Anyone that may have a soft copy at F2 or stopped down further, could perhaps have a lens problem. I did some testing on my copy last night and found it to be nice and sharp at 1.2 and only got better as I stopped down. And honestly it was only moderatly improved at F4 compared to F1.6, which was very impressive and shows this lens will prove its worth for those that need it.
Just picked up mine at UPS depot (from Pro Photo Supply...great price and service)
Weather is crap here right now, I'll shoot when it clears up. However, at the rate the rain is increasing, I may have a couple of cats and dogs to use as models
mfurman wrote:
Could you please elaborate why you are keeping 50 f/1.4? I understand that you are saying that 50 f/1.2L is consistently better.
Thank you.
Frankly, if I were in dire need of the cash, I would sell the 1.4...but then, I wouldn't have bought the 1.2. It's always nice to have a backup lens. It can be kept on a less-used body, ready to be grabbed for earth-changing photos of one's pet. The serious answer is that I might actually favor the 1.4 if I were headed out on a hike to shoot landscapes. A zoom would be my primary lens, and the 50/1.4 is light and offers great results from f/4 to f/11, so it would be a nice back up to have in the bag at minimum weight. The 1.2 is consistently better at wide apertures, not in the optimal mid-range.
dcmiller wrote:
Jess, I wasn't aware there was ever a curvature in the plane of focus??
Actually, it's common. Macro lenses are highly corrected for curvature of field; same for "flat field" lenses designed for copying, enlarging lenses, etc. Large aperture lenses tend to allow more curvature of field in order to correct for other aberrations and achieve high acutance in the central area in spite of that large aperture.
Don't confuse this with linear distortion (barrel, pincushion).
Photon wrote:
Actually, it's common. Macro lenses are highly corrected for curvature of field; same for "flat field" lenses designed for copying, enlarging lenses, etc. Large aperture lenses tend to allow more curvature of field in order to correct for other aberrations and achieve high acutance in the central area in spite of that large aperture.
Don't confuse this with linear distortion (barrel, pincushion).
Gotta head for work...
Correct... and this fact is responsible for many of the "my lens is soft in the corners wide open" complaints you commonly see on the Web. Most sharpness tests of newspapers, brick walls and the like are also made at near focus distances, which can exacerbate lens curvature of field...
garyvot wrote:
Correct... and this fact is responsible for many of the "my lens is soft in the corners wide open" complaints you commonly see on the Web. Most sharpness tests of newspapers, brick walls and the like are also made at near focus distances, which can exacerbate lens curvature of field...
Anyone testing corner sharpness should explain his method clearly. It seems to me that at f/1.2 it is critical to align the focal plane with the test wall (in case of the newspaper test). This, in addition to the curvature of field, is perhaps why tests of corner sharpness are so hard to get right. I am thinking of using a table against a wall, and carefully aligning the camera to the edge of the table, in order to have the focal plane parallel to the wall.
Could you please tell me if you can get this type of sharpness consistently (I mean focus)? If the answer is yes, I will have to revisit my opinion about the lens but I am still wondering about copy variation.
mfurman wrote:
Could you please tell me if you can get this type of sharpness consistently (I mean focus)? If the answer is yes, I will have to revisit my opinion about the lens but I am still wondering about copy variation.
With this wide of aperture I would have to say it is about on par with the 85L as far as consistency maybe slightly less. It does focus much faster than the 85L and when on AI servo the focus jumps around maybe a little more. I am still learning how to use this baby, after the holidays I will let you know.
Needless to say, a large reason the "sharp" shots that have been posted earlier seem very sharp is because they've been sharpened. I personally will not go over "Sharpness 2" in DPP or between about Sharpness 12-25 in Lightroom because I'm so often shooting high ISO work and sharpening at full rez (vs. print or web rez) amplifies noise. This is another frustrating aspect of "testing" these lenses - since we all have different sharpening approaches, we're all used to a different level of sharpness at the pixel-level.
