Yea looks like more purple fringing but if you look at F2 I see a big jump in sharpness on the 50. Honestly I’ll never shoot it at 1.2 but more like 1.6 or 1.7 whichever comes up. It’s like any other 1.4 lens of even the highest quality that 1/3 of a stop is usually so much better at 1.6 or so. To me more typical than not. Really what’s going to count is the ability to focus at 1.2 or so. That’s a big one in lower light. I’m also betting that with focus peaking on your going to see more points on the 50 because of the slightly higher contrast. That’s one thing I’m seeing in this test is the micro contrast and or higher contrast in the 50 at all apertures
Disregard the "f/1.2" comparison for center, mid and extreme corners. (now removed from the first page)
Only f/2 and smaller apertures' crops were accurate and here is why:
The f/1.2 crops had been 'focused' at f/2 and then I just opened the aperture to f/1.2 without refocusing. I did that because I thought focus shift was not an issue with the 50/1.2 from a preliminary test but that's definitely not the case. The below comparison shows both lenses are very similar when focused at f/1.2!
So, I'm certain that focus shift was the reason for this discrepancy. From what's worth, they perform similarly at f/1.2 and the 50mm does slightly better at center with smaller apertures.
Both lenses focused at f/1.2 (No significant difference)
Did you turn the automatic CA-correction off?
I'm asking because of the 50mm shots looking sharp but there is a lack of details especially around contrasty areas. And I can see also halos (roofs to mountains) and a magenta cast in very busy areas (foliage). All that looks much better after f2.
If it is on, it would explain my findings and it seems that this lens has a lot of CA with the fastest apertures (even more than the CV40).
sebbe wrote:
Did you turn the automatic CA-correction off?
I'm asking because of the 50mm shots looking sharp but there is a lack of details especially around contrasty areas. And I can see also halos (roofs to mountains) and a magenta cast in very busy areas (foliage). All that looks much better after f2.
If it is on, it would explain my findings and it seems that this lens has a lot of CA with the fastest apertures (even more than the CV40).
It was off 'in-camera' an in Lightroom but that does not matter as some lenses apply correction to the RAW file anyways. The only way to really know if to tape the electronic contacts. I will check this in detail when I test it for LaCA and LoCA. My preliminary test shows they have very similar color aberration correction.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It was off 'in-camera' an in Lightroom but that does not matter as some lenses apply correction to the RAW file anyways. The only way to really know if to tape the electronic contacts. I will check this in detail when I test it for LaCA and LoCA. My preliminary test shows they have very similar colour aberration correction.
I had the same question with the Tamron 28-75 a few weeks ago. As far as I remember it was impossible (or difficult?) to deselect it in LR with certain lenses (like you wrote) but it's easy to uncheck it in capture one. If you don't use C1 you can send me the raw file of the f1.2 to f2.8 shots and I test it. But it will be Sunday and maybe I'm just wrong with all my considerations.
pdmphoto wrote:
I'd still see the 40 has having better IQ in the center wide open.
I am trying to learn. Can you comment on this a bit more? Keep in mind that the focal length differs and thus you see more detail when comparing the images, e.g., the houses, and this enables you to spot tiny issues more readily. But to me, this would not be about IQ. In fact, I cannot see any real differences starting from f2 in terms of image quality or sharpness. I would be very happy if somebody can give me a hand.
sebbe wrote:
I had the same question with the Tamron 28-75 a few weeks ago. As far as I remember it was impossible (or difficult?) to deselect it in LR with certain lenses (like you wrote) but it's easy to uncheck it in capture one. If you don't use C1 you can send me the raw file of the f1.2 to f2.8 shots and I test it. But it will be Sunday and maybe I'm just wrong with all my considerations.
Here's the picture from the tamron 28-75 (lower right corner @28mm/f2.8).
Left C1 with CA turned off shows CA.
But LR on the right correct CA even it is turned off.
If I turn it on CA disappear in C1 and in LR there is just a slight improvement on top.
hanay78 wrote:
Fred, in your opinion how this compare with Summicron-M 50 or with Lox 50? Just your impression. Regards and thanks for the very interesting review
Hanay,
Strictly for landscapes, it's hard to beat the Loxia 50/2. It's lighter, native and outstanding across the field starting at f/5.6.
Both 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 Noktons can definitely be used for landscapes at f/5.6 but the corners do not match the Loxia even at small apertures.
Here is a comparison between the Loxia 50/2 vs 50/1.2 Nokton (Both at f/8)...The lighting is different since these images were not captured on the same day.
Loxia 50/2 (left) | CV 50/1.2 (right) - Both at f/8 (Extreme corner)
amazing and intersting comparison. What about color and contrast? any impressions?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hanay,
Strictly for landscapes, it's hard to beat the Loxia 50/2. It's lighter, native and outstanding across the field starting at f/5.6.
Both 40/1.2 and 50/1.2 Noktons can definitely be used for landscapes at f/5.6 or f/8 but the corners do not match the Loxia even at small apertures.
Here is a comparison between the Loxia 50/2 vs 50/1.2 Nokton (Both at f/8)...The lighting is different since these images were not captured on the same day.
Just caps. It has 52mm filter thread just like your other Loxias.
