Could someone shoot a brick wall straight on, then tip the lens up and then down, just a bit, maybe side to side also, so we could all see what it does. Thanks Clay.
Perry, those look pretty good to me. It's hard to tell for sure, without a straight on shot of the eyes, but it looks pretty good. The F2 shot looks great.
cactusclay wrote:
Could someone shoot a brick wall straight on, then tip the lens up and then down, just a bit, maybe side to side also, so we could all see what it does. Thanks Clay.
It is nightime here now, see if I have time tomorrow and I will try and do it
you should re read your link...the link you posted is for the 35 1.4 not the 50 1.2........if you check the adorama site, you will find the price still at $1599 for the 50 1.2 with a note that says the lens is not in stock...regards
D'oh! I'm having two separate conversations at the same time (one on the phone, one in person) and I clicked the link from my wish list. How I got to the 35L I don't know.
Mea Culpa! I'll delete the link and apologize to everyone for being so scatter brained this morning. Less than a 1/4 cup of coffee can be hazardous!
Nill Toulme wrote:
And once again I'm left, breathless, sitting here with my credit card in my hand... :-(
Do it, Nill. After getting through most of my RollerGirls photos last night (still have a couple hundred to go) it's pretty clear that the 50/1.2L is producing consistently better results than my 85/1.8 at f/1.8 and f/2. The 50 is sharper, and the color rendition is palpably better. I always have a hard time WB'ing the 85/1.8 shots so they're "just right". I always kind figured this was a problem with Lightroom, but the 50/1.2L shots clearly have a much more neutral tone and are easier to WB. Focus consistency seems to be better than the 85/1.8, but this is a tough comparison since I'm generally shooting tighter with the 85, so it's an Apples to Oranges comparison. In any case, the 50/1.2L doesn't seem to be having trouble keeping up in the focusing department.
Since it's become pretty obvious that what I consider sharp is different than everyone else, so I won't bore you guys with more photos. But I'm very happy with the lens at this point.
Wow, Sam, that's interesting what you say about WB with the 85 f/1.8. I have trouble with it too, but until you said that I'd never connected it to the lens. Huh...
OK, then, it's down to a question of which tax year to order it in... dang.
I did a direct comparison of the skin tone colors of 85L and the 85 f/1.8 and saw slightly smoother color transitions and a wider range of pastels with the 85L.
For example, the 85L delivered some finer shades of color when transitioning to shadow. The 85 f/1.8 transitioned to shadow slightly faster.
At that time Castleman attributed this to the higher contrast of the 85 f/1.8.
Here at FM we always see sharpeness comparisons but hardly ever see color rendition/handling comparisons.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up why the vast majority of people aren't going to get why someone would spend more on the 50/1.2L. Beyond that (if you want to keep talking about sharpness) there's focus performance which typically isn't dealt with in these tests either - almost like it doesn't exist. The reason I asked Andy about his methodology of arriving at his test images is because I have enough experience testing to know that if you take 5 photos of a test chart in ideal conditions (manual, flash, tripod, etc.) you're going to end up with variations in focus accuracy between the shots. That's the thing that can result in odd results like Andy's where in some situations the 50/1.2 is sharper at f/1.4 and not as sharp in others. If you're not accounting for focus accuracy, your results are ultimately invalid. Part of what I gauge in my tests is how much variability in accuracy is there. The lenses I own that are subjectively "sharpest" are the ones that are not only "sharp" in the absolute sense, but deliver that sharpness consistently. For instance, my Sigma 20/1.8 was "sharp wide-open", but it could not focus consistently which made it a worthless lens to me. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 24-70 is not my sharpest lens in absolute terms but it focuses most consistently out of all my lenses, so it gives the most consistent results.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Yeah, that pretty much sums up why the vast majority of people aren't going to get why someone would spend more on the 50/1.2L. Beyond that (if you want to keep talking about sharpness) there's focus performance which typically isn't dealt with in these tests either - almost like it doesn't exist. The reason I asked Andy about his methodology of arriving at his test images is because I have enough experience testing to know that if you take 5 photos of a test chart in ideal conditions (manual, flash, tripod, etc.) you're going to end up with variations in focus accuracy between the shots. That's the thing that can result in odd results like Andy's where in some situations the 50/1.2 is sharper at f/1.4 and not as sharp in others. If you're not accounting for focus accuracy, your results are ultimately invalid. Part of what I gauge in my tests is how much variability in accuracy is there. The lenses I own that are subjectively "sharpest" are the ones that are not only "sharp" in the absolute sense, but deliver that sharpness consistently. For instance, my Sigma 20/1.8 was "sharp wide-open", but it could not focus consistently which made it a worthless lens to me. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 24-70 is not my sharpest lens in absolute terms but it focuses most consistently out of all my lenses, so it gives the most consistent results.
Sharpness alone is not enough....Show more →
Exactly. That's why, when I "bench" test at the widest apertures, I try minute manual focus adjustments, to find the best resolution and sharpness I can get. In real world use, the accuracy and consistency of AF makes a huge difference in results.
