Dear Mr. N.F.: In your golden hour, the dynamic range is erring on the side of shadows and blacks, and at the same time the colors are excessively yellow. No problem if you don't think so. If it was at the ocean the blues would also be going flat.
Moreover, without processing, good luck making any of those shots look good with any lens.
Well, I originally said that the Air's sharpness seemed a bit harsh to me. I wasn't talking about shadows being too deep, or colors being too deep.
As an LR Mobile user, what comes to mind in such cases is reducing sharpness and clarity, but that doesn't work as intended.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I was simply curious whether the difference in background blur at the same aperture is due more to the GM or the Air. I'm inclined to believe it's the Air, which has a bokeh effect that looks more like a 2.5 or 2.8 aperture than a 2.0 aperture.
Here's a long-range bokeh comparison. The Air at 2.0 actually looks about the same as the GM at 2.8. I really wish someone could do a direct 1:1 comparison of the Air at 2.0 with a 2.5 50G or a 2.8 zoom (24-50 or 24-70).
I think medium is a bit small at only 800 pixel (width).
In the area around the center of the image the background blur is the same. A bit away from the center the Viltrox produces less blur. I believe that is a result from strong vignetting in effect making outer parts of the image exposed as if the lens was stopped down.
Jonas B wrote:
I think medium is a bit small at only 800 pixel (width).
In the area around the center of the image the background blur is the same. A bit away from the center the Viltrox produces less blur. I believe that is a result from strong vignetting in effect making outer parts of the image exposed as if the lens was stopped down.
I chose the high resolution again because the medium resolution was worse.
Are you aware that the GM shot was taken at f/2.8!?
Jonas B wrote:
a) Thank you.
b) No, I was not. The image was marked f/2 until you edited the post.
Now that I am aware I'm puzzled. What exposure values were used for the images (I see no EXIF values)?
Just try again. Exif datas are available. I'll never understand why this is sometimes displayed with flickr and sometimes not. The exposure values match the apertures. At ISO 100, Air 2.0 and 1/2000s, GM 2.8 and 1/1000s.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Just try again. Exif datas are available. I'll never understand why this is sometimes displayed with flickr and sometimes not. The exposure values match the apertures. At ISO 100, Air 2.0 and 1/2000s, GM 2.8 and 1/1000s.
OK, I tried again. When looking you up at flickr it's possible to see the exposure values when looking at the images in the stream. Download an image and the EXIF is gone.
It's possible I make something wrong. I downloaded the large version using a link above the image when looking at the image.
It's still puzzling. When doing a similar thing but using the CV 50/1.2 instead of the slower Viltrox - what happens then?
Jonas you never blieved me with the APO vs Nokton xD. I think it's a similar thing with the viltrox but maybe more pronounced.
Nokton slightly wider focal length but more blurred at same aperture (see candles in top left).
I could be wrong, I dunno, it's something I'm open to because I did notice it in quite a few images when I had both.
Anyway, I was comparing a number of these compact 50s with a self-portrait test today and did notice the viltrox was indeed the sharpest of the bunch, even though I was mostly looking at overall image.
I don't own anything larger in size than the 50mm f1.4 II from samyang though.
Anyway, I was comparing quite a few of these compact 50s with a self-portrait test today and did notice the viltrox was indeed the sharpest. I don't own anything larger in size than the 50mm f1.4 II from samyang though.
Hi,
I remember that one of course. I sure believed it (after all it was I taking the images...) but I don't think I ever commented on it. There was a lot of other things going on and I simply don't know why we get these results. I think the exposure values were the same though in that comparison. It's possible that one is about vignetting!
Jonas B wrote:
When doing a similar thing but using the CV 50/1.2 instead of the slower Viltrox - what happens then?
I can't tell you, since I didn't take a picture with the Nokton at f/2.8, only at f/2.0. The significant difference between the Air and the 1.2 GM is at least partly due to the GM. I once saw comparison images of the 1.4 GM and the 1.2 GM, which showed that the 1.2 had stronger bokeh at the same aperture. At least at f/1.4, f/2.0, and f/2.8. Apparently, other apertures weren't tested. But if I remember correctly, the difference between the 1.2 GM and the 1.4 GM wasn't as drastic as the difference between the 1.2 GM and the Air.
I'll have a closer look at the Sony and Nokton images tomorrow.
Here is a Viltrox 50/2 from a walk today, no blur to ponder at all. A1, f2, no sharpening.
EDIT: Image removed, I'll have a long hard look into that blur.
Jonas B wrote:
...
Do you remember what thread that was in?
My one complaining about the zeiss 55mmf1.8 background blur being a lot. Which btw was constantly near the top of my own compact AF 50mm self-portrait comparison (from chest-up) today, probably in large part due to the same blur that I disliked for scenes. It was a boring background though, indoors.
Most of them are pretty good though, but the top two of the ones I have was quite consistent: samyang 50mm f1.4 II, zeiss 55mm f1.8. To my eyes anyway. This viltrox air was a little tough, better when I brought down clarity and texture. And a bit more 3D looking than the Sigma f2 dg dn, but it wasn't a scientific test and neither were my favourite for this purpose. More optimised for walkabouts those two (or one of them) I think.
I did nab that mobile app finally with the Sony, which actually works pretty well, fast live view, transferring the image etc. With the A7cII it's called Creators App, from Sony.
