AGeoJO wrote:
By the time you are ready to do that, if it's is coming down to it, the price would be some 20% or so less.
Once Guy sells a lens, he may even buy it back but it won't last on his bag. I think we bought and sold the Loxia 50/2 more than 3 times! I don't think he really likes the planar rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Once Guy sells a lens, he may even buy it back but it won't last on his bag. I think we bought and sold the Loxia 50/2 more than 3 times! I don't think he really likes the planar rendering.
I think you are right, Fred. I am curios about what he thinks of the C-Sonnar he will receive today.
Has anybody tested this lens on the stars at night? I have searched all over the internet but can't find a single picture of the stars with this lens. If anybody has or can test this on the stars or milky way I would love to see how it does.
I think a lot of it has to do with Planar bokeh and the harder focus transitions, which only get worse when the lens is better corrected for aberrations. It's also a lot of money/space/bag weight for a lens that isn't an ideal all-arounder.
As long as everything works out well with his TAP, i predict Sonnar-bliss for Guy.
freaklikeme wrote:
I think a lot of it has to do with Planar bokeh and the harder focus transitions, which only get worse when the lens is better corrected for aberrations. It's also a lot of money/space/bag weight for a lens that isn't an ideal all-around
What lens(es) do you consider to be an "ideal all-around" 35mm lens?
freaklikeme wrote:
I think a lot of it has to do with Planar bokeh and the harder focus transitions, which only get worse when the lens is better corrected for aberrations. It's also a lot of money/space/bag weight for a lens that isn't an ideal all-arounder.
As long as everything works out well with his TAP, i predict Sonnar-bliss for Guy.
That's the main difference. The planar rendering is slightly harsher at the focus transition zone and the very high contrast contaminates that area as well. However, this high micro-contrast combined with superb resolution creates a very nice effect. (pop)
The 50/1.4 ZA is technically close to perfection and it has a unique look but it's not for everyone. My Loxia 50/2 has similar characteristics.
freaklikeme wrote:
It's also a lot of money/space/bag weight for a lens that isn't an ideal all-arounder.
could you please explain what an "all-arounder" is ?
i always took that to be a lens that does well at/near wide-open at closer distances and also stopped-down at landscape distances - is that what you mean?
bwcolor wrote:
What lens(es) do you consider to be an "ideal all-around" 35mm lens?
ecarlino wrote:
could you please explain what an "all-arounder" is ?
i always took that to be a lens that does well at/near wide-open at closer distances and also stopped-down at landscape distances - is that what you mean?
A good normal all-arounder should be able to satisfactorily handle everything from head and shoulders portrait distances to big landscapes, even when it's understood that optimal performance isn't achieved wide-open. You might even appreciation some under correction at wide apertures, particularly where SA is concerned, since that will lead to creamier bokeh and a softer touch with human skin. So long as the bulk of the issues are gone by 5.6, it has good, consistent resolution across the frame, and isn't priced or sized outside of it's contemporaries, you've got a good normal all-arounder.
The ideal normal all-arounder would only need to be stopped down to increase depth of field. It would also trade in the FE 50's mid-zone dip for Otus' gentle mid-zone rise while maintaining the FE's resolution highs.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's the main difference. The planar rendering is slightly harsher at the focus transition zone and the very high contrast contaminates that area as well. However, this high micro-contrast combined with superb resolution creates a very nice effect. (pop)
The 50/1.4 ZA is technically close to perfection and it has a unique look but it's not for everyone. My Loxia 50/2 has similar characteristics.
Agreed. I love mine, but I don't need it to be a landscape lens in the traditional sense. It won't see any time on a tripod, anyway.
freaklikeme wrote:
A good normal all-arounder should be able to satisfactorily handle everything from head and shoulders portrait distances to big landscapes, even when it's understood that optimal performance isn't achieved wide-open. You might even appreciation some under correction at wide apertures, particularly where SA is concerned, since that will lead to creamier bokeh and a softer touch with human skin. So long as the bulk of the issues are gone by 5.6, it has good, consistent resolution across the frame, and isn't priced or sized outside of it's contemporaries, you've got a good normal all-arounder.
The ideal normal all-arounder would only need to be stopped down to increase depth of field. It would also trade in the FE 50's mid-zone dip for Otus' gentle mid-zone rise while maintaining the FE's resolution highs.
I was thinking that the criticism regarding the 35mm f/1.4 ZM as an all arounder, as defined above, would result in another 35mm being suggested. Perhaps, most would reach for a 50mm.. an easier focal length to design.
bwcolor wrote:
The explanation above sounds like a good ideal, but what lenses meet, or approach your standards?
I don't think any lens has reached the ideal performance yet, nor have I used every lens (despite what my financial advisor might tell you). The ones I've used that come closest are the Otus 55 (I'm not as big a fan of the 85 and haven't gotten my paws on a 28 yet, but it looks awesome), the ZM Distagon 35/1.4 (on an RF), the Canon 35L II (on a Canon body), the Lecia APO-Summicron 50 (on an RF), the Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8, the Leica APO-Telyt-R 280/4, and the Canon 500/4L.
I see the FE 50 more along line the lines of Summilux-ASPH 50. It's a very high performing lens from wide open with some quirks that may or may not bother you, but they never completely go away.
bwcolor wrote:
I was thinking that the criticism regarding the 35mm f/1.4 ZM as an all arounder, as defined above, would result in another 35mm being suggested. Perhaps, most would reach for a 50mm.. an easier focal length to design.
Did I say the ZM Distagon 35 isn't a great all-arounder? On an RF body, it's near-perfect.
freaklikeme wrote:
Did I say the ZM Distagon 35 isn't a great all-arounder? On an RF body, it's near-perfect.
Ok..perhaps missing cost containment, but it is less than some lenses. I'm mulling over the sale of three of my 35mm lenses, so I appreciate your take. Of course, we all have different shooting styles and interest. My Ziess Biogon 35mm f/2.8c rarely comes off my M6 and won't be sold. It has been my perfect..imperfect lens.
bwcolor wrote:
Ok..perhaps missing cost containment, but it is less than some lenses. I'm mulling over the sale of three of my 35mm lenses, so I appreciate your take. Of course, we all have different shooting styles and interest. My Ziess Biogon 35mm f/2.8c rarely comes off my M6 and won't be sold. It has been my perfect..imperfect lens.
Oh, if we're talking film, that Biogon would be the last lens I'd lose. Tiny, distortion-free, and the only real downsides are flare and contrast loss in heavy backlighting, right? A friend of mine has one he uses on a film MP, and it's an enviable combination of performance, size and price.
ecarlino wrote:
could you please explain what an "all-arounder" is ?
i always took that to be a lens that does well at/near wide-open at closer distances and also stopped-down at landscape distances - is that what you mean?
for me personally, a lens needs to have some tasteful flaws wide open (they have to be the right flaws) at close to mid distance while having good performance across the frame at any distance by f/4 or at least f/5.6 for it to be a good all rounder. a lens like the otus and this new FE lens just don't appeal to me because i find their wide open performance to be rather unappealing (also the huge size...). it works well for a certain type of shot, but not any better than the same shot would be at f/2 imo. this makes them more of a specialty lens for me and is a reason i'm not terribly enamored with most modern lenses.
