How about looking at the Sigma 65/f2 lens, another unusual focal length but is supposed to be a little gem and I have been on the look out for a used one for quite a while
&t=1s
i had the 55mm 1.8 and it was an okayish lens but i didnt like the bokeh. then i tried out the samyang 45mm 18.
i liked the focal length alot and also it was at least as sharp as the zony 55. but it the end i found the bokeh to look similar busy as the 55mm.
so i got myself the 50mm 2.5 and im happy with size and mostly the bokeh. also it has faster af and is smaller than the other two.
i tried the sigma 45mm 2.8 too which has excellent bokeh rendering but its AF is just bad for anything that moves (using an a7c).
for great bokeh i also love the samyang 50mm 1.4 ii (price, weight, bokeh)
Wasn't sure about the 65 as the focal length might make the specific issue with the background rendering worse.
da_habakuk wrote:
i had the 55mm 1.8 and it was an okayish lens but i didnt like the bokeh. then i tried out the samyang 45mm 18.
i liked the focal length alot and also it was at least as sharp as the zony 55. but it the end i found the bokeh to look similar busy as the 55mm.
so i got myself the 50mm 2.5 and im happy with size and mostly the bokeh. also it has faster af and is smaller than the other two.
i tried the sigma 45mm 2.8 too which has excellent bokeh rendering but its AF is just bad for anything that moves (using an a7c).
for great bokeh i also love the samyang 50mm 1.4 ii (price, weight, bokeh)
Damn I am getting the samyung 45mm f1.8 tomorrow, but I will check first hand. Dustin Abbott said he preferred it to the 55 but lets see. I really don't like the 55 out-of-focus areas either, unless the focus point is quite far away.
I'm thinking about the 50 f2.5 but thought I'd try the Sigma 50mm f2 first if the Samyung flops, 50mm f2.5 and Viltrox f2 Air being the last resorts. I imagine I'm going to end up with all the compact 50s at some point, and won't be keeping them all so trying to get good deals on them to take less of a hit.
I noticed the Samyang 50mm f1.4 ii bokeh looked much better than the 45mm f1.8 too. Correct me if I'm wrong but the size and weight doesn't seem that far off the GM 1.2, which I can get for a little over half price and will probably be picking one up down the line for special occassions, and it's a little softer in the rendering than the 50mm f1.4 gm from what I understand. What's another 200g and a cm or two at that point when it's not compact.
Yogifi wrote:
Wasn't sure about the 65 as the focal length might make the specific issue with the background rendering worse.
Damn I am getting the samyung 45mm f1.8 tomorrow, but I will check first hand. Dustin Abbott said he preferred it to the 55 but lets see. I really don't like the 55 out-of-focus areas either, unless the focus point is quite far away.
I'm thinking about the 50 f2.5 but thought I'd try the Sigma 50mm f2 first if the Samyung flops, 50mm f2.5 and Viltrox f2 Air being the last resorts. I imagine I'm going to end up with all the compact 50s at some point, and won't be keeping them all so trying to get good deals on them to take less of a hit.
I noticed the Samyang 50mm f1.4 ii bokeh looked much better than the 45mm f1.8 too. Correct me if I'm wrong but the size and weight doesn't seem that far off the GM 1.2, which I can get for a little over half price and will probably be picking one up down the line for special occassions, and it's a little softer in the rendering than the 50mm f1.4 gm from what I understand. What's another 200g and a cm or two at that point when it's not compact....Show more →
as a a7c shooter everything above 500g is not comfortable neither to carry in one hand nor in a bag. i just wanted to complete my 50ish story but yeah dustin abbot, sonyalpha.blog are quite usable review sites the mostly conform to my findings. but i prefer trying them all out until im satisfied.
as for the 1.2.. if weight isnt an issue i would go for that if u can afford it. but actually i like the idea to get 85-90% performance with a lot less money after all it depends more on the photographer than on the gear (but i like good gear too and im not a good photographer )
da_habakuk wrote:
i liked the focal length alot and also it was at least as sharp as the zony 55. but it the end i found the bokeh to look similar busy as the 55mm.
so i got myself the 50mm 2.5 and im happy with size and mostly the bokeh.
Tastes can vary so much. I bought the 2.5 50mm as a replacement for the 1.8 50mm because it's small and light, has an aperture ring, and good AF. But I didn't like the bokeh (in direct comparison with the 1.8 50mm stopped down to 2.5), and it didn't have any less CA. So I returned it and later tried my luck with the Viltrox. Its bokeh isn't great either, but I kept it anyway because it's incredibly well corrected and shows virtually no CA. The imaging performance is impressive in other respects, too. But I personally find it a bit too clean in places. But that's a personal thing. Apart from that, I find this little thing unbeatable considering the price, and I never would have expected something like this.
The Sony 50mm f1.8 looks pretty good from the images I've come across, specifically for people shots. Hadn't been looking at it previously for some reason.
It's similarly priced to the Viltrox f2 Air. It seems a lot of people quite dislike the 1.8 but I wonder if it's because they're using it for things other than people shots.
For anyone with experience with the Fuji XF 35mm f1.4, is there anything like that availble for the Sony mount so I don't need to take both bodies and with maybe improved autofocus.
It has really pleasing spherical abberations, I love that lens if it wasn't for the autofocus. It's actually what spurred me to get a Sony in the first place, took a bit of a detour with Voigtlander lenses, but that's what I really want, maybe I should have just upgraded the Fuji body but the A7cii was available for basically the same price as the X-E5.
I suspect it could be the much larger and heavier 50mm f1.4 ZA that will get closest but I'm not sure as that is a Planar but it is still older.
Yogifi wrote:
If I wanted a moderately compact, f2 and larger aperture, 50mm auto-focus lens - but I didn't want the background blur to be so strong and fast, while still shooting wider at around f2-f2.8 1m distance, are there good options that aren't as sharp (and modern rendering) as the gm 50mm f1.4?
I'm finding the images look off because of how fast the background blurs with this, it's not gradual enough for what I want as my go-to. Perhaps it's the 5mm tighter focal length that's causing that?
Maybe I'm not understanding / explaining my issue with it exactly, but the background blur looks "cheap", apologies for the poor choice of word:
If there's an established word to describe it, would love to know. I've heard "transition zone" used quite often here but not exactly sure what it's referring to. "Falloff" would make sense to me but I'm not sure if that's actually what people use to describe it. This is rapid falloff, turbo charged falloff, I'd like something more subtle, while still letting me shoot wide.
I know from my testing with the Nokton and APO from CV, the apo lens is much more gradual, at the same aperture, perhaps even too much. And the APO is even a little tighter fl.
I don't mind some spherical abberation (I might actually prefer it). Though I don't particularly like the glow of the nokton at close range, doesn't look like a nice glow. It's a lovely lens regardless but I'd like something with autofocus for people.
I was thinking about the 50mm f1.4 ZA but it's rather heavy and so I wouldn't get as much use out of it.
So perhaps the Sigma 50mm f2 - but just curious if anyone has thoughts or comments on this, as I can't find it to rent and it doesn't seem all that popular. The other one I know is available is the Samyung 45mm f1.8.
Anyone been through this and know what I mean? Any suggestions other than stop down to f7 with the 55f1.8 .
I think it's useful wide-open for longer range at say 2m or so, not just for people, or looking down at a pet and still getting some blurring with the body/floor. But with normal waist-up portrait range I feel like it needs significant stopping to slow the blurring.
I think the Sigma 50mm f2 might have less pop and separation but I think I'll give it a try for standard 1m-ish distance people shots. Will try and find a used copy unless I get warned off by follow-up posts.
45mm f2.8 I'm liking very up-close for pets ... and pretty up-close for people, but closer than I would ideally want to be. Has a really nice form-factor though....Show more →
That shot was at f2.8, I need to take it to at the very least f4.5 and then I've lost so much light already.
Whereas with the Sigma 45mm f2.8, at 1-1.5m, the f2.8 doesn't produce enough of a blur, while the 55mf1.8, too much at the same aperture, and not a pleasant blur.
It's something to do with the lens design, I'm not sure what. I read somewhere on this forum after starting this thread that the lenses undercorrected for spherical abberation seem to have larger DOF, I'm not sure if there's truth to that.
If the 45mm f2.8 from Sigma could do f1.5 - f2, I suspect that would have been perfect if the AF didn't suffer even more than it already does. Hopefully f1.8 would have been enough to keep it smaller. Meantime going through the ones that exist...seemingly one by one. The Samyung 45mm f1.8 is next up, let's see arrives tomorrow.
Yogifi wrote:
The Sony 50mm f1.8 looks pretty good from the images I've come across, specifically for people shots. Hadn't been looking at it previously for some reason.
It's similarly priced to the Viltrox f2 Air. It seems a lot of people quite dislike the 1.8 but I wonder if it's because they're using it for things other than people shots.
That's exactly the point, in my opinion. The 1.8 50 is less clear and has less micro-contrast than modern lenses imo, which I personally consider a definite advantage when it comes to portraits. Unfortunately, I hardly do any portraits anymore. Maybe I should try street photography, where the rendering of the 1.8 50 should also be very advantageous.
I would love to see identical images from the two lenses at the same apertures.
Yogifi wrote:
That shot was at f2.8, I need to take it to at the very least f4.5 and then I've lost so much light already.
Whereas with the Sigma 45mm f2.8, at 1-1.5m, the f2.8 doesn't produce enough of a blur, while the 55mf1.8, too much at the same aperture, and not a pleasant blur.
It's something to do with the lens design, I'm not sure what. I read somewhere on this forum after starting this thread that the lenses undercorrected for spherical abberation seem to have larger DOF, I'm not sure if there's truth to that.
If the 45mm f2.8 from Sigma could do f1.5 - f2, I suspect that would have been perfect if the AF didn't suffer even more than it already does. Hopefully f1.8 would have been enough to keep it smaller. Meantime going through the ones that exist...seemingly one by one. The Samyung 45mm f1.8 is next up, let's see arrives tomorrow.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I would love to see identical images from the two lenses at the same apertures.
The APO and Nokton are closely related in focal length, you can see the falloff difference where the APO is more gradual, and it actually has a very slightly tighter focal length:
Different lenses, similar focal length, same aperture (f2.8), different falloff. The Zeiss would be quite a bit more blurry than the Nokton still, you could put it down to focal length differences, it's why I mention the APO and Nokton in the previous post and this one. Zeiss has rapid falloff and it's not pleasant until you stop down significantly or increase the focus distance quite a bit and it improves, for my taste at least.
I actually have the Zeiss on the same scene for anyone curious, here it is compared to the Nokton. And this was at a distance of around 2.5m where I like the Zeiss falloff ... a lot more than at closer range:
Click on the Flickr links for more detail.
Thanks for the comparison, but the thread opener is less concerned with the type of bokeh at wide aperture and more with differences in the type of sharpness fall-off at the same aperture, and that cannot be determined from an image that only shows the foreground and background but no middle ground.
Yeah the AIR looks a great buy for the price. And I'm realising the Sigma 50mm f2 isn't going to give me the look I want, even if the falloff might be closer. I'm really hoping the Samyung 45mm f1.8 does it, Dustin seemed to be mentioning all the right things with the rendering, otherwise I will give the 50mm f1.8 a go, thanks Nifty Fifty
If that's the style you like, I'm not here to judge.
But you might want to consider just saving the cash and smashing that lightroom lens blur slider to the far-right with some f4 lenses.
On a serious note, I've noticed adding a bit of lens blur (a small amount) to the zeiss 55 images does actually help clean the bokeh. Which rubs me the wrong way a little.
55mm has a distinct look to it. The extra 5mm adds quite a bit of falloff. Go wider. I would keep the 55mm as it's a very bright lens and then add something between the range of a 28/2 to a 45/2.8. It will give you the DOF depth you want. I personally love the rendering of the 55/1.8. And it's t/1.8 makes it as bright as the older 50/1.4's out there.
Yogifi wrote:
[...]
Maybe I'm not understanding / explaining my issue with it exactly, but the background blur looks "cheap", apologies for the poor choice of word:
@ f2.8:
(Image page one post one)
[...]
I looked at the image you posted. I'm not sure any other 50mm lens would be very different. Then again, I don't think i have the golden eye for this sort of thing. I might setup something similar at home and compare a couple of lenses.
I have another tip. Maybe just turn down the sharpness and contrast controls, especially the clarity, but not too much. I often do this myself with the 1.2 GM, even though it already renders less harshly and with less contrast than the 1.4.
but yeah dustin abbot, sonyalpha.blog are quite usable review sites the mostly conform to my findings. but i prefer trying them all out until im satisfied.
.
