The FL 58mm f1.2 is supposed to be less sharp than the later 55mm version, but noone mentions its Bokeh.
Thats some of the best bokeh quality I've ever seen!
Alf Beharie wrote:
The FL 58mm f1.2 is supposed to be less sharp than the later 55mm version, but noone mentions its Bokeh.
I can believe that. At 1.2 it needs some sharpening - not too much, but some. It reminds me a lot of the FD 85/1.2 actually. Much better than the FD 50/1.2 or the FD 50/1.4 wide open tho. This 58 also has MUCH less CA than those - for sure - and the 58 doesn't seem to suffer from the haloing that over-btight areas cause in the others - including the 85/1.2
Thats some of the best bokeh quality I've ever seen!
Alf Beharie wrote:
The FL 58mm f1.2 is supposed to be less sharp than the later 55mm version, but noone mentions its Bokeh.
Thats some of the best bokeh quality I've ever seen!
those shots near mfd with a relatively distant background are difficult to judge - nearly all lenses give good bokeh in that situation. this shot of bif's from another thread is more telling: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FL_58mm_F1.2/Canon_FL_58mm_F1.2_1160881.jpg
looks to me like the 58mm has very similar bokeh to the 55mm: extremely nice at f/2 and smaller, but a bit harsh wide open.
I can't say as that I've encountered a lens that isn't at times harsh wide open. I think all of them can be. It seems to just depend on the particular shot and also on the processing. The lens that is by itself (wide open) already colorful with good local contrast will more often produce cream after processing than a lens that needs the clarity, saturation, and/or contrast upped in order for the in-focus areas to look good - for example. The patterns, shapes, and light contrast in the OOF BG of a scene in a wide open shot, IMO have more to do with the production of cream than the lens itself. The comparisons I've seen here seem to reinforce that notion as well. So mostly IMO, it's how sharp, colorful, contrasty, and aberration free the in-focus parts are that make wide open shots capable of da'cream. Again, the less processing one needs to do to get the in-focus areas looking good the better the OOF areas will fair. At least this seems to be holding true across all of the lenses I've dealt with thus far.
Bifurcator wrote:
I can't say as that I've encountered a lens that isn't at times harsh wide open. I think all of them can be. It seems to just depend on the particular shot and also on the processing. The lens that is by itself (wide open) already colorful with good local contrast will more often produce cream after processing than a lens that needs the clarity, saturation, and/or contrast upped in order for the in-focus areas to look good - for example. The patterns, shapes, and light contrast in the OOF BG of a scene in a wide open shot, IMO have more to do with the production of cream than the lens itself. The comparisons I've seen here seem to reinforce that notion as well. So mostly IMO, it's how sharp, colorful, contrasty, and aberration free the in-focus parts are that make wide open shots capable of da'cream. Again, the less processing one needs to do to get the in-focus areas looking good the better the OOF areas will fair. At least this seems to be holding true across all of the lenses I've dealt with thus far.
I'll certainly agree that composition plays a bigger role than lens in producing good bokeh, but I think I disagree with everything else. I think sharpness and contrast are actually negatively correlated with good bokeh on average. this is probably because I process my shots the same reguardless of lens. it sounds like you process your shots quite differently depending on the lens. also, i've found lots of lenses that have nice bokeh wide open, they were just slow lenses. it's true you can compose a shot that makes the bokeh from any lens look good or bad, but f/1.2 lenses tend to have particularly funky bokeh.
You're disagreeing that boosting clarity, saturation, and contrast in post makes the bokeh noisier?
That's really all I'm saying here. From there I postulate that an image than needs none of that out of camera, has a better chance for creaminess.
it sounds like you process your shots quite differently depending on the lens.
I process differently on a per image bases. I look at it and ask what does this need. If nothing then I do nothing. Even the script I run is designed to do nothing or a lot depending on my slider adjustments - from zero to extreme.
i've found lots of lenses that have nice bokeh wide open, they were just slow lenses.
True, I was talking about fast and ultra fast lenses of less than 100mm and more than 28mm. Sorry, I forgot to specify.
f/1.2 lenses tend to have particularly funky bokeh.
Bifurcator wrote:
You're disagreeing that boosting clarity, saturation, and contrast in post makes the bokeh noisier?
That's really all I'm saying here. From there I postulate that an image than needs none of that out of camera, has a better chance for creaminess.
no, i'm saying if you don't process lenses differently, which i don't, all those things are equal and don't play a role for comparing bokeh across lenses. to me there's not much point in using these different lenses if i process them differently so they all look the same.
Dead leaves + Gravel and a super leafy tree? I can't think of anything too much more demanding... maybe if there was very strong direct sunlight on it or something... <shrug>
Just admit it guys, this is a lens that got away from yous-folks. The bokeh rocks and yous don't know the lens well. Hehehe.. I feel like Chris Columbus now, thanks!
Bifurcator wrote:
Dead leaves + Gravel and a super leafy tree? I can't think of anything too much more demanding... maybe if there was very strong direct sunlight on it or something... <shrug>
Just admit it guys, this is a lens that got away from yous-folks. The bokeh rocks and yous don't know the lens well. Hehehe.. I feel like Chris Columbus now, thanks!
subject background distance is more important than what the background is. but the super leafy tree shot is a pretty tough one that i've seen a lot of lenses fail miserably at.
to be honest the performance looks very similar to the FL 55/1.2 which i own and am not particularly fond of the wide open bokeh from. it has awesome bokeh at f/2 though.
All of these are 100% crops, all manually focused (of course ), all have EXIF embedded, and all are wide open:
some motion blur, and I'm not sure why the BG rock came out grainy looking... Shake?
You can see some noise added because I bumped the exposure in PS. This is also using the 2X-A Canon FD Extender. So this is 1,200mm equiv.
This exposure is also bumped way up in PS.
Exposure again, bumped considerably.
Exposure Bumped considerably.
Exposure Bumped somewhat. Slightly OOF too. With these last three I wanted faster shutter without changing the ISO so
I underexposed with the intent to push in PS.
Converted FD 300/2.8L on EOS 5D
Waterfall in Norway - how cool a photo must be, taken on that rock in the middel of the waterfalls, with a wideangle, probabyl standing on a ladder.
But I had no ladder with me, nor I am able to handel that on the rock, nor to get there :-)
With these last three I wanted faster shutter without changing the ISO so 
