Brody LeBlanc wrote:
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. ...Show more →
thanks!
you can definitely get plenty of background separation from this lens, but the transition from in focus to out of focus is much more gentle than say the 50L. i view this as a good thing at portrait distance because a harsh transition taking place on the subjects face looks pretty weird to my eye. at longer distances it can be more of mixed bag and effective dof can be hard to predict especially with the U shaped field curvature that puts more distant corners in focus (as in the swirly picture of my daughter above).
my suspicion is that my 40mm summicron would actually have narrower dof in the two shots above.
much like the 50mm sonnar the lens has tons of character and can take images that would be nearly impossible with any other lens. the 42mm is much sharper than the sonnar in the corners stopped down though.
Mescalamba wrote:
Wouldnt be 35mm f1.2 v2 from CV better?
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..
the 35mm is huge compared to the 42mm. i personally really like the ~60mm focal length for walk around and especially for portraits where i find 85mm equiv to be a little too long. that's another reason i love the rokkor 58/1.2 on FF.
sebboh wrote:
the 35mm is huge compared to the 42mm. i personally really like the ~60mm focal length for walk around and especially for portraits where i find 85mm equiv to be a little too long. that's another reason i love the rokkor 58/1.2 on FF.
Thanks for all the info sebboh! I think I've got my head wrapped around the benefits/limitations of the 42/1.2.
I'll mainly be using it for portraiture and shots of isolated subjects at close to mid range distances, where I think the field curvature works to benefit the image.
For images at a distance, I imagine I'll swap out for the slightly wider but technically "cleaner" Fuji 35/1.4 XF.
I think the best examples of the look I'm aiming to get from his lens is found your portraits of (I'm assuming) your daughter.
I owned the Sonnar 50/1.5 for this reason but I was pretty turned off by the MFD and sometimes unusable results at f1.5.
Either way, the rendering was fantastic and I'm hoping to achieve a similar effect with the 42/1.2.
zhangyue: Ha, you recognize it! Why I am not surprised
I am into single ended, 300B triodes based analog audio so manual focus, alt lenses are natural choice for me. Funny, I got into DSLR two years ago just to get macro shots of my cartridges.
Sebboh; first image is very warm and catching, especially during this (cold) time of a year. BTW, I see top corners shadow, but not at the bottom - filters or edits?
JaKo wrote:
Sebboh; first image is very warm and catching, especially during this (sold) time of a year. BTW, I see top corners shadow, but not at the bottom - filters or edits?
ha, that picture was actually taken today.
vignetting is not added in post (for once) on that shot and there are no filters used. i did pull down the blacks though which i think emphasized the vignetting in the blue sky more than in the bright sand.
Starting to get use to the 42mm f1.2. Definitely not a lens made for the faint of heart, but you get some very rewarding results.
Big thanks to sebboh for helping make my decision process much easier.
