The pentax-a 50/1.2 has a bit of glow (not nearly as much as OM 55/1.2 though), very smooth bokeh but the thing I am not thrilled with at wide-open is the amount of coma, particularly int the corners.
As aperture increases, it be comes exponentially harder to correct abberations, hence most of the really fast lenses (1.2) show some glow wide-open. A 1.2 is harder to design and correct than a 1.4, much more so than the aperture difference might lead one to believe. (which makes the 50/1.0L all that much more impressive)
hans98ko wrote:
cogitech,
Let me ask you these simple questions:
How much of a difference can you see from pictures taken from an EF 50mm f1.2L, EF 50mm f1.4 and EF 50mm f1.8? If your answer is a lot than you are saying that Canon can't even design a good time tested 50mm lens.
Late to the party ...
It can be a lot ... or not so much depending on how critical your eye is and how well you are trained to pick up on the differences ... and your application.
Suffice to say that optics are always a series of compromises that result in a particular design having its own inherent 'drawing style'.
Do you really think that so many manufacturers would go to the trouble and expense of making so many different 50's if there wasn't a detectable difference.
While the Canon lineup was being mentioned, consider the C/Y 50/1.7 vs. the C/Y 50/1.4 vs. the macro 50/2.0. Oversimplified compromises are contrast for bokeh. Some people readily see the differences, others not even with the Hubble Telescope.
Jonas B wrote:
I have owned all the 50mmlenses you list. They all had some "glow" or veiling flare or whatever one may call it.
It is very easy to see something happening with the overall contrast and around small high contrast details when one compare an image taken wide opne with, say an f/2 image taken at the same time of the same target.
Are you thinking of something else?
Well guys, it's funny how reliable memory is, or isn't. I looked back through some of my tests and find that you're right - all of the 50's I listed showed some glow. I guess it wsa overshadowed by the Oly 55/1.2, which has more 'glow', but none of them are particularly clean wide open. The cleanest is the slowest - a SMCP-A 50/1.7. Anyway, thanks for keeping me in line.
I'd take an FF/FX camera with a lens with a sharp F/2 lens over any APS-size camera with an expensive F/1.2-1.4 lens any day of the week.
1) sharper images - F/2 FX vs F/1.4 DX...
2) even though most FF/FX cameras use two year older sensor tech, they still kick APS b*tt in low-light situations (light-loss at large apertures and so on...).
3) Smoother bokeh, lens one stop down has less bokeh outlining
4) better contrast, easier to apply NR on the actual results without smudging everything to a blurred mess.
I see the wide open setting on fast lenses on FX as a bonus, not a standard working setting.
But APS still has its' own 'sense' in compact setups with longer reach per kilogram equipment. And for F/8-shooters, the systems are getting darned close in pure PQ.
theSuede wrote:
Back to my original statement then...
I'd take an FF/FX camera with a lens with a sharp F/2 lens over any APS-size camera with an expensive F/1.2-1.4 lens any day of the week.
1) sharper images - F/2 FX vs F/1.4 DX...
2) even though most FF/FX cameras use two year older sensor tech, they still kick APS b*tt in low-light situations (light-loss at large apertures and so on...).
3) Smoother bokeh, lens one stop down has less bokeh outlining
4) better contrast, easier to apply NR on the actual results without smudging everything to a blurred mess.
I see the wide open setting on fast lenses on FX as a bonus, not a standard working setting.
But APS still has its' own 'sense' in compact setups with longer reach per kilogram equipment. And for F/8-shooters, the systems are getting darned close in pure PQ....Show more →
sounds about right to me. there are also two other advantages of aps though: price and the fact that you can actually buy a compact aps camera (not just for reach). for me at least, those two advantages have me choosing a cheap manual focus f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens and a compact aps camera over FF despite the drop in image quality. i'm always hopeful somebody will make a small FF though (not leica).
My main walkaround setup for a couple years was the relatively compact A900+various 50mm primes. I must say, walking around in freezing Chicago right now with the NEX+35mm prime is a joy, because it fits right in my coat pockets without notice. I'm not sure I'd go back for a walk around camera.
douglasf13 wrote:
My main walkaround setup for a couple years was the relatively compact A900+various 50mm primes. I must say, walking around in freezing Chicago right now with the NEX+35mm prime is a joy, because it fits right in my coat pockets without notice. I'm not sure I'd go back for a walk around camera.
not coincidently, i live in chicago and feel the same way. i would never use a FF camera as a walk around camera even living some place warmer. i would only use it when i'm going out specifically to shoot.
FF will be worth it to me when the latest batch of FF cameras costs $1000 or less or somebody comes out with a new FF camera that doesn't have any glaring flaws from my (admittedly unique) perspective. my problem is that there are very few times these days when i look at my pictures and feel like i need less dof, better high iso, better dynamic range, or more sharper pixels (even at f/1.2) and would would be willing to shoot those shots with a FF if i had it. the main draw of FF for me is using specific lenses at their actual focal length. i would still end up using my cropper for most of my shooting.
