The lens on the right does not appear to be as sharp in the plane of focus.
Yogifi wrote:
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:
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.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I feel for you lot making life so difficult for yourselves. Just shoot with any lens for a decent period of time and then decide. A few shots of boring scenes is not what photography is about. Perfection is the enemy of the good. As to the OP, why not try 35mm? That for sure will give you a more gradual transition of focus for certain than endless pfaffing about with different-but-similar 50s.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The lens on the right does not appear to be as sharp in the plane of focus.
The Nokton is actually sharper than the APO in the center, where that crop is from.
You can clearly see the falloff is more gradual with the APO as it gets further behind the BBQ, though the Nokton has nice fall-off too. It's consistently like this, gives the APO a nice realism look, Nokton has better isolation.
I tried to do something similar to the image in OP's first post.
Four different lenses, apertures 2, 2.8, and 4. The first image shows the distances from the camera to each point in the cropped images.
Three of the lenses are well-known and have been mentioned in this thread, while the fourth lens is much older and an old favorite from my days with a Canon 5D classic.
The images are processed in ACR and they are adjusted only for white balance and exposure. There is no sharpening or noise reduction. All other curves and sliders are set to neutral or zero. The images are downsized to 25%. That's it.
I have moved the images around in a way that may be annoying.
I saw very little difference between the images. Perhaps the setup was not very good. I did not try to do anything showing LoCA or anything else I usually find annoying. Perhaps OP's question is not very good. Perhaps _all_ lenses perform (more or less) the same when used in a setup like this one.
Key:
f2
A= CV50APO (Cosina Voigtländer 50/2 APO)
B= 50i (Sigma 50/2.0 DG DN Contemporary a.k.a. Sigma 50i)
C= OM5020M (Olympus Zuiko OM 50/2.0 Macro for the OM system))
D= CV5012 (Cosina Voigtländer 50/1.2 SE)
Agreed, there is very little difference between them. Yep, they are all good. The slight differences may be important for lens designers, but they are not meaningful for photography.
Aug 07, 2025 at 04:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
NJPhotographer wrote:
Agreed, there is very little difference between them. Yep, they are all good. The slight differences may be important for lens designers, but they are not meaningful for photography.
Interesting example. Personally, I do have preferences and they were fairly consistent even though the differences I don't think are that big.
These were my rankings:
f/2
Sigma 50i
CV 50 f/2 APO
CV 50 f/1.2
OM 50 f/2 Macro
f/2.8
CV 50 f/1.2
Sigma 50i
CV 50 f/2 APO
OM 50 f/2 Macro
f/4
CV 50 f/1.2
CV 50 f/2 APO
Sigma 50i
OM 50 f/2 Macro
So it is clear my preference does not lean to the OM 50 f/2 Macro. The other three it is more complex. For the CV 50 f/1.2, it is probably my most preferred but more as the lens is stopped down. It is the reverse for the Sigma 50 f/2 i-series. I like it wide open, but less as it is stopped down. The CV 50 f/2 APO never emerged as my favorite, but I didn't didn't dislike it either. It was not bad, but didn't stand out at any aperture. I have both the CV 50 f/1.2 and the CV 50 f/2 APO and have used both a lot and I would say my ratings here generally match my thoughts about those two lenses. Note my ratings are just for overall rendering, and not for technical performance. The kind of performance I would be looking for in portraits, but not landscape, architecture, or nature shots.
Appreciate the detailed test, Jonas B, I agree in that to my eye it's similar enough in those crops. Perhaps it is predominantly the focal length difference giving the 55mmf1.8 that look -- in which case I'll personally most likely stay clear of the 65mmf2.
I'm a bit surprised to see such little difference between your APO and Nokton, did you have any filter on the Nokton? When I'm looking at the candlesticks at G & H, there's nothing, just a bit more blur on the APO probably from the slightly tighter focal length.
Were the differences more obvious in a different part of the image, like more to left on that table? But then I guess the sharpness across the frame might impact that.
I don't have another 55 to compare but I will have 2 45s by tomorrow. Hopefully just by it being 45mm and opening up to f1.8 instead of f2.8 it will be closer to what I'm looking for - but I'll do a similar test just for science.
I don't mean to disparage the 45mmf2.8, I won't be letting go of it because I absolutely love it at under 1m. I'll try and find a reason to keep the 55. It probably has the best autofocus out of the lenses I have currently at least.
@ Steve, I'm not sure how you got it from those crops, but when I was comparing the two in smaller scenes like this, I always liked the Nokton at f2.8 and the APO at f2 and it was the APO that usually won out when there wasn't a main subject to be isolated but it was more of a whole scene.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interesting example. Personally, I do have preferences
[...]
So it is clear my preference does not lean to the OM 50 f/2 Macro. The other three it is more complex. For the CV 50 f/1.2, it is probably my most preferred but more as the lens is stopped down. It is the reverse for the Sigma 50 f/2 i-series. I like it wide open, but less as it is stopped down. The CV 50 f/2 APO never emerged as my favorite, but I didn't didn't dislike it either. It was not bad, but didn't stand out at any aperture. I have both the CV 50 f/1.2 and the CV 50 f/2 APO and have used both a lot and I would say my ratings here generally match my thoughts about those two lenses. Note my ratings are just for overall rendering, and not for technical performance. The kind of performance I would be looking for in portraits, but not landscape, architecture, or nature shots....Show more →
That's close to my preferences as well.
The great thing with the OM50/2 Macro is the close focus abilites and the nice and gentle rendering. It is however bad with specular highlights which there are too many of in this image.
The Sigma 50i, nice rendering, good build quality and fine ergonomics for an AF lens.
The CV 50 APO is great whenever you want high and even quality over the whole image area.
The CV 50/1.2 is my current favorite. It does nearly everything really well.
Yogifi wrote:
Appreciate the detailed test, Jonas B, I agree in that to my eye it's similar enough in those crops. Perhaps it is predominantly the focal length difference giving the 55mmf1.8 that look -- in which case I'll personally most likely stay clear of the 65mmf2.
I'm a bit surprised to see such little difference between your APO and Nokton, did you have any filter on the Nokton? When I'm looking at the candlesticks at G & H, there's nothing, just a bit more blur on the APO probably from the slightly tighter focal length.
[...]
Hi,
and you are welcome. Earlier in this thread I mentioned i don't think you'll see a lot of differences between a group of different 50mm lenses (with regards to this "fall-off"). I think the crops are enough to show just that.
Going 45 mm might be the solution.
EDIT: Yes, the CV 50/2 APO is the only lens always having a filter (a Zeiss UV filter).
I'm a fan of 40mm lenses and right now I'm waiting for an opportunity to try the new TTArtisan 40/2.0.
It's all for good fun only. In the end it is about the image, the light and composition and it won't matter what lens used. I wish you good luck with the new 45'ers today!
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Would it be possible to post the pictures in full frame?
Hi,
No. I don't care to work any more with these.
But, if interested you can have the RAW files. Go here and pick what you want. It is unfortunately a little tedious: In the album, left-click a file, then right-click the link starting with "Open High Resolution RAW DNG" and chose Save as...
(I don't recommend Imageevent. It works fine but is a bit clunky.)
EDIT: The CV 50/1.2 f1.2 and f1.4 files are also there.
EDIT: I needed the space, the files are now gone.
Thank you, Jonas. I received the lens this morning, first impression was that it was giving me the ability to blur the photo at decent distance while still being 45mm, so I was really happy.
I took a couple more photos and I'll mention that I didn't love the rendering and colours but it's brand spanking new (to me) still so I don't want to comment too much on that.
Also thank you for posting the full images for that scene, I thought I was losing my mind with the APO-Nokton. It might be less obvious at this distance from the focus point, but it's a little easier to tell when flipping between them -- most clear at the candlesticks.
It doesn't really make a huge difference in this shot but when you have detail and things off the focus point but closer to it, I felt like it gave a more realism vibe with the APO compared to the Nokton because of how it holds onto the focus more, not simply corner sharpness. Whereas the Nokton was great for separation.
I had returned my APO because of a decentering issue but I was starting to think maybe I had some magical version or something and it wasn't even worth replacing if they had the exact same falloff just for the occasional edge-to-edge sharpness shots that I'd probably mostly notice at infinity.
I think for my current task, it's probably less about this falloff difference and more about the focal length and me just trying to find something to my taste for the distance I want to shoot at.
Immediately I'm appreciating the 45mm f2.8 from Sigma more... the colours, the smoothness. I want that, but also with an option to go to f2 for when they're a little further away.
Does your Sigma 50mm f2 render really nicely, or are you planning on keeping it in part due to how it renders, particularly for people?
And maybe I should take a look at the Batis 40mm f2 but I did see comments about the bokeh not being all that smooth either.
Yogifi wrote:
[...]
Does your Sigma 50mm f2 render really nicely, or are you planning on keeping it in part due to how it renders, particularly for people?
And maybe I should take a look at the Batis 40mm f2 but I did see comments about the bokeh not being all that smooth either.
For people... I don't know what to say. It doesn't render people differently than other lenses really. But, it's sharp enough and at f/2 and sometimes stopping down as well it makes for nice looking images.
I like the Sigma because...
• good build quality, better ergonomics than Sony (aperture ring, focusing ring, AF/MF button)
• AF works fine but not as fast as the GM lenses
• decent rendering, sometimes better/softer than the 50/1.4 GM
• size and weight compared to the 50/1.4 GM
I have posted samples earlier but where? I repost some here but the corresponding text to the files is missing now. 50i:
above ƒ/2
The trees above, the upper left corner, Sigma does it better than the harsh things the 50/1.4 GM gives you.
Lenstip and others surely reviewed the lens so there should be more and better material for you!?
Aug 08, 2025 at 09:56 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Yogifi wrote:
@ Steve, I'm not sure how you got it from those crops, but when I was comparing the two in smaller scenes like this, I always liked the Nokton at f2.8 and the APO at f2 and it was the APO that usually won out when there wasn't a main subject to be isolated but it was more of a whole scene.
I agree with Nifty Fifty that the differences are not very big or noticeable in this scene. Unless you look really closely you don't even notice the differences. They are all small. That said, let me explain my ratings and what I see even without zooming in that I think are driving my preferences:
At f/2:
C (least favorite) - the OM f/2 Macro to my eyes has just a bit more outlining of the bokeh balls which I don't like quite as well as the others. You can see it most clearly in the center candlestick that is 3M back. This is a small difference but to me made this lens not quite as good as the others.
D (second least favorite) - the CV 50 f/1.2 produced a nice image, but two things stood out, here at f/2 the bokeh balls on the lower right have to my eyes just visible 12 sides and aren't completely round. Interestingly I only see that at f/2 where the bokeh balls a just a little bigger and I don't see it at f/2.8 or f/4 without zooming in. It bothers me only a tiny bit here, but it does. Second, the in focus macrame helix isn't quite as sharp as the others. Again just a small difference, but I can see it without zooming in or at least I think I can.
A (second favorite) - the CV 50 f/2 APO produced a very nice image with good sharpness at the focus point and generally nice bokeh, the only flaw I see is the bokeh balls on the lower right are slightly squished which is unfortunate especially when they are far from the edge of the frame.
B (favorite) the Sigma f/2 i-series produced a very nice image and was very close to the CV 50 f/2 APO with good sharpness at the focus point and generally nice bokeh. All the bokeh balls seem pretty round too. These last two were close and virtually tied in my view.
At /2.8
F (least favorite) - the OM f/2 macro has improved from f/2. The slight outlining I don't see anymore, but a new quibble has arisen. If you look at the bokeh balls on the lower left, they are now 6 or 8 sided polygons and this bugs me a little. Still a really nice image.
H (second least favorite) - the CV 50 f/2 APO produced a really splendid image. I found the remaining three to be really close at f/2.8, but in this image the lowest bokeh ball on the right was still a tiny bit squished and the center candlestick 3m back was not quite as smooth. Here the difference is really tiny from the others.
G (second favorite) - the CV 50 f/1.2 produced a fantastic image. The center sharpness now to my eyes matches the CV 50 f/2 APO and Sigma 50 i-series and I don't see the polygons in any bokeh balls unless I zoom in. I do find that candlestick 3m back just a little less smooth than the Sigma 50 i-series image.
E (favorite) - the Sigma 50 i-series was excellent and had very few flaws.
At f/4
L (least favorite) - the OM f/2 Macro has improved further from f/2.8 in the smoothness of the bokeh but if anything the polygons in the bokeh balls in the lower left are most distinct and stand out. They are to my eyes the only real flaw in the image.
M (second least favorite) - the Sigma 50 f/2 i-series is very close to the other three, but stopped down this far I found it bokeh to be just a little less smooth
J (second favorite) - the CV 50 f/2 APO I see as having a bit smoother bokeh than the Sigma, but not quite as much as the 50 f/1.2 Nokton
K (favorite) - the CV 50 f/1.2 was the strongest image to my eyes as stopped down this far it had just a tiny bit smoother bokeh.
Like others have said, I think these images are close, and reasonable people could prefer any one of the lens. Personally, I would obviously not pick the OM, but I agree with Jonas that a close focus 50 can be really nice. In fact, I have the ZE 50 f/2 macro that I adapt to Sony for that reason, but it is a much bigger lens. The 50 f/2 APO and the Sigma are super close in all the shots. I think the choice there is whether you want AF or MF. The CV 50 f/1.2 is a bit different. At first/2 it still has some aberrations that are quite cleared up but it is nice at that aperture, as you stop down further, however, you can really see the nice bokeh of the lens. Those are my thoughts. I hope they help.
Yogifi, I found another 50i image for you. Not exactly typical but showing why there is a good reason to keep it:
(uncropped half body portrait)
A7CR, Sigma 50i at f/2, handheld casual portrait with light from a window, distance 1.6 meters
(crop of the eye, sharp venes)
Above: A 100% crop from the image above. This is not the sharpest in the world but easily what I call sharp enough. This style with a person looking as pasted onto some arbitrary background is not what I usually do. But when getting asked about taking a picture and you have a minute or so it happens.
I notice again and again that I approach image comparisons completely differently than most others. I don't like comparing zoomed-in sections and examining them for round balls, onion rings, and sharpness or blurriness. I look at the image as a whole and assess how I feel. Do I like one better than the other, even after viewing it several times at different times? These enlarged bokeh images in particular mean little to me. Of course, I can see the differences, but sharpness on the one hand and round bokeh balls without onion rings on the other are no guarantee of a comparatively better reproduction under all conditions. Sometimes I think that many people these days dissect an image and decide whether they like it based on that. That doesn't work for me because I sometimes even like things like the occasionally jittery bokeh of the 1.2 GM in one image but not in another. That's why the simple equation soft = good and less soft = bad (or vice versa) doesn't work for me. Just to say an example. BTW. Sometimes I think that normal lenses differ less at close and long-range than at medium distances, although even then the differences are likely to be rather subtle. But maybe that's really all only just my imagination.
Thanks again for the sample files @Jonas B, it's a very nice lens, has a bit of that charm from the 45mm still.
I've been through lenstip at least 5 times for it. I think it'd be a nice lens to own.
I think I want the apsc XF 35mm f1.4's rendering but with more reliable autofocus. I think it's the spherical abberation that gives it that pleasing look but I'm not sure.
A bit smoother bokeh and less chromatic abberation would be nice bonuses on this imaginary lens.
With this Samyung 45mm f1.8, it definitely is nice to have the flexibility to drop it to f1.8. I want to take more people shots with it but I've had a pretty strong virus last few days that's now starting to clear up, so hopefully in the coming days. More happy with it after this last set of photos just in the garden.
@Steve Spencer, I remember when I was lurking in these forums and looking at the blind 35mm comparison thread that had the Sigma 35mm in there, you were very detailed in your reasoning, I didn't mean to suggest any doubt, was only impressed in your ability to spot them from the images Jonas posted, I had to flip between them and even then it was a challenge.
-- Just saw the sigma person shot, that does look great too, thank you! I'm actually looking for not super sharp.
I did this doggo pic yesterday with the 45mm from Sigma, just love the rendering at close distance:
And today with the Samyung 45 lens, nice to get that little bit of blur from such a distance with a 45:
But the colours so far seemed a bit drab. Doesn't have that smoothness that make things look toon-y that the sigma has. Let's see, will try and find a use for it for people shots that doesnt seem depressing, play around with some post processing, particularly with colour. I think grain would help with shots from this, giving it a bit of an older look. Not what I want for my go-to to be honest.
Will likely try the Sigma 50 next, but I am enjoying 45mm, don't think I want to go too much wider but I'd open to try a fast 40.
But of course, this is just a random test subject, and if it were a real portrait, it wouldn't really matter which lens you chose. With different subjects, backgrounds, lighting, and distances, the differences may be more pronounced or less pronounced. In my humble opinion.
I know it's not really relevant to the topic, but maybe it'll be of interest to someone. I recently wanted to test how much or how little a cropped shot with the Nokton 1.2 35mm wide open differs from a full frame shot with the Nokton 1.2 50mm stopped down to f/1.8, and I was amazed at how similar the shots are. The full frame shot is slightly cropped to ensure the frame is identical.
Nokton 1.2 50 @1.8 FF DSC07260 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
