p.2 #1 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
p.2 #2 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
It's a strange thing but it seems to be true that overly sharp lenses actually repel the viewing eye from gazing at human faces. I shoot street portraits so I get 'instant karma' on how my lenses show peoples' faces - I show them their images.
I'll ask you to visit a recent Nikon page for the 50/1.8 S lens, and I mean no disrespect for the photographer here. My sole aim is to provide a graphic comparison of the outcomes of close viewing of the new age high spec lenses and a maker whose lenses double as cine lenses in another lens range - Thypoch (really DZOFILM).
So take a look at these linked images, then see what I get from a dedicated portrait lens below. I'm hoping you see a difference, and it would be sad if you do not. Very little processing required, very high consistency shot-to-shot.
p.2 #3 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I wanted to make the photo somewhat more interesting from my personal perspective, not to create any special glow.
I simply do not find anything interesting in the image produced by the Nokton lens.You like that image, good for you. Let's say these things are subjective and we have different tastes. I however reserve the right to express my opinion: there is no contest here: the image produced by the GM lens is superior and suitable for proper PP. The image from Nokton is blurred in an uninteresting and meaningless way. I wouldn't waste my time on it.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Hm, I don't see any glow, I only see a GM photo that still clearly stands out from the Nokton photo.
There's certainly a lot more that can be done if you're familiar with all the electronic tools, but like I said, it's not as easy as you think.
Perhaps you now understand why someone who likes the type of (un)sharpening rendering of a particular lens would want to take pictures with that lens and not simply with the "best" lens, only to try to correct it afterwards in Lightroom.
And don't worry, the Nokton is clearly sharper at portrait distances. :-)
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the "GERMANY" on the dial is not legible in the GM photo, but it is in the "blurry" Nokton photo.
I'll write it a third time. This isn't about the picture, because it's not really a picture. I simply wanted a subject that effectively showcases the glow and the alarm clock was just sitting there....Show more →
p.2 #4 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and correctly understanding a simple comment I wrote and, you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated that a sharp photo is a better departure point for PP and making an appealing image even if it means taking away some of that sharpness and put some softness in its place. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It's not worthy of consideration.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision. I am not going to waste my time here arguing with you any more. Bye.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development....Show more →
p.2 #5 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I don't see any special image here. Some mediocre snapshots. There are different reasons some people do not like to see sharp images of themselves. Sometimes it is just because it shows wrinkles and flaws they do not want to see. They want to see themselves as 'beautiful'. That said, the solution is not to start off with an out of focus or blurred image. It makes even the eyes uninteresting. Most professional photographers make sure the eyes are sharp in focus. Then they may soften the skin or else in PP.
I have never seen any lens being unpleasantly sharp. The lenses do not produce the kind of unpleasant garish sharpness by themselves. It is the user error when an image becomes unpleasantly sharp. They must have pushed an slider too far in the software.
philip_pj wrote:
It's a strange thing but it seems to be true that overly sharp lenses actually repel the viewing eye from gazing at human faces. I shoot street portraits so I get 'instant karma' on how my lenses show peoples' faces - I show them their images.
I'll ask you to visit a recent Nikon page for the 50/1.8 S lens, and I mean no disrespect for the photographer here. My sole aim is to provide a graphic comparison of the outcomes of close viewing of the new age high spec lenses and a maker whose lenses double as cine lenses in another lens range - Thypoch (really DZOFILM).
So take a look at these linked images, then see what I get from a dedicated portrait lens below. I'm hoping you see a difference, and it would be sad if you do not. Very little processing required, very high consistency shot-to-shot....Show more →
p.2 #6 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I prefer the GM rendering. Something about the contrast in the clock, it separating itself from the background and the rendering of oof elements.
It's subjective, but I prefer the cleaner, higher resolving look of the GM.
I wouldn't consider a manual focus lens anyway since I don't have time to manually focus anymore for the subjects I shoot.
p.2 #7 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
@raminolta, I hear you.
This guy is on a spree to litter as many threads as he can every day with his so-called expert comments. If you look at the Simera threads as well as the "which lenses have 3D pop" and more recently the Zeiss ZM 35 thread, you'll quickly realize he's a self-proclaimed mentor that "helps" people see, what cinematic rendering is and how clueless Zeiss, Nikon and other companies except Thypoch are. Verbal diarrhea pretty much. Someone that cant backup fancy words with some decent photos gets 0 credibility.
He points to a Nikon 50/1.8s thread which has some amazing photos and posts an "example" of how a portrait ought to look like. His so-called example is from a 75mm lens not to mention it being mediocre at best. He won't post A-B comparisions, nor will be repond to any questions. I'm pretty sure he's being incentivized by Thypoch. Except, a bunch of us will simply not buy a Thypoch lens just because of how repulsive this person is. I hope Thypoch are not naive enough to work with someone of this caliber.
p.2 #8 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
I wanted to make the photo somewhat more interesting from my personal perspective, not to create any special glow.
I simply do not find anything interesting in the image produced by the Nokton lens.You like that image, good for you. Let's say these things are subjective and we have different tastes. I however reserve the right to express my opinion: there is no contest here: the image produced by the GM lens is superior and suitable for proper PP. The image from Nokton is blurred in an uninteresting and meaningless way. I wouldn't waste my time on it.
I'm sorry, but those are all just excuses. You said you could easily match the results of a "sharp" lens (here the GM) to the results of a "less sharp" lens (here the Nokton) in post-processing. I've reminded you of this several times now. The fact that you're simply ignoring it because you realize you can't do it is childish, even if it's a typical approach in forums.
You named an edited image "GM glows".This shows that you are well aware of what it's supposed to be. It's just that there's no glow visible in it.
p.2 #9 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It carries nothing.
How many more times do I have to explain this to you? Of course, it's meaningless as a picture because it's a test shot intended to illustrate a point. If someone wants to show you a complex distortion (because you claim you can easily replicate it in image editing software) and therefore photographs a brick wall, do you also find that image useless because it's meaningless?
p.2 #10 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
BobSac wrote:
I prefer the GM rendering. Something about the contrast in the clock, it separating itself from the background and the rendering of oof elements.
It's subjective, but I prefer the cleaner, higher resolving look of the GM.
I wouldn't consider a manual focus lens anyway since I don't have time to manually focus anymore for the subjects I shoot.
One question. Have you read the previous posts? Nifty Fifty wrote:
It's not about who likes which image better, but only about whether the GM image can be easily and without much effort adapted to the Nokton image.
(...)
And as I said, it's not about personal preference,
(...)
The comparison image wasn't meant to be "pretty," but rather to illustrate the effect I'm referring to.
(...)
I didn't want to show a "Look how great the Nokton renders" image, but rather an example image of a blur effect that I believe is difficult or even impossible to replicate with the GM,
(...)
p.2 #11 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I was just voicing an opinion, take it for what it is, it's not intended to be anything other than that. I wasn't/won't be involved in the other discussion.
p.2 #12 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
hesb wrote:
I'm tempted regularly with one of the two big brothers AF...
What do you think?
Get the GM, otherwise you'll keep thinking about it and wondering whether you should buy it after all. Why GM and not Sigma? For the same reason. ;-)
If you buy a used one, you can usually resell it without much loss if necessary. Or you could spend some money and rent one. Personally, I find a few days too short if I want to do more than just shoot typical test scenarios and then review them at 1000x magnification on my computer, but actually get a feel for whether I like the images produced by the lens.
p.2 #13 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Well I did not expect my post to reveal so much anger.
I just wanted to ask people who have, or have used these lenses how they feel about it.
I was not expecting "this one is better, or this one is worse", which is kind of a bit close minded answer.
But more "look at this: it's simply different, and I like both, and here is why." answer
I'm the same, sometimes I much prefer the nokton, sometimes I prefer something sharper.
But most of the time, I use the nokton at 1.2 when <i wnat the glow and at 2 when I want a much sharper image. A lens like this but with af would be great... but anyway.
Thanks again for those who share their feelings, we are lucky to have different lenses for different tastes (maybe a bit spoiled), But no need to be violent.
p.2 #14 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Perhaps one more small addition regarding "GM glows". In my opinion, it should look something like this. Referring to the glowing effect itself, not the copying of the Nokton.
GM DSC07971 by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
p.2 #15 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
hesb wrote:
But most of the time, I use the nokton at 1.2 when <i wnat the glow and at 2 when I want a much sharper image. A lens like this but with af would be great... but anyway.
I had the exact same thought, but in my opinion, it doesn't work that way. The GM is significantly different wide open. In every respect, except for the softness of the bokeh, it's "better" than the Nokton. The Nokton somehow feels more "analog" to me, which is obviously nonsense, but I don't know how else to describe it. Others might see it differently. That's why I think you have to try it out for yourself. You could also use the Nokton with the Techart AF adapter. I've considered that too, but the handling and performance just aren't worth the extra cost to me. And as I said, even though the GM doesn't really suit my taste as much as the Nokton, it's practically become my go-to lens.
It simply works perfectly in every situation and delivers images with that certain something at wide open. It's truly a remarkable lens.
p.2 #16 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I'd achieve that 'glow' the same way I add what I call highlight blooming, using in video attempting to mimick film creating a depth of thickness. I'd prefer the clinical output of the GM without the 'baked-in' look of the other lens.
Removing the bloom or 'glow' for clarity and contest is more difficult for me anyway.
p.2 #17 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I'm sorry, but those are all just excuses. You said you could easily match the results of a "sharp" lens (here the GM) to the results of a "less sharp" lens (here the Nokton) in post-processing. I've reminded you of this several times now. The fact that you're simply ignoring it because you realize you can't do it is childish, even if it's a typical approach in forums.
You named an edited image "GM glows".This shows that you are well aware of what it's supposed to be. It's just that there's no glow visible in it.
Yes, I said so and I still think one can mimic the image of a soft lens to a very good degree of accuracy (maybe not %100 but close) in PP if one wants to but I never said I am going to take on this just to prove my point to somebody. If somebody is emotionally set to believe in something, he can always find a tiny difference and zoom on it to claim the contestant has failed the challenge. In any case, it's waste of time. When I spend time on a photo it's because I want to improve it not to degrade it. That's why I came up with the version I presented not because I want to mimic the 'Nokton effect'. When I have free time, I have a lot of interesting photos of myself to spend my time on to make them presentable; I am too busy to try to mimic a soft haziness.
p.2 #18 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I really like some of the Simera 75mm shots Philip posted (especially the lady with that hat that looks like a mountain ranger) and I love the Nokton 50mm. I think the Nokton 50mm is my favourite lens so far.
The GM has always been on my list and it's probably the only one I'm interested in out of the GM lenses, though I've heard great things about the ZA 50mmf1.4 too.
Specifically interested to get it to shoot wide open with people and autofocus and likely dissappoint no one.
I think it would give very nice modern images. Nokton is always a (little) bit more vintage feeling that I haven't seen from the GM samples of people. It's not vintage in the image quality (notable exception is larger apertures in very close range with that retro looking glow) but just something about the images, perhaps the colours - and it's only slight. I like it.
Very authentic feeling images at f1.6, and a bit surreal at f1.2 with some softness, just don't get too close.
I find it very easy to focus with (using the SE version, haven't tried the regular one). And it's reasonably small.
I've seen comparisons from Nifty Fifty previously, and I was actually surprised by how similar the two looked, but I'd imagine for people there would be some more notable differences. A bit cleaner and more polished and fresh with the GM and a little softer with the Nokton I'd imagine.
I love the nokton so much I bought the 40 just to have it in a different focal length.
I'd love to share examples of people but the family would kill me. My favourite is to shoot it at f1.6 in medium distance with people. It gets some interesting shots at f1.2 bit further out too.
The modern lenses I think are great for younger folk. More bubbly photos, less to worry about with skin details, the brighter colours and clarity suit them better. Just my current opinion and taste though and I don't have hands on with the GM.
p.2 #20 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
Yes, I said so and I still think one can mimic the image of a soft lens to a very good degree of accuracy (maybe not %100 but close) in PP if one wants to
Well, I was just trying to show you how complex the whole thing is. You're sticking to your opinion. So we can end it here. Arguing isn't my goal.
raminolta wrote:
If somebody is emotionally set to believe in something, he can always find a tiny difference and zoom on it to claim the contestant has failed the challenge.
I'm not one of those who zooms in; quite the opposite, for me, only the overall effect of the image matters. That's why I don't have an "R" (for zooming in). ;-)
