Man this thread makes choosing a fast lens difficult. They all have such a unique rendering... I'm pretty certain I want the 58/1.2 so that it can replicate the 85mm focal length on APS-C, but then the Canon FD 55/1.2 and the Olympus 42/1.2 are both so interesting. The Cosina 55/1.2 also looks phenomenal, but that might be in part to downfall's ability to use the lens so well. Anyway, great work in this thread and I can't wait to start submitting some work once I find a lens!
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Alright guys, I can't decide... f 42/1.2, rokkor 58/1.2, or pentax 50/1.2?
I'm leaning towards the 42mm f1.2 as I will be using it on a APC-s camera.
the 42mm is awesome on small cameras – it is tiny: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5312/7207877644_23c1389c18_o.jpg
it's also probably the hardest lens of those three to master. it is quite sharp but has an unusual spherical aberration and field curvature that can yield a unique look and surprisingly large dof at f/1.2.
a couple of shots demonstrating some of the funky bokeh possibilities:
stopped down it is extremely sharp with medium contrast, but it has noticeable laCA and barrel distortion. it also has a severe flare problem shooting city lights stopped down at night.
sebboh wrote:
the 42mm is awesome on small cameras – it is tiny: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5312/7207877644_23c1389c18_o.jpg
it's also probably the hardest lens of those three to master. it is quite sharp but has an unusual spherical aberration and field curvature that can yield a unique look and surprisingly large dof at f/1.2.
The size different alone is an encouraging factor and I hope it balances well on the X-Pro1.
Your pictures have definitely influenced my decision to go with the pen f 42mm, your flickr has some incredible shots from the 42mm & many other lenses too.
The 42mm seems to be a one of a kind lens, the rendering slightly reminds me of a 50mm f1.5 Sonnar I use to own.
The size of the lens and how character-rich the rendering is at f1.2 are the two main reasons why I'm going with the 42mm. I also think I'll get more use from the focal length.
Though it might not have the technical perfection that a lens like the 58/1.2 might have, I think it'll make for some very unique images.
It's interesting you say that the lens renders a fairly large DOF at f1.2. Why do you think that would be?
From looking through images from the lens on APS-c cameras (including your shots), I got the impression that the lens can create quite a noticeable separation from the focal point to the background.
I mean, clearly a 42mm lens will have more depth than a 50mm/55mm/58mm, but do you think there's even more of a reason for the large DOF?
Thanks for your input! I'd have to say you've very clearly mastered using the 42/1.2.
Reason for larger apparent DOF is spherical aberration, same as with 50mm f1.2 L from Canon.
58mm f1.2 without hesitation, 50mm f1.2 Pentax - hm some are good, some great, some so-so.. guess it depends on version or batch, but probably decent solution.
Still I think that f1.2 lens or faster for APS-C and if it should be "only" lens, it should be either long (58mm) or short (35mm). 42mm is interesting, but most people dont have sebbohs skill..
Mescalamba wrote:
Still I think that f1.2 lens or faster for APS-C and if it should be "only" lens, it should be either long (58mm) or short (35mm). 42mm is interesting, but most people dont have sebbohs skill..
I've owned the 35/1.2II, great lens but I don't need to overlap focal lengths and already have Fuji's 35mm f1.4 which works great on the X-Pro1.
I enjoy shooting portraits loosely and this is the reason why I'm excited about the 42mm, around a 60mm equivalent.
I'll be getting either the Canon FD 55/1.2 or Rokkor 58/1.2 soon enough, but I feel those will be easier to find compared to the 42/1.2 and I happened to find a clean copy of the Olympus located in Canada.
I guess I'm making the slightly riskier option, but I'm too intrigued by the 42.1.2.
I might not be at sebbohs talent, but he's a great inspiration.
