petrescu wrote:
Or, we do know that perspective doesn't change with the focal length, provided the distance from subject is changed accordingly.
Care to explain this one? "Perspective" absolutely does change according to focal length if the distance changes. Shoot the same headshot with a 20mm and a 135mm lens, and the photo is going to look fundamentally different since you've changed the distance you're shooting from to compensate for framing. Perspective would only remain the same if you shot the 20mm shot from the same distance as the 135mm shot but cropped instead of moving closer to get the same framing.
Sam ... sorry but you need to look into this more. perspective ONLY changes with distance to subject. It's in many photography 101 books but one of the persistent misunderstood principles. You can do a test yourself or check out a book on this. I don't mean this reply as condescending or snippy - but it's one of those things that make me roll my eyes how often it's misunderstood.
If you change a shot from a 35 to a 300 but don't change your distance the shot will be identical as far as perspective - but your framing may be a bit of a challenge.
The apparent difference comes from the need to change distance for framing purposes - not from the focal length change. So in a way one can think of changing lenses as for the purpose of getting a working distance for the desired perspective - and to conquer physical distance challenges.
So, reading the press release Canon says "an almost circular aperture diaphragm for attractive bokeh..." - are we assuming at this point that the aperture blades are curved a la the 85/1.2 II, or is this statement just based the number of blades and width of the aperture?
Pavel wrote:
Sam ... sorry but you need to look into this more. perspective ONLY changes with distance to subject. It's in many photography 101 books but one of the persistent misunderstood principles. You can do a test yourself or check out a book on this. I don't mean this reply as condescending or snippy - but it's one of those things that make me roll my eyes how often it's misunderstood.
You need to re-read, and more importantly understand what I wrote.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Care to explain this one? "Perspective" absolutely does change according to focal length if the distance changes. Shoot the same headshot with a 20mm and a 135mm lens, and the photo is going to look fundamentally different since you've changed the distance you're shooting from to compensate for framing. Perspective would only remain the same if you shot the 20mm shot from the same distance as the 135mm shot but cropped instead of moving closer to get the same framing.
Let's say I agree with you. "Perspective" means different things to different people.
In the sense you seem to explain, in order to obtain same perspective one should crop the image instead of moving. But if cropping the image, there can be no more sharpness comparison, because the cropped image should be enlarged to become same size as the non-crop, and an enlarged image is obviously less sharp than the original. In our case, if the 50 image was an enlarged crop, then its sharpness couldn't be compared to a non-enlarged 85 image.
I'll hold off on judgment until I see pictures from the lens. Without seeing pics, if the price approaches 1200 to be more in-line with the 35L, which isn't likely to happen since it is faster, I will strongly consider it.
In the meantime my 35L, 50 1.4, and 85L combo will suffice quite nicely. That and the purchase of a new house is shifting monetary precedence to other areas. Lenses or countertops? Hmmmm.
petrescu wrote:
Let's say I agree with you. "Perspective" means different things to different people.
In the sense you seem to explain, in order to obtain same perspective one should crop the image instead of moving. But if cropping the image, there can be no more sharpness comparison, because the cropped image should be enlarged to become same size as the non-crop, and an enlarged image is obviously less sharp than the original. In our case, if the 50 image was an enlarged crop, then its sharpness couldn't be compared to a non-enlarged 85 image.
I'm not getting into the sharpness argument, I was just saying that what you claimed about perspective was wrong. I think it's safe to say the Canon's not handing out cropped samples in any case.
Sam Bennett wrote:
You need to re-read, and more importantly understand what I wrote.
ok, before the shouting starts. sam's first line in his reply was:
'"Perspective" absolutely does change according to focal length if the distance changes.' which pretty much is the exact thing you said in your reply right after:
'perspective ONLY changes with distance to subject.'
petrescu wrote:
Is that a cropped photo? Or a walk-through between 50 and 85. Can't say the sharpness of one is better than the other if not knowing whether crop or walk-through. If crop, what camera sensor.
Otherwise the photo looks interesting because that 1.2 bokeh effect on somebody's face.
Sorry, forgot to translate that. It says beneath the images:
"This is the difference between DOF and perspective between the 50/1.2 and the 85/1.2 II on an EOS 5D which has a 35mm sensor. At the same distance, the perspective will be the same but the framing will be different. Click on the picture to see a larger version."
Below the other two it says that it's the respective lens wide open.
So as I understand it, they varied the distance. No crop.
EDIT: Please do keep in mind that a) my first language is German, so "perspective" might actually be the wrong term here and b) my first language is German, so I might have gotten the Swedish text wrong. Thanks, gentlemen.
tmronin wrote:
ok, before the shouting starts. sam's first line in his reply was:
'"Perspective" absolutely does change according to focal length if the distance changes.' which pretty much is the exact thing you said in your reply right after:
'perspective ONLY changes with distance to subject.'
Antje wrote:
Sorry, forgot to translate that. It says beneath the images:
"This is the difference between DOF and perspective between the 50/1.2 and the 85/1.2 II on an EOS 5D which has a 35mm sensor. At the same distance, the perspective will be the same but the framing will be different. Click on the picture to see a larger version."
Below the other two it says that it's the respective lens wide open.
So as I understand it, they varied the distance. No crop.
EDIT: Please do keep in mind that a) my first language is German, so "perspective" might actually be the wrong term here and b) my first language is German, so I might have gotten the Swedish text wrong. Thanks, gentlemen.
Antje
Edited by Antje on Aug 25, 2006 at 03:30 PM GMT...Show more →
Gentlemen. Thanks for the translation and the discussion. Thanks for the pictures too. It's all great news about a great lens :-)
Oh boy, can not wait till the first reviews start to pour in and polarize this forum:
Camp 1: Tack sharp, Built like a tank, Creamy-Dreamy Bokeh, Paper-thin DoF.
Camp 2: Crapola of a lens, Overpriced, Soft wide open, Soft fully stopped down, Soft corners everywhere, Barelling-Pincushioning, Purple-green fringing, Flares even in deep shade, Hood is useless, Pouch is useless, Back/front fovcuses like mad.
Camp3: Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar..... better and cheaper ways.
Chorus: Should have bought the Noctilux !
Edited by handheld on Aug 25, 2006 at 03:39 PM GMT
Perspective does not change with focal lenth depending in the distcance is the same? hmmmmput a 14mm on a 5 and a 400mm on a 5....get your distance correct and show the frames and how they look identical wrt perspective..........Want to be re-educated.....been a number of years since I taught photography and even longer since I studied it in a formal setting....
Maybe I am confused, but this is how I taught focal length as it relates to perspective.......
Aberdeen Photo wrote:
Perspective does not change with focal lenth depending in the distcance is the same? hmmmmput a 14mm on a 5 and a 400mm on a 5....get your distance correct and show the frames and how they look identical wrt perspective..........Want to be re-educated.....been a number of years since I taught photography and even longer since I studied it in a formal setting....
If you are referring to the Swedish website: Like I said, I translated it from Swedish, my third language, to English, my second language. Perspective might not have been the correct English word. What they IMHO mean in that blurb is that you basically get a similar "look and feel" of the image with a 50 and a 85 at the same distance. That is what that paragraph would most likely mean in German - at least that is what I understood, having read similar things before. The framing, that is, what is in the picture, how much of that guy can you see, differs of course, that is what they also say in that short blurb. They just want to explain how the two images would look if taken from the same distance, which they are obviously not. They are not saying anything about lenses in general.
But then, maybe I got the translation wrong. Entirely possible, especially because I started to learn Swedish casually four months ago. I'm pleased, however, that such a fun exercise for me had such an effect on a forum.
The purpose of this lens seems more to push the speed envelope than anything else... I would have much prefered if they took on Leica and upgraded their existing 50's to come closer to matching a Summicron and Summilux. With Canon volume, plastic design and manufacturing I bet they could get the 50/1.8 up to near Summicron IQ level for under $200 and the 50/1.4 up to near Summilux IQ for like $500. That would be more meaningful to more people IMO.
? hmmmmput a 14mm on a 5 and a 400mm on a 5....get your distance correct and show the frames and how they look identical wrt perspective..........Want to be re-educated.....been a number of years since I taught photography and even longer since I studied it in a formal setting....