JadedWriter wrote:
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.
Yeah, he has his style which I guess caters to his audience. I only included that video because you mentioned it, as I've actually forgotten he even did that comparison. Chris Frost is kinda an opposite of him and he arrived at similar conclussions though...
Anyways, my point was that these lenses are quite close to each other, so one should look at direct comparisons when comparing rendering, bokeh, etc.
Yeah there are "differences," but I honestly consider them close enough for it to be a wash unless you have either no upper body strength or a wrist made out of graham crackers. I pop into this thread every so often and nothing in this thread makes me think I made a wrong purchasing decision. j4nu wrote:
Yeah, he has his style which I guess caters to his audience. I only included that video because you mentioned it, as I've actually forgotten he even did that comparison. Chris Frost is kinda an opposite of him and he arrived at similar conclussions though...
Anyways, my point was that these lenses are quite close to each other, so one should look at direct comparisons when comparing rendering, bokeh, etc.
j4nu wrote:
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.
I did that comparison and I remember Nikon lovers hated me for that I guess... But facts are facts, series of A/B shots between Canon 50 1.2 and Nikon 1.2S showed, sharpness wise, the Canon is sharper by a fair margin. Not that the Nikon is bad, but yeah. Canon's just ahead. The Nikon copy was sent back to Nikon France who told us that the copy were absolutely fine.
You won't tell a difference in the field, it's just nerd comparison from 2 distinct systems. 3 now that I have the 50GM too. All 3 lenses are superb. At least now for the 50 range, you can stick with your own brand without paying attention to the competition.
Very apples to oranges comparison due to different lighting conditions. I think lenstip reviewed both the Sony and Nikon lenses and showed the Sony to be technically better except for focus breathing if you care about that. There’s samples for rendering but I don’t see any benefit to the Nikon there.
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?
tzhang4284 wrote:
Very apples to oranges comparison due to different lighting conditions. I think lenstip reviewed both the Sony and Nikon lenses and showed the Sony to be technically better except for focus breathing if you care about that. There’s samples for rendering but I don’t see any benefit to the Nikon there.
These are portait lenses. Differences between them will be negligible in real application. Photographer's skills and cheating techniques like artificial lightning will make the difference here.
Agree lighting and skill probably makes a difference but if performance and rendering differences are negligible - I'll take the sharper, smaller and slightly cheaper lens with better AF
tzhang4284 wrote:
Agree lighting and skill probably makes a difference but if performance and rendering differences are negligible - I'll take the sharper, smaller and slightly cheaper lens with better AF
So, one should choose the lens native to their system.
I'm tempted to get one considering the quality of the gear but I know that I don't need it and won't be carrying it around. Should close the thread to avoid temptation.
lensfan wrote:
These are portait lenses. Differences between them will be negligible in real application. Photographer's skills and cheating techniques like artificial lightning will make the difference here.
I wouldn’t call it “cheating” though. It is a style of adding/creating fill-in light to “tame” the existing bright (or maybe harsh) lighting conditions, decreasing (deep) shadows, especially on the face of the model. If the available lights are direct but less harsh then it may render more 3-D effect on the model. I am referring more to the images posted on the previous page of this thread. Again, it is more a style or preference of individual photographers and less than the rendition of the lens or lenses, IMHO.
Off camera flash isn't cheating since you have to know what you're actually doing to make the best of it. You stand just as much of a chance ruining your image with it as much as you can by using natural light. lensfan wrote:
These are portait lenses. Differences between them will be negligible in real application. Photographer's skills and cheating techniques like artificial lightning will make the difference here.
AGeoJO wrote:
I wouldn’t call it “cheating” though.
By no means I'm talking about it in a mere negative way.
Photography is all about light and proper use of all lightning techniques available.
I don't often miss a lens after I sell it but I sure did when it comes to the 50mm 1.2 GM. As soon as I could I bought another one. So glad to have it back in my kit.
ILCE-1FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.21/6400s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.81/8000s160 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.21/4000s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.41/8000s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/2.81/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
Alex W wrote:
I don't often miss a lens after I sell it but I sure did when it comes to the 50mm 1.2 GM. As soon as I could I bought another one. So glad to have it back in my kit.
Sorry to bother you, but this kinda thing always attracts my attention:
that's really weird bokeh for A1 in shots #1 and partially in #3 too, were you shooting mechanical?
j4nu wrote:
Sorry to bother you, but this kinda thing always attracts my attention:
that's really weird bokeh for A1 in shots #1 and partially in #3 too, were you shooting mechanical?
Actually I think I was on both shots. I see what you mean. I was just walking around Clemson University taking shots and was in rarely used mechanical mode I believe.
j4nu wrote:
Sorry to bother you, but this kinda thing always attracts my attention:
that's really weird bokeh for A1 in shots #1 and partially in #3 too, were you shooting mechanical?
