Sacrilege! I swear, I meant to take this image at f/1.2 but my fat index finger touch the aperture dial by accident. The same goes for the ISO dial that got nudged away from the Auto ISO setting….
AGeoJO wrote:
Sacrilege! I swear, I meant to take this image at f/1.2 but my fat index finger touch the aperture dial by accident. The same goes for the ISO dial that got nudged away from the Auto ISO setting….
lensfan wrote:
Any 'pop' added in post or this is completely distance separation?
No added blur.
Indeed, it's a modern rendering lens to me. Damn sharp but less 3d pop / bokeh smooth rendering than my beloved 58 1.4. I like this 50GM a lot ! It's not the same goal to reach for when you have both lenses.
This separation feels a bit unnatural to me at 50mm - as if background and subject were from different shots or some popping added in post. Beginning of a new era?
Clinical bokeh - is it a term?
lensfan wrote:
This separation feels a bit unnatural to me at 50mm - as if background and subject were from different shots or some popping added in post. Beginning of a new era?
Clinical bokeh - is it a term?
I've been shooting like this for 10 years so "new era" depends on your time definitions...at some degree 1 year can be a lot of time
I shoot with the Nikon 50 1.2 wide open A LOT. This is about on par with the Nikon version.
Examples: Z09_6185 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Z09_9121 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Z09_9278 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Z09_1864 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr lensfan wrote:
Have you got similar "detached" portraits from 50mm Canikon? Would be very interesting to see how they compare
JadedWriter wrote:
I shoot with the Nikon 50 1.2 wide open A LOT. This is about on par with the Nikon version.
Thank you!
These images are great but look more 'traditional'/organic to my eye - giving sharp subject with melted background. My impression, the subject is somewhat separated from the background, but its borders still blend with the environment.
However, it could be more uniform/melted background that gives me that impression which is what I'm used to see compared to more structured/busy (not in a bad way) brick background on GM's shots?
Was there artificial light or reflector used on the model, jefonyx?
I could've bought the GM, but I preferred the rendering of the Nikon version and at this point stopped being overly enamored with shooting Sony. lensfan wrote:
Thank you!
These images are great but look more 'traditional'/organic to my eye - giving sharp subject with melted background. My impression, the subject is somewhat separated from the background, but its borders still blend with the environment.
However, it could be more uniform/melted background that gives me that impression which is what I'm used to see compared to more structured/busy (not in a bad way) brick background on GM's shots?
Was there artificial light or reflector used on the model, jefonyx?
I don't know what the Sony does, all I know is that I was never impressed with it compared to the Nikon the way Manny Ortiz was. I honestly think you only buy the GM if you're either locked into Sony or don't like the size of the Nikon version. lensfan wrote:
In the shots provided Sony feels to have more 'analytical bokeh' compared to more traditional background obliteration by Nikon - am I wrong here?
Anyways, I think they are all pretty close and it's up to personal preferences or factors other than IQ (funnily enough, it's Nikon's bokeh that I've seen mentioned as trailing behind the other two in a couple reviews...).
Another funny story comes from this very forum, where somebody compared Canon to Nikon directly and the former came quite quite a bit sharper, to the point of others suggesting the latter is a bad copy.
Jefonyx and I literally shoot and edit too differently for it to even be a valid comparison. I honestly hated Manny's childish dig at Nikon if this is the video that I think it is. Manny's Sony and dabbles in other things. I don't mind him at all, but I don't exactly hold him to much of a high standard anymore. You probably can't pay me to buy into Canon, but I heard good things about their 50 and 85 1.2 lenses. Looking at the Manny one...again...for like the 3rd time in my existence of watching it and yeah it's got that same childish douchebag intro that I remember it having, which is why I can't take this seriously. j4nu wrote:
I think it's a bit rough to compare the 2 lenses given the samples above, as they were shot in completely different conditions.
Having said that, there are some direct comparisons if anyone is interested: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/its-official-sony-now-has-the-best-50mm-lens-for-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras https://www.thephoblographer.com/2022/02/03/4-of-the-best-50mm-f1-2-lenses-weve-reviewed/
or less direct, as lenstip results...
Anyways, I think they are all pretty close and it's up to personal preferences or factors other than IQ (funnily enough, it's Nikon's bokeh that I've seen mentioned as trailing behind the other two in a couple reviews...).
Another funny story comes from this very forum, where somebody compared Canon to Nikon directly and the former came quite quite a bit sharper, to the point of others suggesting the latter is a bad copy.
