Daniel Heineck wrote:
So if I understand the premise correctly--I should expect that same kind of rendering and resolution by f2.8-f5.6 on the ML 50/1.4 as the Contax 50/1.4? I'm not asking for perfection, just close
I'm looking for a less polite 50mm to complement my olympus 50/1.4. It seems the 50/1.4 ML has some attitude.
NO, definitely not the same resolution when stopped down. The Contax leaves the ML behind as they are stopped down but there isn't much between them when wide open. The impression I have so far is that the ML is sharpest of the 2 lenses wide open at minimum focusing distance but that the Contax gets sharper (still wide open) at short to medium distances. I haven't really compared them properly so I reserve the right to change my mind about that! However, the ML is never as sharp as Zeiss or Leica lenses when stopped down, but it's certainly OK. The ML is not a 'landscape' lens with outstanding resolution from corner to corner but not everyone wants such lenses.
I'll post some stopped down pics later when I get a chance and you can make up your own mind about rendering differences.
This lens STILL weirds me out. It looks like i was more than 5feet away from the car, but in reality, the bumper was with arms reach if i crouched down, making it only 2feet away at best.
This lens STILL weirds me out. It looks like i was more than 5feet away from the car, but in reality, the bumper was with arms reach if i crouched down, making it only 2feet away at best.
Is that the ML (I believe there are a couple of ML versions too) or one of the DSB (or whatever they are), and which Canon body?
JohnJ wrote:
NO, definitely not the same resolution when stopped down. The Contax leaves the ML behind as they are stopped down but there isn't much between them when wide open. The impression I have so far is that the ML is sharpest of the 2 lenses wide open at minimum focusing distance but that the Contax gets sharper (still wide open) at short to medium distances. I haven't really compared them properly so I reserve the right to change my mind about that! However, the ML is never as sharp as Zeiss or Leica lenses when stopped down, but it's certainly OK. The ML is not a 'landscape' lens with outstanding resolution from corner to corner but not everyone wants such lenses.
I'll post some stopped down pics later when I get a chance and you can make up your own mind about rendering differences.
Cheers and thanks in advance. I'm not so much looking for a wide open lens (but love the capacity when I need it), so it sounds like hunting down a Contax 50/1.7 is probably more appropriate. Although, I probably come across wanting more of a "perfect landscape lens" than I mean. It's just I find myself enjoying most of my lenses at more moderate apertures at medium distances (and prefocused for street/social shooting).
If the ML has all that zeiss personality with bit weaker resolution between 2.8 and 5.6, I'd be happy as a clam.
Cheers and thanks in advance. I'm not so much looking for a wide open lens (but love the capacity when I need it), so it sounds like hunting down a Contax 50/1.7 is probably more appropriate. Although, I probably come across wanting more of a "perfect landscape lens" than I mean. It's just I find myself enjoying most of my lenses at more moderate apertures at medium distances (and prefocused for street/social shooting).
If the ML has all that zeiss personality with bit weaker resolution between 2.8 and 5.6, I'd be happy as a clam.
John--really appreciated that. I'm going to take it these were identically processed and had the same white balance? If so, the ML has a bit warmer more magenta presentation than the colder, greener of the contax (not at all objectionable) and is missing a bit of that je ne sais quoi that it seems the Contax has. I'll probably go with the Contax 50/1.7, which is a peer of the 50/1.4 by the apertures I use most regularly.
That is not to say that the ML 50/1.4 isn't a great lens, as you and others have shown.
Hi Daniel. Yes, each group of photo's had identical WB/contrast/saturation etc. so that comparisons should be possible. The first lot of images (the images shot closer to the foxes) had a different WB to the wider shots, not that it matters.
abam wrote:
thanks for not doing the standard "brick wall" or "batteries" test, john.
Yeah, I've done heaps of those, and I'm sure I'll do heaps more. I have lots of pictures of my cat, very good for testing sharpness at close range! I also have heaps of pictures looking out on my verandah, man are they boring. You do what you've gotta do!
Just scored a 50/1.4 ML and it arrives shortly. I'll test it against the CZ P50/1.4 which is razor sharp and lovely to use, but also a bokeh horror. I already have the 24/2.8, 50/2, 55/2.8 and 200/4 (all ML). Great thing about catching the Yashica bug: it's cheap!
Looks like a palace in Marseille I've been to 10 years ago.I've made a very similar photo then - on Velvia slide and Mamiya 7+80mm Sekor.Very nice picture.Thanks for sharing.
