weezintrumpete
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Wide aperture 50mm lens for GFX | |
sputnik wrote:
Regarding the Nikon 58/1.4; half of the people love it for its rendering and half of the people think it’s soft wide open and therefore over priced (it’s come down a lot since launch). It does suffer from chromatic aberration when shooting in to the light in high contrast.
My take is that you need to learn how it behaves. Below, say 2 meters or so it shines at f./2-2.5. Over 2 meters it shines wide open. Also it’s really good stopped down which most people seem to forget.
I love it as a wider portrait lens but also for landscapes, cityscspes and detail shots.
Thanks for that! I'll look into it more.
---------------------------------------------
dave unwin wrote:
The Sigma 50mm f1.4 art is pretty good from memory. Not quite as sharp as the 40mm f1.4 but slightly less vignetting. AF with the Fringer adapter was very good.
Don't rule out the GF 50mm f3.5 either. Apart from not being f2, it's a brilliant lens IMO.
I'm actually very interested in the GF 50mm 3.5, but for other reasons. I hear it's a fantastic lens.
---------------------------------------------
freaklikeme wrote:
It has a beautifully flawed wide open draw with some undercorrected SA and it takes a couple of stops to get to the "clean" objective performance some people look for from wide open in their fast 50s. It's also fairly even across the frame, even when the resolution isn't peak, with relatively low vignetting and decently flat field, so it doesn't do much to help centrally framed subjects pop the way, for example, the Summilux-M 50 ASPH, with its high central resolution, steep fall off at the edges and corners, and high vignetting would.
That's on the 135 format, anyway. On the GFX, you get the steep fall off and heavy vignetting, so while the central area is no higher in resolution, relative to the outer frame, it pops. It's a great lens, in my estimation. I went with the 85/1.4G because I preferred the focal length on the GFX, but performance-wise, I would've been happy with either.
If you're looking for a lens to replace the Mitakon, I think it'd be a great choice. I also think the Rokkor 58 would be a great choice. It was easy for me to drop both the Mitakon and Irix 45, since they were giant lenses that barely covered the sensor better than the good 135 format lenses. If you're planning to keep the 65, I'd look for some different characteristics. In 135 format lenses, I'd look at the ZE MP 50/2. It's got the best across the frame coverage from a quality perspective of any of 50ish lenses I tried, though it vignettes heavily close focused. If you don't mind taking on an absolute beast that does mechanically vignette a bit in the corners, the Sigma 40/1.4 is capable of some breathtaking results. It draws exactly the way people who don't appreciate old-school charm in fast lenses want them to draw.
As a now former Fuji owner, this is my best advice:
1. Finding "equivalent" focal lengths to the 135 format is an okay guide. Steve already pointed out the only real equivalency is the mathematical normal, in that every format has one and the industry uses that as a line between teles and wides. I'd worry less about finding equivalencies and more about finding lenses you like.
2. Get at least one lens made to cover the sensor or larger. Not too long ago, you started a thread wondering how one could get the kind of draw you see in old large format photos. Those lenses are designed to have very even resolution across the frame, but never really high in the little details, even stopped down to f/16 and beyond where they were typically used. Most of those design cues were moved forward in the medium format lenses, with increases in overall resolution (still not high, but even) to achieve the same look on smaller, more demanding formats. A Pentax or Mamiya 645 35mm or 45mm stopped down to f/5.6 or 8 will get you closer to those results than any 135 format lens will on the camera.
Thank you! Interesting notes on the Nikon 58mm, that makes a lot of sense to me. I'm looking to supplement the Mitakon, not replace it. My ultimate goal actually goes back to that "large format" thread I created. I'm looking for two lenses that can give me some of what large format can do. One lens for the insane shallow depth of field of large format (the Mitakon) and one for a slightly wider "normal" field of view that can give some good depth of field falloff, but would be used for more static scenes that don't "require" as shallow depth of field. I'm heavily influenced by Alec Soth's work lately, both his portraits and his scenes.
Some examples from Alec Soth:
What I want to use the Mitakon for:
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/alec-soth-rebecca-1
What I want to use a slightly wider lens for:
https://alecsoth.com/photography/media/pages/projects/broken-manual/1684282169-1551319080/2008_08zl0215-f.jpg
I think the upcoming GF 55mm might actually give me both in one lens to a certain extent, but I'm waiting to see what it will be like. In the meantime.
|
