hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
freaklikeme wrote:
Anytime. I forced myself to crash-course in video to change professions, and it has been a fun and wild ride. Compared to what's happening in video, the stills market looks anemic. If you've got a problem with video, someone, somewhere, is already working on a solution.
The Supremes do live up to their name, but the chief thing I've learned over the past three years is that what makes for a very exciting video lens translates to a transparent stills experience, but not necessarily the most exciting. In general, their focus roll-off is designed to be so gentle from about three meters out, it's enough to convince the eye more is in acceptable focus than the depth allows. It's an important trick for cine lenses, where speed is paramount and DPs like to move the camera a lot. It can be very handy for stills, particularly if you're trying to get a group shot two rows deep in available light, but it's also limiting. They also generally differentiate themselves with flatter fields at all distances and much lower resolution fall-off on the outer frame, even if that means accepting slightly lower overall resolution to maintain consistency. I remember people found it laughable the Otus 100 advertised lower resolution than the Sigma and Nikon 105s, but the 100 is far better at the edges than either of the others from wide open, and I assume that comes from it's Supreme DNA.
Where the APO-Sonnar 135 is an objectively inferior lens compared to the Supreme, I'd rather have it for stills. Wide open, it's got just the right amount of SA to be pleasingly gentle for portraits, but not so gentle that it loses it's strong subject definition and its lovely Sonnar bokeh. The resolution fall-off at the edges and the increased vignetting help with that. Stop it down to f/4 or greater and you get objective perfection. It's exactly the lens I want it to be, so I'm very thankful they didn't push for Otus or Supreme level performance (or labeling and pricing)....Show more →
Very interesting first-hand observations. I think dialing in the right amount of SA (right amount is also subjective) is super hard, even with the computer simulation, for the entire series. I imagine by doing so might interfere with the max resolution you can achieve at f/4-f/8. Sony did it with 2 lenses, the GM 85 and 24. They must have given up after that to go with the easier route and more recognizable qualities like sharpness, color correction, etc. (just like Canikon). I personally would like a more well thought out, purpose build line-up with top chart sharpness at all apertures, well corrected, bokeh be damned WA and UWA. For wide normal and normal, a more balanced build with a slight lean toward bokeh and rendering would be preferable. Then short tele to slightly longer, just the "right" amount of SA.
Back to this particular lens, I find it very appealing. Too bad the GM 50 just really fulfills all of my needs/wants at this focal length. Something like this at non-popular focal lengths like 100/1.4 or 28/1.4 would be great. I doubt Sony would make any of these any time soon.
|
