3. 7Artisans 28/1.4 - Surprisingly good! If the same lens would have been a Zeiss they could easily have charged 2-3 times higher price. It's sharp, minor CA, nice bokeh and rendering.
Interesting lens. I bought one of their lenses to play around with (12/2.8) even though an APSC lens on FF. Works if cropped to around 16mm. I checked this lens out on YouTube, looks really good. I have to say the build quality of what seems to be all metal construction of both Laowa and & Artisans seems to be really good.
1. The Canon FDn 50mm f 1.8: This was my first prime lens, My father bought me a AE-1 with a 35-105 zoom after I finished high school. I bought the 50 soon after to get something "fast". It was revelation. Not so much because of the aperture but because I clicked with the 50mm focal length. I never ran out of things to shoot with that lens. I've been a 50mm guy ever since. It was also the lens that made me want to see if I could make some money doing this photography thing. It's not the fastest, sharpest or coolest lens ever made but it started something....
2. Hasselblad XPan 45mm f4: My first rangefinder experience. My first panoramic experience. I shot with only this lens for a couple of years, personally. I had gear I used to make money but really only shot the XPan for myself. And I never shot with it on a job because I didn't want to ruin how I felt about it. It took ages until I could afford the 30 and 90mm but I still shot 80% on the 45mm. Part of this was the camera. I loved my XPan and it's the only film camera I regret selling, although I know I wouldn't have used it much. Every time I left the house I had my XPan and 45mm with me. Medium format in such a tiny optical jewel. Even today I would pay a LOT of money for a true digital panoramic camera that wasn't just a crop of a larger sensor. And the 45mm XPan has made me buy a lot of panoramic gear to try and get the same look digitally.
3. Tough choice for the last one. I have a few contenders. I'll not choose the CV50mm 1.5 Nokton LTM. Even though it was my gateway into Leica M and the images I get with it blow me away sometimes, mostly now I'm using the newer 1.2 version. I'll not choose the Leica SL 50mm 1.4. Probably the best 50 I've ever used (BIG claim!!) because I don't pick it up every day (it's not a size thing) and I'm probably going to get the Summicron when it arrives for travelling.
My third choice is the Hasselblad XCD 80mm 1.9. This thing is so good I'm building my whole X1D kit around it. It's unbelievable. I never thought I'd find an intermediate focal length (it's a 65mm evuiv) so easy to work with. It's like my two favourite focal lengths (50 and 85) got together and made me an all-rounder. If I were restricted to one lens for the next year this would be it without a doubt.
Gordon
Jul 04, 2019 at 05:11 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
1. The Canon FDn 50mm f 1.8: This was my first prime lens, My father bought me a AE-1 with a 35-105 zoom after I finished high school. I bought the 50 soon after to get something "fast". It was revelation. Not so much because of the aperture but because I clicked with the 50mm focal length. I never ran out of things to shoot with that lens. I've been a 50mm guy ever since. It was also the lens that made me want to see if I could make some money doing this photography thing. It's not the fastest, sharpest or coolest lens ever made but it started something....
2. Hasselblad XPan 45mm f4: My first rangefinder experience. My first panoramic experience. I shot with only this lens for a couple of years, personally. I had gear I used to make money but really only shot the XPan for myself. And I never shot with it on a job because I didn't want to ruin how I felt about it. It took ages until I could afford the 30 and 90mm but I still shot 80% on the 45mm. Part of this was the camera. I loved my XPan and it's the only film camera I regret selling, although I know I wouldn't have used it much. Every time I left the house I had my XPan and 45mm with me. Medium format in such a tiny optical jewel. Even today I would pay a LOT of money for a true digital panoramic camera that wasn't just a crop of a larger sensor. And the 45mm XPan has made me buy a lot of panoramic gear to try and get the same look digitally.
3. Tough choice for the last one. I have a few contenders. I'll not choose the CV50mm 1.5 Nokton LTM. Even though it was my gateway into Leica M and the images I get with it blow me away sometimes, mostly now I'm using the newer 1.2 version. I'll not choose the Leica SL 50mm 1.4. Probably the best 50 I've ever used (BIG claim!!) because I don't pick it up every day (it's not a size thing) and I'm probably going to get the Summicron when it arrives for travelling.
My third choice is the Hasselblad XCD 80mm 1.9. This thing is so good I'm building my whole X1D kit around it. It's unbelievable. I never thought I'd find an intermediate focal length (it's a 65mm evuiv) so easy to work with. It's like my two favourite focal lengths (50 and 85) got together and made me an all-rounder. If I were restricted to one lens for the next year this would be it without a doubt.
I love 80mm (I use the Contax 645 80 f/2 and the Leica R 80 f/1.4) on the 44 X 33 sensor as well, it really isn't an intermediate focal length at all when cropped to 4 X 3 or squarer it has the angle of view of a 58mm on FF 35mm. So, really a pretty classic focal length for portraits.
hiepphotog wrote: , I get it! I take it that you fully migrated to Leica?
Not really but I have been shooting Leica for many years. Been shooting 95% film the past year or so and really haven't shot digital. The 50lux is something special though.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I love 80mm (I use the Contax 645 80 f/2 and the Leica R 80 f/1.4) on the 44 X 33 sensor as well, it really isn't an intermediate focal length at all when cropped to 4 X 3 or squarer it has the angle of view of a 58mm on FF 35mm. So, really a pretty classic focal length for portraits.
It's a 65mm on the X1D. Not a focal length I've ever shot. I also never really shot 58mm ( a few 55's though). I've been a 50/85mm shooter for 25 years. This is something new, for me.
Gordon
Jul 05, 2019 at 04:38 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
It's a 65mm on the X1D. Not a focal length I've ever shot. I also never really shot 58mm ( a few 55's though). I've been a 50/85mm shooter for 25 years. This is something new, for me.
Gordon
Gordon the 80 f/1.9 only has the angle of view of a 65mm FF lens on the X1D if you shoot with a 3 X 2 aspect ratio (or a skinnier rectangle like a panorama). If you compare 4 X 3 or any squarer aspect ratio like 4 X 5 on both cameras (and I like squarer aspect ratios and especially so for portraits), then the 80 f/1.9 on the X1D will have the same angle of view as a 58mm lens on FF 35mm. So whether it has the angle of view of a 65mm or a 58mm depends on which aspect ratio you use. I almost always use 4 X 3 or squarer so for me I think about it as a 58mm lens. If you almost always shoot 3 X 2 then yes it is a 65mm, but I find it useful to keep in mind the look of lenses compared to FF 35mm are quite different depending on the aspect ratio you choose.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Gordon the 80 f/1.9 only has the angle of view of a 65mm FF lens on the X1D if you shoot with a 3 X 2 aspect ratio (or a skinnier rectangle like a panorama). If you compare 4 X 3 or any squarer aspect ratio like 4 X 5 on both cameras (and I like squarer aspect ratios and especially so for portraits), then the 80 f/1.9 on the X1D will have the same angle of view as a 58mm lens on FF 35mm. So whether it has the angle of view of a 65mm or a 58mm depends on which aspect ratio you use. I almost always use 4 X 3 or squarer so for me I think about it as a 58mm lens. If you almost always shoot 3 X 2 then yes it is a 65mm, but I find it useful to keep in mind the look of lenses compared to FF 35mm are quite different depending on the aspect ratio you choose....Show more →
Are you sure? Hasselblad list the 80mm (listed by HB as an 80.5) as a 63mm equiv. I checked with an online calculator and an 80mm on a 44x33mm sensor has the same *diagonal* AOV as a 63mm on 135 format. (37.9 degrees). Obviously as the ratios are different there's no direct equivalence but the diagonal measurement is what is accepted as the norm. The ratio is 0.79x.
Matching the horizontal AOV (which with the same ratio would match a 35mm focal length equivalent) you get an equivalent of 65.4mm.
It seems to indicate that it's a 63mm when measured on the full diagonal frame.
Gordon
Jul 06, 2019 at 04:03 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
Are you sure? Hasselblad list the 80mm (listed by HB as an 80.5) as a 63mm equiv. I checked with an online calculator and an 80mm on a 44x33mm sensor has the same *diagonal* AOV as a 63mm on 135 format. (37.9 degrees). Obviously as the ratios are different there's no direct equivalence but the diagonal measurement is what is accepted as the norm. The ratio is 0.79x.
Matching the horizontal AOV (which with the same ratio would match a 35mm focal length equivalent) you get an equivalent of 65.4mm.
It seems to indicate that it's a 63mm when measured on the full diagonal frame.
Yes, I am sure. When you compare using the diagonal you are comparing a shot on a 44 X 33 sensor that is using a 4 X 3 aspect ratio with a shot on FF 35mm sensor that uses a 3 X 2 aspect ratio, thus the shots don't even look the same. That gets you a number in the middle but it doesn't let you compare apples to apples. Here is a nice on line calculator developed by Lee Saxon who often posts here:
If you use Lee's calculator and compare sensors by width you will get the number for a 3 X 2 aspect ratio (or a skinnier rectangle like a panorama). If you use Lee's calculator and compare sensor by height you get the number for a 4 X 3 aspect ratio (or anything squarer, e.g., 4 X 5, 6 X 7, 1 X 1). You can select the diagonal but then you aren't comparing shots with a similar aspect ratio. Using Lee's calculator the 80 f/1.9 (which is more precisely 80.5) is a 66.2mm f/1.56 FF 35mm equivalent when cropped to 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle. It is a 58.7mm f/1.39 equivalent when cropped to 4 X 3 or squarer.
Yes, it makes total sense to compare sensors by width if you typically use a 3 X 2 aspect ratio or an even skinnier rectangle like a panorama, but if like me you typically use a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio (I actually use 4 X 5 the most) then it makes total sense to compare sensors by height. If you go back and forth quite often it is useful to compare both ways so you know what you will be getting with each aspect ratio.
Yes, I am sure. When you compare using the diagonal you are comparing a shot on a 44 X 33 sensor that is using a 4 X 3 aspect ratio with a shot on FF 35mm sensor that uses a 3 X 2 aspect ratio, thus the shots don't even look the same. That gets you a number in the middle but it doesn't let you compare apples to apples. Here is a nice on line calculator developed by Lee Saxon who often posts here:
If you use Lee's calculator and compare sensors by width you will get the number for a 3 X 2 aspect ratio (or a skinnier rectangle like a panorama). If you use Lee's calculator and compare sensor by height you get the number for a 4 X 3 aspect ratio (or anything squarer, e.g., 4 X 5, 6 X 7, 1 X 1). You can select the diagonal but then you aren't comparing shots with a similar aspect ratio. Using Lee's calculator the 80 f/1.9 (which is more precisely 80.5) is a 66.2mm f/1.56 FF 35mm equivalent when cropped to 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle. It is a 58.7mm f/1.39 equivalent when cropped to 4 X 3 or squarer....Show more →
Oh, I see what you're doing now. You could have just said it has the width of a 65 and the height of a 58 equiv. Sorry, I was looking for how you crop a 44x33 sensor from an 80 to make it a 58. Never occurred to me you were cropping the 35mm frame.
So as I said a XCD 80mm cropped to a 35mm frame IS a 65mm.
Gordon
Jul 06, 2019 at 09:05 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
Oh, I see what you're doing now. You could have just said it has the width of a 65 and the height of a 58 equiv. Sorry, I was looking for how you crop a 44x33 sensor from an 80 to make it a 58. Never occurred to me you were cropping the 35mm frame.
So as I said a XCD 80mm cropped to a 35mm frame IS a 65mm.
Gordon
Yes, an XCD 80mm if you crop it to a 3 X 2 ratio it is a 65mm. If you really prefer a 3 X 2 ratio, however, then you end up not using the whole sensor of a 44 X 33 sensor camera. A 44 X 33 sensor camera makes a lot more sense, IMO, if you prefer squarer ratio like 4 X 3, 4 X 5, 6 X 7, or 1 X 1. If that is your preference (like it is mine) then it is frustrating that with FF 35mm you aren't using the whole sensor and it is a nice change when you can use all of it or almost all of the sensor of the medium format camera.
Nikon 75mm f/4.5 lens for 4x5 view cameras. Stunning rendering. Zero flare. Amazing landscape lens. It laughs at Leica and Hasselblad with their cute little lenses. 😀
Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye for Sony E mount. Small, sharp, fast and cheap. Very fun lens.
Loxia 21 for Sony FE. Might be the definitive modern landscape lens.
#1. Pentax 6x7 45mm f4. My first real wide angle. Terrific lens, always did what I wanted it to do. Sold most of that system, but still have a body and that lens, just so I can remind myself what this is about.
#2. Contax 28mm f2.8. Don't need to add anything.
#3. Canon 40mm Pancake. Not sexy, not the latest greatest, but always there, always dependable, never demanding.
, I get it! I take it that you fully migrated to Leica?