The lever I mentioned is to engage or disengage the aperture, Like the old pentax lenses used to do. I was doing a bit of searching for the answer last night, but came up dry.
Cinstance wrote:
Those are some wondeful pictures. You cerntainly have the talent to use a low light lens. It is a shame that my 85L is always sitting in the bag.
I would also like more information about the adapter...
I bought a cheapo one on Evilbay, it is very well built, but it is not usable.
Dimensions are somewhere wrong, as i can not get a correct focus (strong front focus) on any picture
(either on a 20d or Markii, with different lenses... are repeated tests...)
there is also the cameraquest adapter, but at 175$...
pookipichu wrote:
Thanks Clay. I haven't shot any photos at f/1.4 because I always use the lens wide open. But these are some 100% crops at f/1.2 ISO 400 The ISO 400 is very noisy and 1/50s shutter limits sharpness, but the important part is that the image is captured.
Amazing colour and sharpness wide open!
Is that the natural colour of the lens or has the vividness been added in post processing? If you wanted to upgrade your body, the newer cameras are less noisy at ISO 400.
pooki, these are crops are they not (that past one in particular) ? at f1.2 the focale plane is minuscule, so either you are quite a way off and cropped, or I really don't see how you get that fairly large DoF at f1.2!
You say you always use it at f1.2, but is it *possible* to stop down the lens manualy ?
Thanks for the comments. Depending on the image, there are curve adjustments but yes, the lens is quite sharp and saturated. The noise I mentioned was with the 350 XT so I don't think there is a newer camera yet.
Buze,
The photos labeled crops are crops. Otherwise you are looking at the full image. I don't really see what you mean in regard to DoF. The DoF is very thin and I don't see where it appears otherwise. All photos were taken at f/1.2 and yes it is possible to manually stop the lens down but I would be aware if I did so. It would be a conscious choice and I chose to shoot wide open. Depending on the lighting conditions, my shutter speeds were as slow as 1/15s with ISO 100-400, my images would be black if I had stopped the lens down accidentally.
It's just that with my 50mm f1.4, the DoF at that kind of distance is very thin indeed. In your shot here her ears are sharp still, as well as her knees, her right hand and even her left hand is still limit in the DoF. Thats about 15 cm DoF...
In this shot at f1.4, her eyes & nose are sharp, and thats pretty much it. her ear is OoF, the rest goes out of focus very very quickly, up to a point where her necklace is totaly OoF. That gives about 3cm DoF, and VERY quick falloff when out of that.
That is why I'm asking this, I'm just curious now far you were with a 50 to get that DoF and that fairly gentle falloff anyway, at f1.2!
Okay, now I understand your question. I was farther away than you were in your photo. The face, knees and hands are roughly on the same plane and the DoF increases as the photo is resized.
For reference, look at the baby photos where the head is filling the frame. The depth of field is less than 3cm. Then I have the photo of a man eating corn which is taken from a farther distance.
Thanks for the comments. Depending on the image, there are curve adjustments but yes, the lens is quite sharp and saturated. The noise I mentioned was with the 350 XT so I don't think there is a newer camera yet.
Right... I was under the impression you were using a 10D as stated in your original post
Nice photos. You have an eye.
The small, resized pictures look worse then from the Canon 50 1.4 though.
The “nude” and your 100% seem especially “dreamy”.
What’s your test conclusion?
Thank you, I'm glad you like the photos. I have no experience with the Canon 50 f/1.4 but I can give a test conclusion versus the 50 f/1.8.
The N50mm f/1.2 is much better built, much, much sturdier, easier to focus precisely and is very sharp when the focus is accurate with a high shutter speed and low ISO.
For lack of a better description, the bokeh of the N50 is smoother and less "busy" than the C50 1.8. I can't stand the bokeh of the C50, it's like bokeh gnats are swarming around.
There's very little CA, much less than the C50. Has to have very, very high contrast, sunlight/chrome, etc. and even then it's well controlled.
Manual focus is always tricky with a thin DoF but then again, I always found my C50 hunting for focus in dim lighting. Much of my photography is done indoors and at night and I rarely use center focus. The C50 simply refuses to lock under those circumstances.
In terms of sharpness, I've never been a "sharpness person" or I'd be posting photos of cereal boxes and newspapers. I am sharing real world photos because I think people should see a lens in action.
Lastly, although I am devoted to my Tamron 28-75, it's darn slow. Before I started photography, I remember reading that f/2.8 is fast. Well, at ISO 3200, f/2.8 is still too slow for a lot of my indoor photography. I got the C50 for low light work and found it too slow + inability to lock focus. The f/1.2 really really helps. I really don't like the noise above ISO 100, let alone 400 or 800. With f/1.2, I can get decent exposures even in a candle-lit room.
The main reason I got this lens is my need for speed. I would love to try the C50 f/1.0 or the Leica Noctilux, but those are insanely expensive. So, this is my budget speed demon.
To put things in perspective (the way I thought things through) the C1.4 is four times the price of the C1.8 and the C1.0 is ten times the price of the C1.4. The N50 is not directly comparable to the C1.4 anymore than someone would compare C1.4 with the C1.0. I think the N50 is a real bargain,considering its build quality, a lens that will last for generations.
My major caveat is that manual focusing is definitely a challenge. The viewfinder of the 350XT is horrendous. I am a product of the AF generation and MF was totally foreign to me. It's definitely something I had to practice. And anything that moves quickly requires you to focus almost instinctually.
Phil,
Thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate and am glad you like the photo.
I need to put to practice the advice of alanS: to shoot f/1.2 portraits, of nature, like your flower shot above. It is another beauty.
I thought I would do this while on vacation with wife and child, but, naturally, ended up shooting mostly family vacation shots. But we do have some very nice family allbum pics if I must say so myself!
At $550 it is a bargain considering the build quality and speed. The 50 1.4 AIS is also a nice optic for a couple hundred less. Even the cheapest Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS has shockingly good build quality.
