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
timballic wrote:
Interesting about the above comments on the Nikkor 50/1.2 as Lloyd Chambers Blog features it today.
An except (not from his subscription only sites!)
"A Fast and Compact 50mm for Nikon (or Canon or Sony NEX)
Nikon’s only ƒ/1.2 lens is the venerable 50mm ƒ/1.2 AI-S. It is still being made, but who knows how long that will continue.
At about $700, it’s not inexpensive, but it bears a look—
After warning about CAs he says:
" In short, if you want a soft dreamy look for portraits, this is your lens. And it’s very sharp when stopped down (though watch out for focus shift)."
Disappointment arises from unrealized expectations.
Like blind dates or visiting London in the Spring and planning on 7 days of uninterrupted sunshine.
Or hoping a 35 year-old optical formula sans aspherical elements will do at the widest apertures what it wasn't designed to do.
Pays to know aforehand what you're getting into.
Makten wrote:
That's a lens that I liked very much. Of course it was soft wide open, but the sharpest 50 mm lens I've tried in F mount at f/2.
Agree with Makten but woud add that the lack of sharpness of the 50/1.2 is illusory insofar as the very low contrast obscures the underlying high resolution, even at ƒ/1.2-2 when results are examined carefully
p.7 #2 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
snowboarder wrote:
It took me 5 minutes.
It was the biggest Zeiss disappointment for me, sent it back to B&H the very next day.
The ZF 50/2 MP is the Zeiss lens I like best out of my meanwhile 7 lenses (21, 25/2.8, 28, 35/2, 85 and 100 MP). If I was only to keep one (or want to take only one with me) this would be it.
it is sharp with lots of DOF from f2 and I hardly stop it down more than to f4 even for landscape. I love its rendering and the bokeh especially at close range and makro range. But it is very good also for landscape and Portrait. It is one-lens-does-it all. Easier to use (fokussing) than the 100 MP, more versatile than the 35/2, if needed I can replace them both with the 50MP. Before that I hated the focal range of 50mm, thought it was boring.
Weak corners? field curvature? haven't even noticed checked some images now, can't find any
funny how different perception can be. Carsten, you wanted the 50 P and blamed the MP for not being the P.
How do you like the 28 now - and how can you live with it's field curvature?
p.7 #4 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I did want a better Planar with close focusing ability, but the Planar has very different depth of field characteristics than the Makro-Planar, and I find the Planar boke much more attractive. The corner issues of the MP only show when doing some kinds of shots, I guess you do different shots than I do. In the end I made my peace with the 50MP, but I will still pick up a 50P for other kinds of shots.
I do like the 28, and while it does also have corner issues, stopping it down it gains depth of field very fast, to the point where it doesn't matter so much. I also use the 28mm focal length differently than the 50mm.
I wouldn't know how to judge a lens in 5 minutes, to be honest. It takes me weeks.
C/Y 50/1.4 ... rather different from the C/Y 50/1.7
Funny you say that about the CY50/1.4. I had and liked the 50/1.7, but it didn't get much use competing with my Rokkor (arty shots) and Leica 50/2 (more "normal" shots). Sold the 50/1.7 but missed the pop. Got a 50/1.4 and freakin love it. My only complaint is that it might be too sharp WO as I was interested in more of a dreamy look at that aperture. But just as you hit the OOF region, it is indeed quite dreamy.
Move over Rokkor, there is a new sherriff in town.
Disappointments: Rokinon 85/1.4
Got it as a gift last Xmas and returned it within days. It probably was just a REALLY bad copy, but it was mush up through f/2.8 and even at f/5.6 is not what I would call sharp. Probably got bounced in shipping or something, but it was bad enough that I did not want to give them another try, and I already liked my CY 85/1.4 so much that I figured, why bother.
p.7 #7 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Bifurcator wrote:
That's surprising (to me)... The nFD 300/2.8 L is pretty awesome - one of my favorite lenses! It's the same from 2.8 thu to f/11 - well other than the DOF differences. I would have thought that the 400/2.8 was on par. telyt wrote:
My experience with the FD 400mm f/2.8 L reminded me that expectations and how well they're met are heavily dependant on the user's past experience. Until I used that lens I didn't understand the appeal of high-saturation films like Velvia. Neither did I understand the appeal of AF and IS; the ergonomic design of that lens pretty much requried electronic help. I'm accustomed to lenses that are close to diffraction-limited at full aperture, don't produce muddy colors, and are easy to use manually.
...
I own the FD 300/2.8 L and converted the FD 400/2.8 L and FD 500/4.5 L to EFmount without owning them.
Both the 300 and 500 are very fine lenses. The 400 mm lens had many very small metal clips inside. I thought the bit worse contrast was because of that. But I need on all three lenses very often contrast correction due to the longer distance images with much air between object and camera.
For me the focussing is great on all three lenses, but the 400 has not the best handling due to its big and heavy front lens and total weight of ~5.5 kg instead of 2.3 kg of the 300mm lens.
So no disappointment on these lenses. Ok, I was very disappointed as I saw my 300/2,8 and relaized it had not mentioned fungus :-/
A big disappointment was the Sigma Apo 70-210mm/2.8 lens. Seller wrote it should be very sharp. I would call it not sharp. Learned: I should not buy zoom lenses & I should not buy Sigma AF lenses.
Another dissapointment was the Samyang 14mm/2.8 - first very good. But now the bad build quality stopped me from using it. Must modify it a bit. Ruggedizing :-)
p.7 #8 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
ZoneV wrote:
.. But I need on all three lenses very often contrast correction due to the longer distance images with much air between object and camera...
My Leica 280mm f/4 APO with 1.4x APO or 2x APO extender and the Leitz 560mm f/6.8 do not need contrast enhancement even at great distance, and to get anywhere near the Leica lens' colors at close range I had to increase the contrast and saturation of the photos made with the Canon lens.
ZoneV wrote:
.. the 400 has not the best handling due to its big and heavy front lens and total weight of ~5.5 kg
For me the handling problems were caused by the STOOPID tall tripod foot.
p.7 #10 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
billsnature wrote:
Great lenses that didn't live up to the hype:
......
Leica 100mm f2.8 APO - Great balance but didn't outshine CV 125 APO or the Zeiss 100MP
.....
I assume you have tested these three lenses on the same subject in a controlled environment and came to this conclusion.
I did test the Macro ability of the Leica R 100/2.8 with the Voigt125 and the ZF2 100 and the result is obvious that the Leica is head and shoulders above the two other lenses.
(Sample pics of the test already posted by me on FM somewhere if you like to search).
I did not test the lenses together for Landscapes or Portraits but my usage of the three lenses yield the same result and the Leica 100/2.8 does outshine the Voigt125 and the ZF2 100.
These does not mean in any way that the Voigt and Zeiss are any less good and for field work the Voigt is King while the Zeiss 100 does need any introduction. The fact of the matter is that the Leica 100 render is very special as well as the micro contrast.
I assume you were or are in possession of these fine three lenses and maybe you would care to let us know how you came to the conclusion that the Leica R 100/2.8 did not outshine the Voigt125 and the ZF2100?
p.7 #11 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
'Got a 50/1.4 and freakin love it.'
I have one but have the same issue of another very good 50mm, the R 50/2 Summicron E55. From my initial shooting all one reads about the 50/1.4 CY, that has to change. Good to see some positivity in a 'disappointment' thread.
I do believe the APO-Elmarit R 100/2.8 is capable of things the other two are not, but it is all down to personal preference here. Like the 50MP, this one is very special for its signature look, and it's at its superlative best wide open. It is still a relative steal on the market. I am also interested in why anyone would not find room for it.
p.7 #12 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
carstenw wrote:
Interesting thread idea, but I have to disagree with your listing of two of the lenses you chose: the E60 50 Lux-R and the Contax 85/1.4. These are both really fantastic lenses, and the fact that you failed to explore them enough, or read up enough on their respective strengths/weaknesses doesn't make them deserving of such a label. I do agree with you about the 80 Lux though, one of my all-time favorite lenses, and I really should get one again and Leitax it to my Nikon.
Carsten: Agreed.
JohnJ: So you intended to buy the Lux 50/1.4-60 and as such lens is not available for rental, I assume you either borrowed it from a friend or most probably relied on what little info is on the web.
What I am interested to know is how did you come to the conclusion that both the 50/1.4-60 and the 50/2 V1 or V2 are similar? If anything they are definitely not similar...unless you are making a kind of blank statement of some sort.
So please enlighten us as how you came to this conclusion lest I crawl back in my shell.
p.7 #13 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Almass wrote:
I assume you have tested these three lenses on the same subject in a controlled environment and came to this conclusion.
I did test the Macro ability of the Leica R 100/2.8 with the Voigt125 and the ZF2 100 and the result is obvious that the Leica is head and shoulders above the two other lenses.
(Sample pics of the test already posted by me on FM somewhere if you like to search).
i saw your test and concluded from it that i would probably like the voigtlander better (yes the leica showed more detail and microcontrast for macro, but not enough to matter much to me). so i suspect it may just be down to different people looking for different things from lenses.
p.7 #14 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
On the subject of "how long does it take to test a lens?", I am basically with Snowboarder. It takes me only rarely more than one shot to get a feel for the "general rendering" of a lens: contrast, colours, drawing style. Then of course, I take more shots, and view them on screen, and pixel peep. But experience shows that my opinion from the first view on the LCD is pretty well what I end up thinking anyhow. It took me one shot to start to worry about the ZA 24 f:1.8, and one to go wow! at the 24mm Elmar. Then, of course, there are parameters that can only be explored in much more depth. But, so far, if I really like the general drawing style, colours and contrats, no amount of focus shift or field curvature, to name but two of the weaknesses that require time to be fully documented, can turn me off. And no amount of weaklessness or formal perfection can make up for lack of attractiveness SOOC. But that is a matter for each of us to decide individually...
p.7 #15 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I didn't like that the E60 was not very sharp at reasonably close range and wide open. However wide open sharpness really wasn't a problem at greater distances. Bokeh was certainly quite nice, vignetting about as expected. Edge sharpness is irrelevant to me so I didn't even test for that. I don't doubt my conclusions about close range sharpness as I was initially surprised with what I was seeing so I tried many ways to prove I was wrong, swapped focusing screens, shot various subjects etc.
I tested the lenses in the exact manner that I would ultimately use them, which is shooting cars (which is my day job), often in difficult conditions such as at night. The resulting images where (as I'd expected) very similar to the R 50/2 E55. However as the lens didn't really deliver wide open, I didn't see any advantage in buying it. The price was right. I should have bought it and resold it later. I would have made a killing.
By the way, there is a reasonable amount of info about it on the web, specifically Erwin Puts' reviews, originally on the Leica site and then on his own. At the time, approx 5 years ago, there was less info and samples on the web then there are now. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much what other people think about a lens, only how it actually performs (in my own circumstances) so this is why I borrow and test any expensive lens that I intend to buy. The lens was a loaner. I'm not a big fan of spending lots of money only to find the item doesn't deliver the goods.
It's a very expensive lens so it's normal to expect a higher level of performance. Ultimately that was one of the reasons for my dissapointment in that I did hope, more than expect, it to perform a bit better than it did in my tests.
p.7 #16 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I guess that makes sense. Cars are so technical, very different from nature shots or portraits, so it is probably a question of mismatched lens and usage. Still, I am puzzled why it would give such a soft impression. As far as I understand, the 50 Lux-R E60 is very similar to the 50 Lux-M ASPH, which is definitely sharp wide open for an f/1.4 lens. Maybe there was an issue with that copy.
p.7 #17 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
carstenw wrote:
I guess that makes sense. Cars are so technical, very different from nature shots or portraits, so it is probably a question of mismatched lens and usage. ...
Cars can make some very good lens look very bad. I like my Contax 135/2.0 very much but it is useless for shooting cars (wide open) as there is so much purple fringing wide open on reflections in chrome, lights etc. This is irrelevant with portraits of course.
carstenw wrote:
... Maybe there was an issue with that copy.
p.7 #18 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Almass wrote:
I assume you have tested these three lenses on the same subject in a controlled environment and came to this conclusion.
I did test the Macro ability of the Leica R 100/2.8 with the Voigt125 and the ZF2 100 and the result is obvious that the Leica is head and shoulders above the two other lenses.
It's not obvious to me how the Leica is "head and shoulders" above the Voigtländer and Zeiss in your test. I like the color rendering of the Leica best, but the bokeh of the Zeiss looks better to me (Leica has more hard fringes).
p.7 #19 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
AhamB wrote:
@Grenache: Nice shot of the oranga Dahlia! I've found it difficult to use the C/Y 50/1.4 for flowers, but maybe I should try it more.
Thank you. Funny thing about that shot is that I almost trashed it. I was shooting in the shade of dawn, and a combination of that and the intense orange color tricked the auto white balance to make it severely blue-green shifted. The blue was mostly from the shade, but the greenish cast made the shadow and highlight colors look very similar, so the image effectively didn't look sharp at all. I thought that I had missed focus.
I came back to the file the next day and applied the same color temp correction to it as I had other images, and my jaw dropped. The sharpness and detail in the center cluster of where the petals come together is amazing...all wide open.
Leica 100 APO... I have not used the Voigt or 100MP but would see them all as equal by different strengths. All are good at close up, with slightly different looks to the bokeh. The Leica is wonderful for portraits and very good but not stellar for landscapes. The Zeiss is outstanding at landscapes and intermediate distances, but I don't think that I would like it for portraiture. The Voigt I have seen far fewer examples of anything other than macro, but it appears to be a good all around lens but perhaps not top at any category. Given that these days they all cost the same amount, it seems unfair to hold any one of them out to have to soundly thrash the others.
I have a Leica 100 APO for close up work and portraits and a CY 100/2 for most everything else
(though it can be nice for portraits too...in soft light).
p.7 #20 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
^I've been misled by AWB too many times, so I use the daylight preset by default and set AWB in my RAW converter in the few cases that need it.
Btw, I must say that I find Dahlias a difficult kind of flower to photograph, especially when they're fully opened.
Thanks for the additional info about the Leica 100 APO and the C/Y 100/2. I have a C/Y 100/2.8 now, but think of getting the 100/2 sometimes to get better bokeh at longer distances.
checked some images now, can't find any 
