adrianb wrote:
It's been probably discussed over and over...but since this is the first thread I could find (btw I'm at page 11 with the watching and reading)...here goes nothing:
I want to get a 1.2 lens...and since I don't have the cash for a 50L or 85L (regardless if they're EF or FD)... I'm thinking of some good old manual focus lens..
Can you tell me what lenses I can get which don't require an adapter with optical element (glass)?
Or how much of an impact does that glass element have on overal IQ & etc?
So far I know about rokkor 55/58mm 1.2, Canon FD/FL 55/58mm 1.2.....
What should one get, how do they behave?
If this has been discussed in 'depth' somewhere else, if you can point me ....so I don't hassle you guys on this thread ..
Check out the Nikon AIS 50/1.2. You can find them for around the going rate of a Rokkor 58. You get infinity on a full-frame and they're cheaper to adapt. It's decently sharp in the center and corner to corner acceptable by f/4. Like most Nikon lenses from that era, it doesn't work really hard to impress, but it has a unique and subtle beauty to its rendering.
freaklikeme wrote:
Great shots, Derek. I really like the squirrel with the hint of swirl.
I love the picture of your daughter. Is she intentionally doing an Elton John impression?
Elton John impression !!!, Very cute!
Freaklikeme, you know this Nikkor 50mm 1.2 might be sharpest lens I have after f2.8. I didn't check corner, but it is way sharper than I need, and doing very good with D800E sensor and APS-C Nikon I had. The problem I have with it is too contrasty for I like once I slow it down.
My process is very basic compare to others in this forum. For Nikon, I usually use D2X mode1preset in Lightroom, which give most pleasing color balance I liked. Usually I leave curve to strong in LR. Clarity -10, black -5 as starting point, from there, I just do whatever I like to tweak them and exposure, highlight, shadow and white. A lot of shot, I add strong vignette like the one above to force viewer concentrate to portrait itself. Many photo get zero treatment.
If you see some similarity in my shots, that could be just the way I like the photo to be. So, in the end, it might have my personal preference build into it. I guess 'film like' is because my sharpen skill is very poor and the D700's digital file is very clean and color is beautiful too IMO.
Really, there is no secret sauce but I am really appreciate your comments.
zhangyue wrote:
Freaklikeme, you know this Nikkor 50mm 1.2 might be sharpest lens I have after f2.8. I didn't check corner, but it is way sharper than I need, and doing very good with D800E sensor and APS-C Nikon I had. The problem I have with it is too contrasty for I like once I slow it down.
D700 with 50mm 1.2 AIS at 1.2
Agreed, it picks up sharpness and contrast on a fairly steep curve as you stop down. I do think your example, while a beautiful shot (and I'm curious about your processing as well), would make most lenses look contrasty given the lighting, subject, and colors. And personally I think the corners are fine at wider apertures, but I think most pixel peepers will be happy at f/4.
My process is very basic compare to others in this forum. For Nikon, I usually use D2X mode1preset in Lightroom, which give most pleasing color balance I liked. Usually I leave curve to strong in LR. Clarity -10, black -5 as starting point, from there, I just do whatever I like to tweak them and exposure, highlight, shadow and white. A lot of shot, I add strong vignette like the one above to force viewer concentrate to portrait itself. Many photo get zero treatment.
If you see some similarity in my shots, that could be just the way I like the photo to be. So, in the end, it might have my personal preference build into it. I guess 'film like' is because my sharpen skill is very poor and the D700's digital file is very clean and color is beautiful too IMO.
Really, there is no secret sauce but I am really appreciate your comments. ...Show more →
it's the tone curve of the shots not the sharpness that reminds me of film. i suspect the strong vignetting (i also add a lot of vignetting) and the willingness to let parts of the photo go to black also add to the filmlike sense i get.
it's interesting, you're the first person i've heard of reducing clarity as a general rule. most people seem to either leave it alone or boost it.
freaklikeme wrote:
I think someone's been Crocodile Rockin' behind your back. She's going glam on you, Dad. Better get used to it... until the next phase comes along.
i blame the grandparents, bad influences, where else would she get those overalls and glasses?
I don't always do clarity reduced. it depend on case. For portrait or WO shot, I try to keep it low or even reduced it to not harm bokeh. My preset is low so that I can better analysis the photo before do anything. but if I shot slower down the lens for building, car, landscape, I will either leave it alone, or add not more than 30.
The same applies to curve. I leave it strong as default, but may ending have it customized or 'linear' depend on case.
Freaklikeme, The lens WO is pretty good, but slow down it smokes my Zeiss Planar, which is very sharp lens as well. But still I prefer the Zeiss rendering sharpness much better. Nikon is very contrast lens, and Zeiss Planar is very subtle. If I could, I'd like see the MTF of both lens to understand the difference. But from what I see, Nikon seems win both resolution and contrast based on test I did for D800E at infinity based on MY copy.
sebboh, Looking great for both of them! I really regret sold my XD-7 and Minolta 501.4 my parent gave me. (for two hundred, a mint body and 501.4 and a 28mm minolta? and 200mm vivitar)
I thought my Canon P&S is better at that time. I should browse this forum earlier. Now 58mm 1.2 might be the most wanted lens for me but I am stuck with Nikkon body.
zhangyue wrote:
sebboh, Looking great for both of them! I really regret sold my XD-7 and Minolta 501.4 my parent gave me. (for two hundred, a mint body and 501.4 and a 28mm minolta? and 200mm vivitar)
I thought my Canon P&S is better at that time. I should browse this forum earlier. Now 58mm 1.2 might be the most wanted lens for me but I am stuck with Nikkon body.
ha, i stopped using my minolta XE-5 for a canon p&s for a decade when i was in college and grad school.
the 58/1.2 can actually be converted to nikon pretty easily, but my understanding is that there is a mirror collision if you focus past 25ft or so. you could replace your XD-7 + 50/1.4 for under $100 probably these days btw.
adrianb wrote:
Is it worth considering m42 mount or other mount that doesn't require optical glass, if I want a 50/55/58mm 1.2 lens to attach on my Canon 5Dc ?
Or I can easily go with stuff like Rokkor (which need optical glass)
(IQ wise)
??
don't use an optical glass adapter!
you can buy a mount replacement kit for the rokkor instead (it's super simple).
Very cute!
