DavidBM Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Interesting! I can see the new 50 being something a lot of people would love.
This is just a comment about the supposed 'sterility' of the 55. I've never really understood it. One hypothesis, that is likely partly right, is that it comes from the (easily fixed in post) slightly lower global contrast.
But another is the bokeh. Aside from the tendency to onion rings in specular highlights, it's got about the creamiest bokeh of any lens I've used at or near it's fl (I sold my Mistaken 50 0.95 when I realised that the 55 was creamier and almost the same separation even at f1.8, along with it's many other advantages (sharpness, size, weight, AF, less LoCa - but not perfect obviously - etc)
I wonder if some people find that a bit flat, and *prefer* some structure in their bookeh? I know some people find the bookeh of the 135 stf lens a bit flat and too perfectly gaussian. And strangely, with no apodization filter, that's what the 55 reminds me of a little.
|