Anyone tried a Voigtlander 12mm f5.6 verIII with the hood trimmed? I'm considering trimming mine as it looks like it could cover well without the hood.
BrandonSi wrote:
Initial results are pushing towards the 14-24 being the better of the two lenses on the GFX 100 platform..
When I was deciding between the two Sigma ARTs (12-24 and 14-24) in spring of 2020, I went with the 12-24 because I had seen samples showing good sharpness and coverage at 15mm or so. I also bought it mis-remembering that Sigma provided a hood removal service for the lens thinking I could get even wider coverage (and the 12-24 performs better the wider it gets). When I contacted Sigma they said they only offered that service with the 14-24, and further that they "didn't support" the Fuji cameras. I wound up shaving the hood on my own, actually not too difficult (detailed on a dpreview thread), and found that the 12-24 covers to about 13.5mm with good sharpness to the corners, though a bit of field curvature. If I had gone with the 14-24 I wouldn't hesitate to take up Sigma's service option and get the hood professionally removed. My 12-24 hood is now a bit fiddly since I have to velcro it to the lens proper.
C.Wimpy wrote:
When I was deciding between the two Sigma ARTs (12-24 and 14-24) in spring of 2020, I went with the 12-24 because I had seen samples showing good sharpness and coverage at 15mm or so. I also bought it mis-remembering that Sigma provided a hood removal service for the lens thinking I could get even wider coverage (and the 12-24 performs better the wider it gets). When I contacted Sigma they said they only offered that service with the 14-24, and further that they "didn't support" the Fuji cameras. I wound up shaving the hood on my own, actually not too difficult (detailed on a dpreview thread), and found that the 12-24 covers to about 13.5mm with good sharpness to the corners, though a bit of field curvature. If I had gone with the 14-24 I wouldn't hesitate to take up Sigma's service option and get the hood professionally removed. My 12-24 hood is now a bit fiddly since I have to velcro it to the lens proper. ...Show more →
I saw that thread in my research.. I was very impressed with your plastic cutting skills.
engardeknave wrote:
Yes, and basketball players are not tall because you saw a child shooting hoops at a park. Let's break out those Canon 85/1.4 sales figures and compare to the Petval monolith that is taking photography by storm.
I don't even know why I'm still taking to you people. As if 90% of every lens review isn't about sharpness. Total insanity.
It might be that you simply can't understand well presented points beyond your own opinion.
See if I can make it simpler enough for you to understand.
A lens is reviewed for sharpness to measure it's maximum sharpness as there are many many times when sharpness is wanted and ideal for certain types of photography...but when it comes to portraiture your earlier answer of sharpness is universally wanted is actually universally rejected by those photographers who know more about portraiture than you do. Think in your mind about your favorite memories of looking at a loved one's face.....in that memory...do you see every pore and every flaw in their skin and every blade of their eyelashes...or no?.....you see their expression and their skin was just not the dominant feature being remembered...their skin wasn't magnified in clarity beyond what your eye took in at the time of perception...right?...and so....when taking portraits of a loved one, or hired to take the portrait of someone by that person's loved one (getting tired of saying loved one)....well....they want a portrait that captures the person's likeness and personality in a lighting arrangement that is artistically complimentary basically but are NOT generally wanting a hyper acute medical presentation of the dermatological topography of their face that comes with a built in pore schematic so they can map out which nose hairs need later trimming. And hence....lenses of less than razor wow sharpness are wanted for those images...they render skin with a more gentle rolloff between flaws in the skin....photographers like Karsh, Eugene Smith, and many many many others all chose lenses based on the collective qualities that fit the need...they didn't hunt down the sharpest lens possible and use it for all applications. READING more than your own opinion would expose you to this well documented fact that's been known for decades...so not sure why you haven't bothered to read before you launch your attitude fest in this forum. You are very unaware of basic photography it seems.
Car reviews 90% of the time include 0-60 times.....I don't see too many people doing 0-60 over 90% of the time they drive....so oh no....what has happened to logic? It's so illogical all of a sudden....I'll just hold to my opinion though because no one is smarter than I am forever and before eternity began....or...oh...it might be that for those that have a need to know what that stat means beyond just a 0-60 time simply use it to make informed decisions even though they're not buying the car to use it's maximum acceleration. Lens reviews review every feature of a lens....to convey if it's the right tool for the job in mind of the person absorbing the review. Look up portrait lens reviews sometime....gasp....the well educated writers emphasize how complimentary the lens renders without being TOO sharp...since sharpness is a thing to be avoided for certain applications....as in you know.....like when those amateur film makers in Hollywood DIFFUSE a sharp lens for an artistic effect or to soften skin tones or cause halation's for an aesthetic effect....but hey....don't talk to us in this forum....it's impossible for us idiots to know anywhere's near as much as you know since your knowledge existed before learning did. Congrats my man....a common gift nowadays. But no need to share it....we'll do the learning the old school way....by listening and having polite discussion.
LocoPhoto wrote:
It might be that you simply can't understand well presented points beyond your own opinion.
See if I can make it simpler enough for you to understand.
A lens is reviewed for sharpness to measure it's maximum sharpness as there are many many times when sharpness is wanted and ideal for certain types of photography...but when it comes to portraiture your earlier answer of sharpness is universally wanted is actually universally rejected by those photographers who know more about portraiture than you do. Think in your mind about your favorite memories of looking at a loved one's face.....in that memory...do you see every pore and every flaw in their skin and every blade of their eyelashes...or no?.....you see their expression and their skin was just not the dominant feature being remembered...their skin wasn't magnified in clarity beyond what your eye took in at the time of perception...right?...and so....when taking portraits of a loved one, or hired to take the portrait of someone by that person's loved one (getting tired of saying loved one)....well....they want a portrait that captures the person's likeness and personality in a lighting arrangement that is artistically complimentary basically but are NOT generally wanting a hyper acute medical presentation of the dermatological topography of their face that comes with a built in pore schematic so they can map out which nose hairs need later trimming. And hence....lenses of less than razor wow sharpness are wanted for those images...they render skin with a more gentle rolloff between flaws in the skin....photographers like Karsh, Eugene Smith, and many many many others all chose lenses based on the collective qualities that fit the need...they didn't hunt down the sharpest lens possible and use it for all applications. READING more than your own opinion would expose you to this well documented fact that's been known for decades...so not sure why you haven't bothered to read before you launch your attitude fest in this forum. You are very unaware of basic photography it seems.
Car reviews 90% of the time include 0-60 times.....I don't see too many people doing 0-60 over 90% of the time they drive....so oh no....what has happened to logic? It's so illogical all of a sudden....I'll just hold to my opinion though because no one is smarter than I am forever and before eternity began....or...oh...it might be that for those that have a need to know what that stat means beyond just a 0-60 time simply use it to make informed decisions even though they're not buying the car to use it's maximum acceleration. Lens reviews review every feature of a lens....to convey if it's the right tool for the job in mind of the person absorbing the review. Look up portrait lens reviews sometime....gasp....the well educated writers emphasize how complimentary the lens renders without being TOO sharp...since sharpness is a thing to be avoided for certain applications....as in you know.....like when those amateur film makers in Hollywood DIFFUSE a sharp lens for an artistic effect or to soften skin tones or cause halation's for an aesthetic effect....but hey....don't talk to us in this forum....it's impossible for us idiots to know anywhere's near as much as you know since your knowledge existed before learning did. Congrats my man....a common gift nowadays. But no need to share it....we'll do the learning the old school way....by listening and having polite discussion.
...Show more →
I think sharpness is important even for portraiture. For me it's about data fidelity and the option to remove it is more important than not having access to it later. Even with advanced AI, it's harder to add realistic detail vs smoothing it out. Still photography is a slice of time objective of your own perceptions. Artists can choose to process each photo to match how they remembered it. For me and many of my gen/space, do notice pores, eyelashes, etc. even in casual interactions. I want to retain all those details for when I'm no longer to meet those people for whatever reasons.
Car reviews 0-60 times not because people are doing short drag races at each light, but because it's the metric range in which most people drive and the potential for acceleration.
The cinematographers in Hollywood use those diffusion filters mostly for atmosphere/halation in specific scenes. Nowadays, detail retrieval is actually quite important for lens selection on a high-end production which is why stuff like Arri Signature, Zeiss Master and Leitz Cines are used. This is due to higher res consumer (and larger) displays.
If they want to do a vintage look, they'll just use vintage cine lenses which already have softer optics. But that's usually to represent a past time period. Even fantasy movies are sharper now for a "realer" than life presence.
I think all the old masters should be studied and respected, but times have changed and resolution/detail is important. The next generation it will be even more so. I'm in the transitional generation and so I'm largely also into the gaming and digital art scene. Sharpness is one characteristic that is universally sought after as a base starting point.
Going back to the topic, I think the Rokinon 35mm f/1.2 SP seems to be really, really awesome for the price.
There is no right or wrong on this. The thing is preference or criterial of excellence are different, we shouldn’t think there is universal solution. I don’t know how individual use this system, or how he like his images looks. I will just say strong opinion is still an opinion.
Also, one thing I find if sharpness is important for certain subject or taste, most likely will benefit some more depth of field as well, stop down are alway possible. Many classical glasses may struggle a little bit at f1.4 or f1.2 but most are more than fine at f2.8 or f3.5 that Fuji native glasses offer.
ftllens wrote:
I think sharpness is important even for portraiture. For me it's about data fidelity and the option to remove it is more important than not having access to it later. Even with advanced AI, it's harder to add realistic detail vs smoothing it out. Still photography is a slice of time objective of your own perceptions. Artists can choose to process each photo to match how they remembered it. For me and many of my gen/space, do notice pores, eyelashes, etc. even in casual interactions. I want to retain all those details for when I'm no longer to meet those people for whatever reasons.
Car reviews 0-60 times not because people are doing short drag races at each light, but because it's the metric range in which most people drive and the potential for acceleration.
The cinematographers in Hollywood use those diffusion filters mostly for atmosphere/halation in specific scenes. Nowadays, detail retrieval is actually quite important for lens selection on a high-end production which is why stuff like Arri Signature, Zeiss Master and Leitz Cines are used. This is due to higher res consumer (and larger) displays.
If they want to do a vintage look, they'll just use vintage cine lenses which already have softer optics. But that's usually to represent a past time period. Even fantasy movies are sharper now for a "realer" than life presence.
I think all the old masters should be studied and respected, but times have changed and resolution/detail is important. The next generation it will be even more so. I'm in the transitional generation and so I'm largely also into the gaming and digital art scene. Sharpness is one characteristic that is universally sought after as a base starting point.
Going back to the topic, I think the Rokinon 35mm f/1.2 SP seems to be really, really awesome for the price.
In case it wasn't understood....I wasn't talking to you when I wrote my reply to the attitudinal post from the young kid that said "why do I even talk to you people".
I think everything you said...no offense...is stating the obvious of what all of the knowledgeable photographers were already know....and nothing about your comments is actually dead on accurate anyway to be honest. You also are obviously COMPLETELY missing my sarcasm and taking what is obviously said as a jab at the attitudinal kid as something I meant literally...but thanks for explaining on a junior high level what car acceleration means to adults. And getting it wrong.
I don't think you know anyone in Hollywood...I do...but it's not my world....but I've talked and learned a number of things from TD's and from special effects freelancers that were mentored by David Fincher working on The Matrix. Also have talked a few times with the TD that did the intro to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and others. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you're not familiar with the reality of feature films, you're just sharing basic info gleaned from Googling and YouTube.
"The cinematographers in Hollywood use those diffusion filters mostly for atmosphere/halation in specific scenes. " - Uhm....duh. Every choice is for a specific look for a certain scene in story telling. The actual point being made though was that sharpness in portrait lenses is not always the most sought after quality....and that was the topic being discussed.
"Nowadays, detail retrieval is actually quite important for lens selection on a high-end production which is why stuff like Arri Signature, Zeiss Master and Leitz Cines are used. This is due to higher res consumer (and larger) displays." - in other words you're saying people buy sharp lenses and you name some brands.....your point? You're teaching us is that it? Can we see your work please? I'm sure your work will speak of your caliber much more accurately than implying you're so familiar with high-end production work.
"If they want to do a vintage look, they'll just use vintage cine lenses which already have softer optics. But that's usually to represent a past time period." - you sure about that? You were on set were you? Because you're wrong actually.
"I think all the old masters should be studied and respected, but times have changed and resolution/detail is important." - you really weren't reading my post very accurately....no one here has ever said that resolution/detail is not important...nor was it unimportant in years and decades past....lenses that are decades old are actually highly capable of resolving brilliantly with stunning sharpness, contrast and micro-contrast. It's always been important...the point being made was that sharpness is not always the highest priority in a lens...that was the topic...that was the point......and no one here has argued that resolution/detail is unimportant.
" I'm in the transitional generation and so I'm largely also into the gaming and digital art scene. Sharpness is one characteristic that is universally sought after as a base starting point." - there IS no transitional generation right now...photography transitioned to digital decades ago...and so anything you're doing is not "transitional"....it's been commonplace for decades, as is hybrid stills/video shooting that really got popular in Japan many many years ago before coming to the U.S. with video advertising in hotels and restaurants in Japan being a huge catalyst to what we see in the U.S. now...and that's from talking to pro photographers that worked in Japan doing the work before it came over to the U.S..
Not attacking you...but your comments are not needed to my post where I was simply barking back a little at the problem child with the snotty attitude. And your "corrections" or "elucidations" are neither.
Letting this go, no need to waste time or escalate things, but let's all be civil or silent...we're all just here to learn and not bicker.
sfogg wrote:
Anyone tried a Voigtlander 12mm f5.6 verIII with the hood trimmed? I'm considering trimming mine as it looks like it could cover well without the hood.
In case anyone was curious about this I just finished surgery. You still get hard vignetting in the corners. But full coverage in 65:24 and 1:1.
In 65:24 it is extremely wide, around the same FOV as a 35mm swing lens panoramic but with a very different look.
Screen shot is just a test shot before and after petal removal. The after shot is wide open and focused at infinity. Raining now so other test shots later.
ftllens wrote:
I think sharpness is important even for portraiture.
A lens thats only sharp but offers nothing else is a very poor portraiture lens that will show people their skin flaws under the magnification glas.
I have used one such lens in the past, the Zeiss MAKRO-PLANAR 100mm f2 ZF. While being a good lens and a good macro lens, only kids really looked good with it. Everybody else, especially old people, didnt liked what they saw too much.
Thats despite the fact that the MAKRO-PLANAR has quite good bokeh and quite lovely color reproduction, too, though it also has a lot of CAs.
My AF 105mm f2 DC that I now use is also quite sharp, but mostly it really "paints" pictures and makes it easy to create stunning portraits. Its brothers AF 85mm f1.4 and AF 135mm f2 DC which I dont own personally but everyone can look up flickr do likewise. None of these lenses is soft (except if you abuse the DC mechanism) but they are, as Zack Arias said once about the 105/2DC specifically, "magical".
Plus of course the 105/2 DC can be turned into a soft focus lens by abusing the DC mechanism.
Plus OMG was the MAKRO-PLANAR hard to focus. That was no fun.
Zeiss lenses are good for reproducing natural (organic and random) textures with ample of details. They will be nasty when the model is less than ideal.
MJKoski wrote:
Zeiss lenses are good for reproducing natural (organic and random) textures with ample of details. They will be nasty when the model is less than ideal.
You obviously haven't tried many Zeiss lenses. It's a brand, not a lens type, and there are lots of Zeiss lenses that are great for portraits, while others are not.
I have used all classic Z-series lenses, most ZM lenses and currently have super rare 135/3.5 for 4x5". All make the model look hairy. Exception maybe 50/1.5C Sonnar and perhaps 50/1.4 & 85/1.4 wide open. Some zero-coated duds are different case maybe.
MJKoski wrote:
I have used all classic Z-series lenses, most ZM lenses and currently have super rare 135/3.5 for 4x5". All make the model look hairy. Exception maybe 50/1.5C Sonnar and perhaps 50/1.4 & 85/1.4 wide open. Some zero-coated duds are different case maybe.
So with at least three exceptions, why do you generalize and say that "Zeiss lenses" do this and that? I've had a ton of them and there really isn't any other property than the brand name that applies to each and all of them.
Of course I say that because I use my Zeiss lenses at optimal apertures and take photos of natural organic patterns. They are good at that. Most lenses are not.
MJKoski wrote:
Of course I say that because I use my Zeiss lenses at optimal apertures and take photos of natural organic patterns. They are good at that. Most lenses are not.
But you also said: "They will be nasty when the model is less than ideal."
...which is not true.
I think you should really try quitting making harsh generalizations about photo gear, because you do it very often. Yes, there are definitely some Zeiss lenses that would make "nasty" portraits, but far from all. And it applies to most lens brands that make high quality lenses. Fuji, for example.
MJKoski wrote:
I have used all classic Z-series lenses, most ZM lenses and currently have super rare 135/3.5 for 4x5". All make the model look hairy. Exception maybe 50/1.5C Sonnar and perhaps 50/1.4 & 85/1.4 wide open. Some zero-coated duds are different case maybe.
WHAT?!
Please show us sample images of a Zeiss lens (or ANY lens) that makes the model "look hairy".
Carl Zeiss AG have made many superlative portrait lenses over the past 70 years. In fact, unless designated as specialty optics like macros, you can assume their short telephotos will all be very good for people photography.
As some wags are wont to say: 'facts get shares, opinions get shrugs', so here are some serious comparisons between ranges of CZ portrait lenses:
On the latter set, I again make note of my wish that the relevant lens designers and producers - Zeiss and Cosina here - consider producing modern analogs of the best of their magnificent 20th century lenses. I guarantee they would sell like hotcakes! Back then the computer was something IBM stored in a giant temp controlled warehouse room, and lens design was a carefully managed guild activity.
(And you really want fast 80-130 kph (50-80mph) times to save your life on the road. 0-60 are just drags for fun.)
philip_pj wrote:
As some wags are wont to say: 'facts get shares, opinions get shrugs', so here are some serious comparisons between ranges of CZ portrait lenses:
Yea well, if you stop down let's say classic Z-series DSLR lenses, they are all critically sharp in the center and mid regions while the edges do suffer when paired to modern high MP cameras. Wide open is not that harsh. I tend to stop down the lenses to get acceptably sharp face instead of a fraction of eyelash or just the iris. What's the next step? To soften the image in post... Gosh! Instead of studio conditions, my opinion is that they are nice lenses for highly detailed content in the nature. Of course the opinion is wrong from some other PoV.
People tend to be more or less hairy (not totally plastic) without some care before a photoshoot. 50MP+ tends to show up some texture compared to 6MP or 12MP sensor cameras.
WHAT?! 
