philber wrote:
No, I have not. How would that help portrait mode?
It helps me simply because it allows me to shoot the camera vertically at eye level, like a DSLR. So, while it doesn't have the versatility of tilt screen use, at least it doesn't make me hold the camera straight out in front of me with my face a foot or two from the screen.
Personally, I prefer the compromise Sony made with the single tilt LCD, since it stays in line with the camera in horizontal aspect. I wouldn't like shooting waist level with the screen swung out to the side, and that especially holds true with the nexviewer.
ulrikft2 wrote:
I think that is an optical illusion because the play button is darker, downloaded and checked in PS now, and there is not really a big size difference on the play buttons, even at 200% the size looks similar.
Granted its not an perfect comparsion, it was an iPhone picture after all, but I think it still proves the point that the 35mm f1.2 is not this massively huge "bazooka" that darn near breaks your wrist to try to carry around.
Its a 1lb lens and its about 3" long. Thats pretty tiny overall. Whats the average 50mm f1.4 SLR lens weight ?? How long are they ? I'm sure the Sigma 50 1.4 is at least that big.
Again, no its not featherweight, but with lens/camera we are still only talking about 1lb 8oz. Compared to any DSLR setup thats still compact and light.
millsart wrote:
I would love to see your 18-55 edge samples at f8 that are that sharp or even close. Mine sue isn't.
You must have one amazing kit lens because I've had 3 of them and while all decent, they are nothing remotely close to that type of performance at the edges.
So yes, I would love to see the one and only copy of the 18-55 thats got the edge to edge performance to rival a VC 35 1.2 or a ZM 35 f2.8 C, because darn near everyone complains about how lacking they feel the kit lens is.
If the kit lens can get that type of performance for landscape shooting, why are the rest of us wasting tons of money on all this Contax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica etc glass right ??...Show more →
I will post some samples soon. For me at least, the reason for ALT lenses is a combination of size, speed and other optical qualities such as contrast and color.
millsart wrote:
Granted its not an perfect comparsion, it was an iPhone picture after all, but I think it still proves the point that the 35mm f1.2 is not this massively huge "bazooka" that darn near breaks your wrist to try to carry around.
Its a 1lb lens and its about 3" long. Thats pretty tiny overall. Whats the average 50mm f1.4 SLR lens weight ?? How long are they ? I'm sure the Sigma 50 1.4 is at least that big.
Again, no its not featherweight, but with lens/camera we are still only talking about 1lb 8oz. Compared to any DSLR setup thats still compact and light.
Compared to the size of the NEX, it's large and heavy. It's the reason I sold a Voigtlander 28 1.9 which was smaller than this lens. But if it works for you or anyone else, more power to you!
ulrikft2 wrote:
I think that is an optical illusion because the play button is darker, downloaded and checked in PS now, and there is not really a big size difference on the play buttons, even at 200% the size looks similar.
The combination of lighting AND the real size difference is pretty obvious to me. The image is misleading regarding a size comparison due to both.
Anyway, the 35 1.2 is big, the new version is somewhat smaller. The nex isn't a pocket-camera for me, more a "camera i can put in a bag, backpack and take with me everywhere". Since the d700 came out I have pretty much had a d700 + 24, 50 and 105 (or similar kits) with me 99% of the time, which is getting a bit heavy, so it is mostly cutting down from the 2kg (4.5lbs) kit to a far lighter/smaller one.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Compared to the size of the NEX, it's large and heavy. It's the reason I sold a Voigtlander 28 1.9 which was smaller than this lens. But if it works for you or anyone else, more power to you!
That's why I haven't jumped on the Nokton 35/1.2, yet. I don't mind a bit larger lens for longer focal lengths, since I would have some kind of bag with me for those lenses, but, I use 35mm lenses as my main walkaround option with or without a bag, and I prefer a smaller lens in that case. All four of my 35mm lenses are less than 40mm long with the adapter attached.
BTW, since I have some redundancy at that focal length, I've been debating on whether to get rid of the Contax G 35 or Nokton 35/1.4. Interestingly, in a quick and dirty test I did a minute ago, it looks like the Nokton only has about a 1/2 EV advantage when both lenses are wide open, which further complicates things (I'll have to do more serious tests later.)
Nokton 1.4:
- slightly smaller, but heavier
- much better focus ring, although I'm not a huge fan of the focus tab method
- a little faster
Contax G
- better technically at every aperture in most ways, although still not up to the C-Biogon.
- shorter mfd, which I measured to be even better than the claimed .5m
- definitely not a whole stop slower, looks to be closer to .5 stop.
Maybe I'll just get rid of both and use my Nokton 50/1.5 if light becomes a problem?!?!
p.s. I've also got the super tiny MS Optical Perar, and, although it performs ok, it doesn't compete with the C-Biogon, and I may sell it too.
Good lord...... do we really need to debate 200% views of the size of a button ??
I simply tried to post a quick image to show that the 35mm 1.2 isn't this huge beast of a lens that people make it out to be because its ABOUT the size of the 18-55.
Its certainly small enough to still work on the camera and handle quite easily. Pocketable ? No, but neither are a good number of other popular lenses people use on the NEX.
This is all rather absurd though.
My X100 arrives tomorrow and I'm done with this forum
millsart wrote:
I would love to see your 18-55 edge samples at f8 that are that sharp or even close. Mine sue isn't.
You must have one amazing kit lens because I've had 3 of them and while all decent, they are nothing remotely close to that type of performance at the edges.
So yes, I would love to see the one and only copy of the 18-55 thats got the edge to edge performance to rival a VC 35 1.2 or a ZM 35 f2.8 C, because darn near everyone complains about how lacking they feel the kit lens is.
If the kit lens can get that type of performance for landscape shooting, why are the rest of us wasting tons of money on all this Contax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica etc glass right ??...Show more →
Ok, here is a quick and dirty shot with the kit lens at 35mm F8. Straight ACR conversion, no PP or additional sharpening. Middle day harsh light which would further reveal any CA issues, which I don't see much of - ok a tiny bit. All crops are 100%. To me, I find this performance really outstanding for an inexpensive kit zoom lens. Only the very extreme corners will start to show softness. I actually think this lens is sharper in the extreme corners down around the 24mm setting.
millsart wrote:
Good lord...... do we really need to debate 200% views of the size of a button ??
I simply tried to post a quick image to show that the 35mm 1.2 isn't this huge beast of a lens that people make it out to be because its ABOUT the size of the 18-55.
Its certainly small enough to still work on the camera and handle quite easily. Pocketable ? No, but neither are a good number of other popular lenses people use on the NEX.
This is all rather absurd though.
My X100 arrives tomorrow and I'm done with this forum
I was just making a point that there IS an optical illusion going on in that comparison - after all, this is a photography forum - which favors the Nokton. It certainly was not meant to imply it was intentional on your part.
So, do you plan to ditch the NEX for the fixed lens X100?
Lovely quartet, sebboh! The G45 is indeed a great lens. I wonder how it stacks up against my ZM 50 f:2.0, and my guess is it is at least as good and a lot cheaper...
philber wrote:
Lovely quartet, sebboh! The G45 is indeed a great lens. I wonder how it stacks up against my ZM 50 f:2.0, and my guess is it is at least as good and a lot cheaper...
the mtfs suggest it is not quite as good if i recall correctly, but it focuses a lot closer which is important for me (as is the fact that it only cost me $200). will try to show some shots that show it off better soon.
As for normal-ish lens, I just won a 38/1.8 (pen) and a 40/2.0 (minolta m-rokkor). I'll test those two out first, maybe get a 35 or 45 contax g too and eventually the new 35/1.2 when it comes out. Testing ftw
Looking forward to seeing it live in action! 