Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #15 · Is there a Best IQ Fujifilm Lens? | |
gyoung143 wrote:
There are a couple of lenses from Fuji that come to mind as often mentioned in terms of optical 'imperfections' that lead to desirable characteristics for photography where the sharpest possible performance across the frame would not help the photographer achieve an attractive image. The 35mm 1.4 and the older 56 1.2.
Taking the 35 1.4 as a 'test' subject, a lens described by Fuji themselves as imtended for portraiture etc at wider apertures, I tried to see how much published work demonstrated its particular characteristics. The Fuji photo thread here doesn't seem to be searchable in a way that would isolate photoswith any particular lens unfortunately. Over at FujiX forum however they do have a lens specific tag which can be used. Checking the first few dozen listed photos very few were subject matter that would demonstrate its particular advantages at wide aperture, isolation, bokeh etc, and I couldn't see anything special about them personally, although looking at low res jpegs posted on a Web browser on a tablet is not seeing the most subtle of variations. The vast majority were more 'routine' subjects where the lens is stopped down, subject is distant and across the frame sharpness is more desirable.
So, is this 'character' in a lens, produced by under corrected aberrations at larger apertures, just something people talk about? How many of you take advantage of these characteristics regularly in your photography? For avoidance of doubt it should be noted that I personally look upon these as 'failings' rather than desirable characteristics!
Gerry...Show more →
I have no clue what most people do, but for me and for portraiture I prefer a lens that is 1) only moderately sharp and 2) has nice background bokeh, and 3) has low axial CA. That is the character I would like in a lens for portraiture. In practice, however, I have never found a lens that has all three things. Several lenses have 2 of the three. Some lenses have a fairly good performance in all three things, but I haven't found a lens that does all three really well at a wider aperture (see below for one that I think has all three at a narrower aperture).
For my taste most modern lenses are sharper than I desire for portraiture. Sure I can soften them with a filter or in post, but I would prefer to avoid that. Older lenses at wider apertures, however, aren't as sharp as I would like.
For my taste many modern lenses have sharper focus transition from in focus to out of focus than I desire. This "feature," is not something that is easy to fix with either a filter or post-processing. I find I often prefer lenses with a bit undercorrected spherical aberrations for their background bokeh. That undercorrection, however, often leaves the lenses less sharp than I like especially at closer focus distances.
Modern lenses often have well corrected axial CA. I like that. Many older lenses which I like for under corrected spherical aberrations have notable axial CA, but the worst offenders for axial CA are modern lens with well corrected spherical aberrations, but low correction of axial CA as the spherical aberrations partially mask the axial CA in older lenses.
So for portraits the lens I like the least are modern lenses that are uber sharp with strong control of spherical aberrations but weak control of axial CA. These are zero for three. I don't know of any examples for Fuji, but the Sony 35 f/1.8 is an example of that type of lens on that mount.
For portraits, I also am not a fan of modern lens that are uber sharp and control both spherical aberrations and axial CA well. On many mounts these are labelled APO lens. I can often make these work, but I usually want to use a diffusion filter or soften them in post-processing. Still the bokeh is rarely to my liking with these lenses. On Fuji my Viltrox 56 f/1.2 and Fuji 90 f/2 are mostly these type of lenses. I like them for non-portraits and I use them for their quite good AF sometimes, but I don't like the images as much as other of my portrait lenses. This is one type of 1 out of three lenses. They have good control of axial CA, but not the sharpness profile or the bokeh profile I prefer.
My next favorite sort of lens for portraits is an older lens (or older design of a lens) with less corrections of both spherical aberrations and axial CA. Some of these lenses have decent sharpness at least stopped down a little. Two Fuji examples of this sort of lens are Voigtlander 23 f/1.2 and Voigtlander 50 f/1.2. I find them sharp enough (especially with an f/2 or narrower aperture and I find the 50 a bit better than the 23) and I generally like the bokeh they produce (especially the 50). I need to use it with care, however, to avoid the axial CA. This is one type of 2 out of 3 lens (at least when stopped down a bit to improve the sharpness).
My favorite lens for Fuji is the Voigtlander 35 f/2 APO Ultron Macro. This lens is closest to my eyes of being a 3 out of 3 lens for character. It has the sharpness profile I prefer. Very nice bokeh with pretty smooth and gradual transition from in focus to out of focus and very low axial CA. Of course the aperture is not that wide, however, at f/2 but for character it represents what I would like to see and is pretty good at being 3 out of 3 but at a slower aperture.
Of full frame my favorite lens is the Leica M 50 f/1.4, which is close to 3 out of 3 too. You could quibble about its bokeh or it CA control, but in my experience these aren't bad and it has a very wide aperture. That said it has other flaws: flare resistance is pretty bad and the aperture blades make unpleasant bokeh at times when stopped down. Of course cost is a downside too.
So for me, there is no perfect lens out there. I can work with a lot of them, but ultimately every lens is a compromise. I think talking about character is really talking about preferences and many people know what they like. Not everyone can put that into words, however, and that is fine.
|
I don't think personal preference is nonsense at all. It should be framed as a personal opinion but if not, it should be taken that way. I believe the character vs. clinical is simply a way many people choose to have a criteria where they get to choose what they like without defining what it is they prefer. Just like the long, long, discussion about the 35/2 vs 1.4 vs 33. You could work to try and frame your preference as corner sharpness/color rendering or whatever. Or just say its about character and move on. Not everybody wants to head out into the weeds.