I think I'm liable to end up with too many of these compact 40-50mm lenses it's going to be hard to pick one I think. It's good thing most of them can be found reasonably priced.
Thank you for the samples Nifty Fifty. Agree with you on how close the Nokton 35 apsc and the 50 do.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Ich weiß, es ist nicht wirklich relevant für das Thema, aber vielleicht ist es für jemanden interessant. Ich wollte kürzlich testen, wie stark oder wie wenig sich eine beschnittene Aufnahme mit dem Nokton 1.2 35mm bei voller Blende von einer Vollformataufnahme mit dem Nokton 1.2 50mm bei Blende f/1.8 unterscheidet, und war erstaunt, wie ähnlich sich die Aufnahmen sind. Die Vollformataufnahme ist leicht beschnitten, um eine identische Bilddarstellung zu gewährleisten.
Jonas B wrote:
You are proving the theories about Äquivalenz right.
Yes, but I wanted to see if the small sensor surface, despite the equivalent aperture, didn't actually produce a flatter image, because that was the impression I'd always had based on the images I'd seen online, back then, when I was considering whether an APS-C Fujifilm with a fast lens might suffice.I hadn't expected that it would look completely identical, at least on a tablet.
Jonas B wrote:
But why is the f/1.2 image sharper?
I did the test to see if I could just use the 35mm lens and crop it if necessary and still get it to look good. For this reason, I tried adjusting the sharpness in LR. I only sharpened it a little, but it was probably already too much.
The shape of OOF bokeh balls determines how the falloff is perceived. That's mostly a factor of the aperture shape and how well the optics correct for spherical aberration. So generally an APO lens with more aperture blades will have more gradual falloff.
The density of your camera sensor has a role too. Higher pixel density creates a smaller CoC which changes how and where OOF transitions are perceived. Perceived is the key word here.
Aug 08, 2025 at 04:09 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jeffbuzz wrote:
The shape of OOF bokeh balls determines how the falloff is perceived. That's mostly a factor of the aperture shape and how well the optics correct for spherical aberration. So generally an APO lens with more aperture blades will have more gradual falloff.
The density of your camera sensor has a role too. Higher pixel density creates a smaller CoC which changes how and where OOF transitions are perceived. Perceived is the key word here.
APO lenses often have fewer spherical aberrations (they don't have to do so, however, as the APO definition has nothing to do with these aberrations), and that makes the focus transition faster not more gradual. Spherical aberrations tend to make all edges and transitions fuzzier and that makes the focus transition slower. Peter Karbe made a video making this point comparing I think the SL 75 f/2 APO sum micron with the M mount 75 f/1.4 noting that the 75 even though having a stop wider aperture had no faster focus transition that the new summicron. Note he speaks in this video of fast focus transition being good. Personally, I prefer more gradual transitions.
What you say about pixel density only applies when you examine images at 100% magnification, when they are sized with the same number of pixels the transitions will be the same.
Maybe I'm just not a keen enough observer, but I don't see it. The differences between these various 50mm lenses are really, minor. So minor as to have zero net effect on the overall image for any observer who is not a tech-oriented photographer.
A longer lens will show less DoF, more background blur. If you want less, stop down or use a shorter lens. I have a 35mm and 32mm and can see a DoF difference between them due to that 10% difference in focal length.
So, OP, if the 55mm has too much background blur and you don't want to stop down due to loss of light, use a shorter lens.
Am I somehow over-simplifying this whole thing?
Aug 09, 2025 at 08:12 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
darwinphoto wrote:
Maybe I'm just not a keen enough observer, but I don't see it. The differences between these various 50mm lenses are really, minor. So minor as to have zero net effect on the overall image for any observer who is not a tech-oriented photographer.
A longer lens will show less DoF, more background blur. If you want less, stop down or use a shorter lens. I have a 35mm and 32mm and can see a DoF difference between them due to that 10% difference in focal length.
So, OP, if the 55mm has too much background blur and you don't want to stop down due to loss of light, use a shorter lens.
Am I somehow over-simplifying this whole thing? ...Show more →
Yes, you are. Using a shorter focal length will include more in the frame. If you get closer to compensate so the shot is framed similarly then that will decrease depth of field. How close you are to the subject is super important for depth of field and as important as focal length.
Yogifi wrote:
I need to stop it down too far at 1m, not very practical. It's great lens for longer distance shots for me.
The 45mm f2.8 sort of has the opposite problem, and is a great lens for upclose.
I have the Samyung coming tomorrow, let's see.
Your "problem" is the combination of your focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject. If you want more depth of field you either need to stop down or use a shorter focal length at the same aperture. However a shorter focal length, like a 35mm f1.8 will require you to get closer to your subject to fill the same amount of the frame with it. Getting closer will then change the perspective.
You have to pick your poison. Changing to a different 50mm lens isn't going to give you more depth of field (unless it has a smaller maximum aperture, which is basically the same as stopping down).
Edit: I see a few people have already said the same thing.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, you are. Using a shorter focal length will include more in the frame. If you get closer to compensate so the shot is framed similarly then that will decrease depth of field. How close you are to the subject is super important for depth of field and as important as focal length.
But a 28mm f1.8 with the same subject filling the frame will have less depth of field than a 50mm f1.8 of the same subject (filling the frame). Getting closer to the subject to fill the frame does not completely negate the depth of field gain from the wider angle lens.
Aug 09, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Stereodude wrote:
But a 28mm f1.8 with the same subject filling the frame will have less depth of field than a 50mm f1.8 of the same subject (filling the frame). Getting closer to the subject to fill the frame does not completely negate the depth of field gain from the wider angle lens.
It depends, get an online depth of field simulator (like the one below) and play with it.
You will see that with lots of shots what changes with similar framing and different focal lengths is the amount of background in the photo and not the depth of field. So, the look will be different, but with similar framing depth of field is surprisingly similar.
For example if you use that simulator for a half body portrait, you will see that a 50mm lens at f/1.4 lens with a 200mm focus distance and a 28mm f/1.4 lens with a 110mm focus distance (i.e., you get closer) have very similar depth of field, but the 28mm lens includes a lot more of the background. This is the primary difference between focal lengths not depth of field and when you frame subjects similarly and it is especially noticeable in my experience with portraits.
If you don't get closer (i.e., have a closer focus distance and especially when shooting from the same spot), then, yes, longer focal length lenses have less depth of field, but when you frame subjects similarly and shoot them at the same f/number (e.g., a head and shoulder shot, or a half body shot, or a full body shot), then what primarily changes when you change focal length is the amount of background included in the shot and not depth of field.
Steve Spencer wrote:
APO lenses often have fewer spherical aberrations (they don't have to do so, however, as the APO definition has nothing to do with these aberrations), and that makes the focus transition faster not more gradual. Spherical aberrations tend to make all edges and transitions fuzzier and that makes the focus transition slower. Peter Karbe made a video making this point comparing I think the SL 75 f/2 APO sum micron with the M mount 75 f/1.4 noting that the 75 even though having a stop wider aperture had no faster focus transition that the new summicron. Note he speaks in this video of fast focus transition being good. Personally, I prefer more gradual transitions.
What you say about pixel density only applies when you examine images at 100% magnification, when they are sized with the same number of pixels the transitions will be the same. ...Show more →
My point is that DoF is largely perceptual. Yes, the medium of presentation effects our perception. It does not, however, only apply at 100% pixel level observation. If it did, you'd be able to alter DoF after capture. Short of using one of those Lytro voodoo cameras, that's not happening. DoF is mathematically determined at the moment of capture. The lens and sensor are the only components at play there. You can certainly change the perception of detail by downscaling to lower resolution for presentation. You're not altering the original CoC. Anything that was captured as a hard contrast edge should remain all the way down to a 2 pixel black and white image.
Aug 09, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jeffbuzz wrote:
My point is that DoF is largely perceptual. Yes, the medium of presentation effects our perception. It does not, however, only apply at 100% pixel level observation. If it did, you'd be able to alter DoF after capture. Short of using one of those Lytro voodoo cameras, that's not happening. DoF is mathematically determined at the moment of capture. The lens and sensor are the only components at play there. You can certainly change the perception of detail by downscaling to lower resolution for presentation. You're not altering the original CoC. Anything that was captured as a hard contrast edge should remain all the way down to a 2 pixel black and white image....Show more →
Yes, that is true, but as a perceptual phenomenon it is important to understand that magnification is huge in affecting how we perceive depth of field, and magnification includes from how close or how far we view the subject. We need to hold magnification constant when evaluating depth of field or it is easy to be lead astray.
It isn't the medium of presentation that I was pointing out, it was the magnification of presentation. Some people don't realize that when comparing sensors with different pixel densities they are inadvertently comparing images at very different levels of magnification and then they make inferences based on that faulty comparison that lead them astray.
You will see that with lots of shots what changes with similar framing and different focal lengths is the amount of background in the photo and not the depth of field. So, the look will be different, but with similar framing depth of field is surprisingly similar.
For example if you use that simulator for a half body portrait, you will see that a 50mm lens at f/1.4 lens with a 200mm focus distance and a 28mm f/1.4 lens with a 110mm focus distance (i.e., you get closer) have very similar depth of field, but the 28mm lens includes a lot more of the background. This is the primary difference between focal lengths not depth of field and when you frame subjects similarly and it is especially noticeable in my experience with portraits.
If you don't get closer (i.e., have a closer focus distance and especially when shooting from the same spot), then, yes, longer focal length lenses have less depth of field, but when you frame subjects similarly and shoot them at the same f/number (e.g., a head and shoulder shot, or a half body shot, or a full body shot), then what primarily changes when you change focal length is the amount of background included in the shot and not depth of field. ...Show more →
The actual DoF based on calculations of what's in focus based on distance from the focal plane may be a similar or the same number, but the background is decidedly less blurry on the wide angle shot. You do see more in the background as well because the FoV is greater.
Aug 09, 2025 at 11:55 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Stereodude wrote:
The actual DoF based on calculations of what's in focus based on distance from the focal plane may be a similar or the same number, but the background is decidedly less blurry on the wide angle shot. You do see more in the background as well because the FoV is greater.
Yes, the blur of the background can change as you move closer to frame the subject the same way with a wider angle as with a telephoto. How much the blur changes depends on how far the background is. If you think about it, of course the blur of the background changes. You are getting closer to the background too and getting closer to the background means less blur. If the background is close the effect will be quite noticeable as the background gets farther away and approaches infinity in distance the difference will be tiny.
Well, appreciate the link but that's certainly dampened my excitement for the 50mm f1.8 arriving in 30 mins xD
The 55mm renders people so much nicer than the 45mm f1.8, which looks flat like the 50mm f1.8 there. Even from the garbage can comparison in the first one. I think the 45mmf1.8 is worse than the 50mmf1.8 in that regard. And the vignetting on this 45 is massive, and the body of the 45mm looks so bad with that bright red ring.
The reviewer's comments on the bokeh:
Bokeh: This is subjective, so I’m not going to say much. All I will say is this: the Zeiss has slightly smoother and larger bokeh. This is due in part to it’s Sonnar design and the fact it’s a 55mm, as opposed to a 50mm.
I was interested in the MF Sonnar 1.5 for the rendering but I was ignoring the background and remember doing so as it had hints of being kind of untamed too.
Maybe the answer has to be to just stop that 55 down and hold still. The autofocus is fantastic, it's light and the people look very good. Or maybe the Batis 40mm f2... Will see how much I like 40mm, have that cheap new 40mm from ttartisan coming.
Anyway, let's see. I ordered a 1/8 diffusion filter to try for the first time with both the 45mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 that's coming with the lens any minute now.
Thank you for the link, Nifty Fifty.
On the plus side, think I levelled-up my colour editing resources significantly after having to look at the output from the Samyung, which really doesn't gel well with Adobe Color.
Yogifi wrote:
Well, appreciate the link and that's certainly dampened my excitement for the 50mm f1.8 arriving in 30 mins xD
Oh I'm sorry.
Yogifi wrote:
The 55mm renders people so much nicer than the 45mm f1.8, which looks flat like the 50mm f1.8 there.
In this regard, I have different tastes than 99.9% of people. I often prefer the "flat" image due to lower microcontrast (at least that's how I explain it) in portraits much more than the fine and clear image that modern optics deliver (and I don't like 3D pop either, even though I love my f/1.2 lenses and mostly shoot wide open). Probably because I'm used to analog black and white prints and love their reproduction, and I've already preferred the 400mm Tri-X to any 100mm Tmax or Delta. So I should probably hold back on giving other people tips. In any case, pictures taken with the 1.8 50mm somehow remind me a bit of the good old days. By the way, I dug out the good old thing again yesterday because of this discussion. Don't you think it looks a bit old-school? DSC07337 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
I can appreciate having the option but think I really do like the depth you get from the Zeiss. The 50mmf1.8 does look a bit old school and I heard that about the lens previously, but they were saying it reminded them of the xf 35mm f1.4.
Last time I looked I was really impressed with this shot from your flickr with the Nokton it says:
As I said, I like the Nokton the best anyway. However, for the picture of the Ford in the IKEA parking lot, I played around quite a bit with profiles and grain.
