actually yeah my test method was flawed there. tried it some more - identical subject, distance, lighting, ISO, set to the same f1.2 aperture. No chip in the adapter. Adjusted shutter manually for most similar histogram. Then it comes out to a 1-stop difference for the same medium grey subject. With a higher contrast scene, it's more subjective as the OM55 has very low macrocontrast in comparison. interesting, I hadn't thought to check this before.
Thanks Anden and Ulrikft. I think you'll love the 28/2, I use mine a lot more than my 35/1.4, but for the really dark stuff I need that 1-stop advantage.
What you really should do is shoot both at the same shutter speed and see how much darker the OM 55/1.2 will be. You get the nice shallow DoF from the f/1.2, but a lot closer to t/2 for how much light the lens lets in. I have no idea why that happens. t-stops as I understand them are a measure of how much light actually makes it through the lens, while f-stops are simple a measure of the diameter of the hole, for lack of a better word, that the light comes through.
Fourfa, all these FE2 shots are from your old FE2. Still going strong!
ulrikft wrote:
Love that bokeh wrath I think I love the in-your-face-bokeh from the 20-35 ai primes from nikon!
Thanks, the 24/2 AIS has really odd gumdrop bokeh towards the edges of the frame.
Yeah that happened to me the other day on Yahoo Autions Japan with a few things I wanted. $152 would have been an amazing deal on a 24/2 as I rarely see them go for under $400.
burningheart wrote:
Coastal Optics UV-VIS-IR APO lens all at F4 IS200 on Canon 5D MKII. First 3 shots at MFD of 10.4 inches. The fourth shot about 3 feet.
That is very very interesting burningheart. You have a USD 4.000+ lens with the most beautiful MTF-curve, being a truly true APO lens to that...?!!
There is a lack of "pop" in these images. Is it correct to believe you have posted the images "unprocessed", i.e. no sharpening applied? Or is it just me and the monitor here at work? Or, maybe they should have been stopped down to f/5.6. I don't know, and I'll probably never even see this lens in real life.
May I ask what use you make of this lens? regards, /Jonas
Yes unproccessed, I usually shoot UV and IR with this lens. Yes F5.6 is better to shoot at than F4. For closeups though I would normally shoot to F11.
Here is a better example shot at F11 on Fujifilm S5 camera with a little sharpening taken this past summer when it as warmer (not -30 with windchill as it was today) and the sun higher in the sky
burningheart wrote:
Yes unproccessed, I usually shoot UV and IR with this lens. (...)
Thank you for elaborating! Who can not like the details in the first image, or the bokeh in the second? That's admirable blur to my eyes.
(I would get tempted to soften a few details in the background on the second one - there are some details getting a bit close to the focus plane and they may distract (me at least).)
Found a tree out in the woods someone decided to decorate. Shot with Nikon 200-400 F4 at 400mm on Canon 5D MKII with Mark's G Adapter. That's my reflection in the glass ball.
I think I love the in-your-face-bokeh from the 20-35 ai primes from nikon!