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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
I have you to blame for my Pen addiction. There's a 38 Macro on the bay right now. I can barely find any information on it and it's expensive and still it calls to me.
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.
GXR and in order shown above: 50 Lux ASPH, CV50 f/1.5, ZM50 Planar, CV40 f/1.4
WB based on the ZM image, brightness adjusted to match the white in the C of Canon. Of the various LR parameters, contrast was set to zero, black point at 5, clarity at zero.
Note the onion rings in some of the specular highlights with the CV50 f/1.5, though after I shot this, I was going through some images from the 50 Lux and sure enough, found some with onion rings as well, though it seems to be more difficult to provoke from the Lux.
Oops, there's an f/2 lens in here as well...
sebboh wrote:
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)....Show more →
Thanks for mentioning that. I think it's quite relevant about the given sensor. For example, I love the 50 Lux ASPH on the M9, but am not so crazy about it on the GXR. All the edge vignetting is cropped away and what you see is a lower contrast image with perhaps a touch of SA that IMO is kind of bland. I'd rather shoot the ZM50P on the GXR. It seems to match the sensor better with a bit more bite.
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...
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.
