Very nice Mike. the lens rendered beautiful colours here.
Waiting for my M adapter is killing me!!!
My next buy will be getting back a CV 75 2.5 again; I never regretted selling that FL until I bought the NEX and seeing Uhoh's pics. The 75 on the NEX will make a first rate compact portrait rig.
At first i thought it was sharper than my fl 55 1.2, but on close look my focus was slightly different.
I think it's like most 1.2s: at that speed contrast drops and it doesn't look like a 55 micro, or your contax, hehe. But it makes usable images in very low light, and can do some really small DOF work.
Handling: well obviously it's front heavy, but you can hold the camera by the body no problem and it doesn't feel like it will break the mount. The canon RF or your Pen would be much nicer.
If I ever see a decent canon for 400, I will probably grab it and do some real testing. If the canon is close, I'll just resell this.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not my shots but sebboh's. I was just commenting on them.
Why do I all of a sudden have a strong desire for some Leica glass sebboh?
I was reading on some obscure thread that his ziess contax (you have some too i think) is one of the very shaprest lenses ever used on retail 35mm cameras.
Here is my new poor-mans noct wide open in the snow to check bokeh
1.1 1/4000. Yes, you can shoot 1.1 in the snow, if it's overcast or dark, hehe
obviously the pentax @ 1.4 is WAY sharper, but has gained tons of DOF, I'll test the nokton @ 1.4, but now it's too bright Even the Canon seems to have gained a touch of DOF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ridiculous looks nice - absolutely gorgeous rendering from that lens.
thanks, i've always loved the rendering from this lens except for the front bokeh. i wouldn't recommend it for use on the NEX though. will work great on a canon dslr though. in general i prefer the leica rendering to the zeiss rendering except for infinite dof landscapes and certain types of portraits. i just wish i could afford one of the modern leica m lenses. here's a stitch from 350mm yesterday: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5561086237_9c96a644a4_o.jpg
AhamB wrote:
That Leica looks very nice indeed! Nice shots, sebboh.
thanks!
uhoh: is your tak really sharper than the canon? my canon is sharper at all apertures (though it's close in the center) and the tak has better contrast.
uhoh: is your tak really sharper than the canon? my canon is sharper at all apertures (though it's close in the center) and the tak has better contrast.
well you be the judge:
As you know there were about 7 different pentax 1.4s. Mine is not a tak, but smc pentax.
the build is completely different. The SMC goes to f/22, the tak to f/16. Not sure about the formula. This tak is m42. I know this particluar pentax-m is claimed to be one of the best of all the version, shoots very nice, but I haven't used it a ton.
But maybe that pentax-m would hold it's own, it does seem pretty sweet. I don't think my canon is too terrible, because the nokton is not way sharper if at all.
Interesting. I do love my SMC Tak 50. I'd be curious how your Pentax-M 50 performs at infinity, because it has the cemented concave and convex surfaces between the fourth and fifth elements (like the Tak does,) which is unusual in modern 50s, and I assumed that was the reason why the SMC Tak isn't as great at infinity compared to short and medium focus distances.
douglasf13 wrote:
Interesting. I do love my SMC Tak 50. I'd be curious how your Pentax-M 50 performs at infinity, because it has the cemented concave and convex surfaces between the fourth and fifth elements (like the Tak does,) which is unusual in modern 50s, and I assumed that was the reason why the SMC Tak isn't as great at infinity compared to short and medium focus distances.
I will drag it up on the mountain when we get some clear weather, maybe with a small RF 50 for control, my i-61 LD, or I have a jupiter 8 coming that I'm excited to try. Another real good control would be my canon RF 50 f/1.8, which is supposed to be real sharp.
I got the jupi-8 because I want an ultra-light 50. The I-61 55 L/D is pretty good at f8 or so, but not so great open. The jupi is supposed to be on the money by 2.8. They are both around 128 grams
I was surprised by the pentax-m, which I had assumed to be a bit soft wide open. I was reading today that most of the formulas are the same, here is a test with some of the exotic versions and mine:
The Pentax 50 1.4 Super Multi Coated lens I have is one of the best 50's I have ever used. It's sharp at all distances, as tested on my a900, so perhaps there is sample variation.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Pentax 50 1.4 Super Multi Coated lens I have is one of the best 50's I have ever used. It's sharp at all distances, as tested on my a900, so perhaps there is sample variation.
my tak smc 50/1.4 is the sharpest 50/1.4 i have in the center 1/2 of the frame as well as the most contrasty lens i have at f/1.4. it is surprisingly weak on the extreme corners of aps-c though (haven't tried it on FF, but can only imagine it would get worse), where my rokkor 50/1.4 easily surpasses it despite not being the sharpest lens wide open.
perhaps i do have a particularly good canon FL 55/1.2, because it is a tiny bit sharper than the tak in the center throughout the aperture range and stomps it in the corners. the canon is of course noticeably lower contrast, has different colors, and is more susceptible to flare.
regarding pentax 50/1.4 design - all the smc's have the same optical design (though i'm not positive about the autofocus FA's), some of the earlier super-taks have and extra element (and are supposed to have worse performance).
douglas: why would the cemented doublet hurt performance at infinity? my understanding is that the reason other producers moved away from that design was because of the expense it adds to production, not because performance improved without it.
uhoh: i had not heard that smc-m was the sharpest, i had always heard that it was the least sharp while smc-a was the sharpest but with worse build quality. to be honest i never really paid much attention to those claims one way or another since it is the same optical design by the same company. i suspect the differences people see are most likely due to sample variation. it's certainly possible they tweaked things for different optimal distances or something though, and i'm sure the coatings improved with time.
edit: uhoh - on your 100% sample crops i can't really make any judgments since each is sharper than the other at different points (focus isn't the same).
