carstenw wrote:
Is that at f/1.7 Martin? Great shot, what a beautiful look, like 4x5 (at this size anyway )
I think so, but it might have been wide open or f/2. From my testing on the NEX I've come to the conclusion that f/1.7 (the click between f/1.4 and f/2) is where sharpness gets acceptable while still getting the nice OOF character. Wide open the lens is either "terrible" or "fantastic" depending on what you want to produce. It resembles the Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM in many ways, but without any visible curvature of field and with very low vignetting on film. Don't know about focus shift yet, but there almost must be some due to heavy spherical aberration.
Makten wrote:
I think so, but it might have been wide open or f/2. From my testing on the NEX I've come to the conclusion that f/1.7 (the click between f/1.4 and f/2) is where sharpness gets acceptable while still getting the nice OOF character. Wide open the lens is either "terrible" or "fantastic" depending on what you want to produce. It resembles the Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM in many ways, but without any visible curvature of field and with very low vignetting on film. Don't know about focus shift yet, but there almost must be some due to heavy spherical aberration.
your results with the lens at large aperture seem very different from what i've seen from others with the lens on the same camera. are you sure there isn't something wrong with your copy? is it the 2nd version of the lens?
sebboh wrote:
your results with the lens at large aperture seem very different from what i've seen from others with the lens on the same camera. are you sure there isn't something wrong with your copy? is it the 2nd version of the lens?
I hear these things for EVERY lens I use and post results from, and it's probably just because I don't shoot closeups. People seem to think the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar is awful at f/1.4, while I think it's fantastic, just for the same reason but inverted (it's optimized for infinity). The Nokton is sharp wide open for closeups, but not so at a couple of meters distance.
Of course there could be something wrong, but I really don't think so. People seem to rave about lenses they get and never tell about their weaknesses. I would be very surprised if you could get a 35/1.2 that was tack sharp when wide open for this price.
Makten wrote:
I hear these things for EVERY lens I use and post results from, and it's probably just because I don't shoot closeups. People seem to think the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar is awful at f/1.4, while I think it's fantastic, just for the same reason but inverted (it's optimized for infinity). The Nokton is sharp wide open for closeups, but not so at a couple of meters distance.
Of course there could be something wrong, but I really don't think so. People seem to rave about lenses they get and never tell about their weaknesses. I would be very surprised if you could get a 35/1.2 that was tack sharp when wide open for this price....Show more →
i'm certainly not saying it should be tack sharp, but i've seen a lot of 100% crops from this lens on the 5N and jonas posted a series at of shots at infinity throughout the aperture range with it which seemed to show significantly less aberrations than yours seems to be exhibiting.
sebboh wrote:
i'm certainly not saying it should be tack sharp, but i've seen a lot of 100% crops from this lens on the 5N and jonas posted a series at of shots at infinity throughout the aperture range with it which seemed to show significantly less aberrations than yours seems to be exhibiting.
it certainly doesn't look great wide open, and the sharpening makes comparison more difficult, but the results look more controlled to me than what you're getting at middle distances.
it certainly doesn't look great wide open, and the sharpening makes comparison more difficult, but the results look more controlled to me than what you're getting at middle distances.
I don't think it looks any better than my results. At infinity, DOF is huuuuge and many aberrations are gone that you otherwise can see at ~5 meters or so.
Now for something different; the Voigtländer 15/4.5 Heliar on film! I find it absolutely fantastic. Sharp right to the corner wide open and very low distortion, combined with high micro contrast and great sharpness.
Took a roll of film to a professional lab to develop and scan to a CD of 18MP tiffs. My first time using Ektar 100 35mm film, and I don't know how much of the color and contrast to attribute to the film and how much to the scan. In LR, contrast (contrast, highlight, shadow) was reduced by quite a lot, exposure was reduced by around 1 stop (I'd rated the film at 125, so next I'll try 200), and even pulled down the saturation and vividness a bit in each shot.
The overall effect was surprising at first, then the "look" started to grow on me. It's different anyway. I'll try a different brand and see how that does at the lab.
I'm reminded how difficult it was dealing with the limited DR of transparency film (about eight to nine stops) and a little more with negative. Film certainly can produce some striking images, but I'm spoiled now by digital.
And then there is the turn around time -- my shots here took two days at the lab, and then more time in PP at home. My digital shots from the same shoot were posted on different threads within a couple hours of being taken.
I know what you mean though -- some great submissions to this thread by many inspiring photographers!
)
It resembles the Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM in many ways, but without any visible curvature of field and with very low vignetting on film. Don't know about focus shift yet, but there almost must be some due to heavy spherical aberration.
