NJPhotographer wrote:
The Tamron 35-150 is amazing, but quite heavy to carry!
That‘s why I just bought the Leica 24-90 Ha, would have been another interesting lens to join the field. Well, maybe next time.
Btw. I appreciate all your comments. It so interesting to learn what and how other people see, what preferences they have and why. It also teaches me to see better.
It's amazing we worry over lenses when the meaning and impact of this image changes nil given all those different lenses. And nobody would likely tell/ care of the miniscule differences.
AndrewNYC wrote:
It's amazing we worry over lenses when the meaning and impact of this image changes nil given all those different lenses. And nobody would likely tell/ care of the miniscule differences.
I mean sure. But almost everyone here is a hobbyist - it's supposed to be fun. Technical minutiae, hair splitting, blind A/B comparisons, debating small, likely insignificant details - all a damn good time
rob_ww wrote:
As with the Q28, the Q43 is too contrasty for my taste -- surprisingly unlike other Leica lenses IMHO.
Thank you for this comment. I feel exactly the same and until now I felt like I was the only one with this opinion. When it became clear that a Q with a standard lens would be coming, I thought it would be the perfect solution for me, since I basically only need a 50mm lens anyway. When I saw the photos, I was immediately extremely disappointed with the rendering, and that hasn't changed even after seeing hundreds of Q43 images. The image shown here also reminds me a lot of smartphone photos.
AndrewNYC wrote:
It's amazing we worry over lenses when the meaning and impact of this image changes nil given all those different lenses. And nobody would likely tell/ care of the miniscule differences.
And I'm surprised how one can draw such conclusions from a single comparison shot, especially a portrait with distant vegetation as a background. Incidentally, there are several videos on YouTube with 1:1 comparison photos from an iPhone and a full-frame camera, which show no discernible differences. ;-)
I'd like to point out that the smartphone comparison can be easily misunderstood. I didn't mean that the images are technically bad, but rather how they appear on the screen as a whole. Personally, I find the Q43's optics perfect for people who enjoy resolution tests, sharpness diagrams, and pixel peeling. But for me, this razor-like sharpness and extreme contrast ruin more than they contribute to a beautiful rendering. But that's a matter of taste, of course. I just wanted to express my joy that I'm not completely alone in this perception after all.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I'd like to point out that the smartphone comparison can be easily misunderstood. I didn't mean that the images are technically bad, but rather how they appear on the screen as a whole. Personally, I find the Q43's optics perfect for people who enjoy resolution tests, sharpness diagrams, and pixel peeling.[...]
Hmm. Isn't that what can be said about the Viltrox 50/2 AIR as well? (I'm under the impression you like the Viltrox.)
The image are processed and viewed compressed here on FM, but it is what it is. To me, the 50/1.2 wide open is special, but I am also really liking the Zeiss 2/40 if you can get by the busy background. Understanding the strength/weaknesses of this lens and shooting under the right circumstances should yield very compelling results IMO.
The odd result is the Leica, it appears more flat and cold to me. Sure, it can be due to processing, but I personally don't care for the rendering in this case.
The image are processed and viewed compressed here on FM, but it is what it is. To me, the 50/1.2 wide open is special, but I am also really liking the Zeiss 2/40 if you can get by the busy background. Understanding the strength/weaknesses of this lens and shooting under the right circumstances should yield very compelling results IMO.
The odd result is the Leica, it appears more flat and cold to me. Sure, it can be due to processing, but I personally don't care for the rendering in this case.
Yes, as mentioned above, it was a conscious decision to show the edited images. But very similar. Some may welcome it, others may complain. As you say, it is what it is
I can only agree with what you said about the Batis 40. It can (or almost certainly will) get nervous with difficult backgrounds. But I also find it quite nice sometimes .
It definitely has (a lot!) of character. And if you know how to use it, you can take wonderful portraits with it.
Even more so with the Leica Q3 43 (I really recommend the link I posted today). Of course, that's always subjective, but here too, I think the thing has an incredible amount of character and, at the same time, can be very clean in other shots without ever becoming clinical. It's funny, I really like those 40s/43s. With Pentax, the Pentax FA43 1.9 was my favorite lens for certain types of portraits. But even that could create incredibly nervous backgrounds if used "wrongly." The FA77 1.8 Limited was a classic portrait lens, the FA43 Limited a special one. Everything has its place.
Well, it is what it is. I love the Leica Q3 43 lens. Especially for portraits. Lots of character. I like that. It was also the reason I ordered a Leica SL2-S with a leica lens.
P.S. Maybe it helps if I include a screenshot of the parameters in Capture One for the images above lateron.
Jonas B wrote:
Hmm. Isn't that what can be said about the Viltrox 50/2 AIR as well?
You could probably do that, although aperture 2 at ~50mm does allow for a slightly shallower depth of field than at ~40mm. In general, I haven't found images from the Air to be as unsightly (for my taste) as images from the Q43.
Jonas B wrote:
(I'm under the impression you like the Viltrox.)
You're mistaken. I actually prefer the 1.8 50mm to the Air, but the CA is often distracting, and the Air's truly excellent correction is what I personally like about the lens.
Ultimately, for being small, light, and dirt-cheap, the Air is something you can keep around just in case. Personally, I would have completely different expectations of a lens that would commit me to a single lens and be worth paying Leica prices for. But that has something to do with what and how I shoot. Of course, things can and should look completely different for other people. In general, I keep noticing that the first 50mm lens I bought for the Sony, the 1.2 Nokton, is still my favorite.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
[...]
You're mistaken. I actually prefer the 1.8 50mm to the Air, but the CA is often distracting, and the Air's truly excellent correction is what I personally like about the lens.
Ultimately, for being small, light, and dirt-cheap, the Air is something you can keep around just in case. Personally, I would have completely different expectations of a lens that would commit me to a single lens and be worth paying Leica prices for. But that has something to do with what and how I shoot. Of course, things can and should look completely different for other people. In general, I keep noticing that the first 50mm lens I bought for the Sony, the 1.2 Nokton, is still my favorite. ...Show more →
Fair enough. Your thread about the Viltrox made me think you liked it.
A single lens only is tricky and especially so if it is permanently attached to a camera body. Again even more so if the contraption has a Leica price tag attached to it.
I sold my 50/1.4 GM and now alternate between the 40/2.5 G, the Sigma 50/2 DG DN and the CV 50/2 APO. They are all different, none is perfect (as expected).
I've never tried the Nokton 50/1.2. Reading about the lens and looking at as many images as possible I have been tempted earlier. Maybe it's time to try it out!
zeitlos wrote:
Just two more. One Sony A7III with Batis 40 @f2.0. The other one, Leica Q3 43 @f2.0
And again quickly post-processed in Capture One (+ Mastin Labs). Leica picture slightly cropped.
[2 images]
Here again we can see how the Q43 lens delivers smoother background rendering.
Again, I can't say anything about contrast levels as processing parameters with regards to each camera and lens aren't fully known.
Jonas B wrote:
Here again we can see how the Q43 lens delivers smoother background rendering.
Again, I can't say anything about contrast levels as processing parameters with regards to each camera and lens aren't fully known.
I agree the background blur in the Q43 shot is smoother. For me though, I prefer the bokeh in the Batis shot. I am generally not a fan of a uniformly smooth blur, as it often detracts from a sense of 3D (for me). Just my 2c.
On 24-33MP the Voigtlander 40 1.2 and 50 1.2 is a perfect lens if you can live with MF. Stopped down to f4 excellent sharp, even at f2 is enough, and you have 1.2 background separation in small size. However on 60MP, I'd pick the APO line instead.
Lukacs wrote:
On 24-33MP the Voigtlander 40 1.2 and 50 1.2 is a perfect lens if you can live with MF. Stopped down to f4 excellent sharp, even at f2 is enough, (...)
Whether something is perceived as sharp enough, not sharp enough, or even overly sharp is, in my opinion, a matter of taste, even if the general influence of reviews broadcast on a continuous loop on the internet means that the vast majority now describe sharpness as inadequate, which until recently met all professional standards. In any case, I find it extremely remarkable how perceptions in this regard have changed. I myself have evidently remained stuck in the old world, because most of today's photos simply have too much of everything for me: Too sharp, too high in contrast, too clear, too colorful, too dynamic. For me, the Nokton 1.2 50 is such that I find the level of sharpness at wide aperture just right. This is also the reason why I somehow prefer images from the Nokton to those from the GM, although the latter also fascinates me in their own way. In the end, however, a lot depends on the individual case, i.e. the subject, lighting, depth of field, etc.
zeitlos wrote:
Leica picture slightly cropped.
I would really be interested to know what focal length the 2/43 actually has, since it is visibly wider than the 40mm Batis.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Whether something is perceived as sharp enough, not sharp enough, or even overly sharp is, in my opinion, a matter of taste, even if the general influence of reviews broadcast on a continuous loop on the internet means that the vast majority now describe sharpness as inadequate, which until recently met all professional standards. In any case, I find it extremely remarkable how perceptions in this regard have changed. I myself have evidently remained stuck in the old world, because most of today's photos simply have too much of everything for me: Too sharp, too high in contrast, too clear, too colorful, too dynamic. For me, the Nokton 1.2 50 is such that I find the level of sharpness at wide aperture just right. This is also the reason why I somehow prefer images from the Nokton to those from the GM, although the latter also fascinates me in their own way. In the end, however, a lot depends on the individual case, i.e. the subject, lighting, depth of field, etc....Show more →
Also you don't need 60MP for those kind of lenses. You may use them on 60MP if you have a high resolution lens also. I had 50 1.2GM, best lens I ever owned, however I don't need 60MP resolution with an f1.2 lens, I miss cheaper, smaller f1.2 AF lenses with less correction (for size and price cut).
Ha, would have been another interesting lens to join the field. Well, maybe next time.
