The image are processed and viewed compressed here on FM, but it is what it is. To me, the 50/1.2 wide open is special, but I am also really liking the Zeiss 2/40 if you can get by the busy background. Understanding the strength/weaknesses of this lens and shooting under the right circumstances should yield very compelling results IMO.
The odd result is the Leica, it appears more flat and cold to me. Sure, it can be due to processing, but I personally don't care for the rendering in this case.
Yes, as mentioned above, it was a conscious decision to show the edited images. But very similar. Some may welcome it, others may complain. As you say, it is what it is
I can only agree with what you said about the Batis 40. It can (or almost certainly will) get nervous with difficult backgrounds. But I also find it quite nice sometimes .
It definitely has (a lot!) of character. And if you know how to use it, you can take wonderful portraits with it.
Even more so with the Leica Q3 43 (I really recommend the link I posted today). Of course, that's always subjective, but here too, I think the thing has an incredible amount of character and, at the same time, can be very clean in other shots without ever becoming clinical. It's funny, I really like those 40s/43s. With Pentax, the Pentax FA43 1.9 was my favorite lens for certain types of portraits. But even that could create incredibly nervous backgrounds if used "wrongly." The FA77 1.8 Limited was a classic portrait lens, the FA43 Limited a special one. Everything has its place.
Well, it is what it is. I love the Leica Q3 43 lens. Especially for portraits. Lots of character. I like that. It was also the reason I ordered a Leica SL2-S with a leica lens.
The following image is certainly not a perfect picture (far from it, a spontaneous snapshot with shortcomings in a cafe when I first had the Batis (I've since sold it and bought it again)). But it shows that you can take portraits with it.
Those who are more capable than I can produce even (much) better ones.
The image are processed and viewed compressed here on FM, but it is what it is. To me, the 50/1.2 wide open is special, but I am also really liking the Zeiss 2/40 if you can get by the busy background. Understanding the strength/weaknesses of this lens and shooting under the right circumstances should yield very compelling results IMO.
The odd result is the Leica, it appears more flat and cold to me. Sure, it can be due to processing, but I personally don't care for the rendering in this case.
Yes, as mentioned above, it was a conscious decision to show the edited images. But very similar. Some may welcome it, others may complain. As you say, it is what it is
I can only agree with what you said about the Batis 40. It can (or almost certainly will) get nervous with difficult backgrounds. But I also find it quite nice sometimes .
It definitely has (a lot!) of character. And if you know how to use it, you can take wonderful portraits with it.
Even more so with the Leica Q3 43 (I really recommend the link I posted today). Of course, that's always subjective, but here too, I think the thing has an incredible amount of character and, at the same time, can be very clean in other shots without ever becoming clinical. It's funny, I really like those 40s/43s. With Pentax, the Pentax FA43 1.9 was my favorite lens for certain types of portraits. But even that could create incredibly nervous backgrounds if used "wrongly." The FA77 1.8 Limited was a classic portrait lens, the FA43 Limited a special one. Everything has its place.
Well, it is what it is. I love the Leica Q3 43 lens. Especially for portraits. Lots of character. I like that. It was also the reason I ordered a Leica SL2-S with the lens.
The following image is certainly not a perfect picture (far from it, a spontaneous snapshot with shortcomings in a cafe when I first had the Batis (I've since sold it and bought it again)). But it shows that you can take portraits with it.
Those who are more capable than I can produce even (much) better ones.
The image are processed and viewed compressed here on FM, but it is what it is. To me, the 50/1.2 wide open is special, but I am also really liking the Zeiss 2/40 if you can get by the busy background. Understanding the strength/weaknesses of this lens and shooting under the right circumstances should yield very compelling results IMO.
The odd result is the Leica, it appears more flat and cold to me. Sure, it can be due to processing, but I personally don't care for the rendering in this case.
Yes, as mentioned above, it was a conscious decision to show the edited images. But very similar. Some may welcome it, others may complain. As you say, it is what it is
I can only agree with what you said about the Batis 40. It can (or almost certainly will) get nervous with difficult backgrounds. But I also find it quite nice sometimes .
It definitely has (a lot!) of character. And if you know how to use it, you can take wonderful portraits with it.
Even more so with the Leica Q3 43 (I really recommend the link I posted today). Of course, that's always subjective, but here too, I think the thing has an incredible amount of character and, at the same time, can be very clean in other shots without ever becoming clinical. It's funny, I really like those 40s/43s. With Pentax, the Pentax FA43 1.9 was my favorite lens for certain types of portraits. But even that could create incredibly nervous backgrounds if used "wrongly." The FA77 1.8 Limited was a classic portrait lens, the FA43 Limited a special one. Everything has its place.
Well, it is what it is. I love the Leica Q3 43 lens. Especially for portraits. Lots of character. I like that. It was also the reason I ordered a Leica SL2-S with the lens.
The following image is certainly not a perfect picture (far from it, a spontaneous snapshot with shortcomings when I first had the Batis (I've since sold it and bought it again)). But it shows that you can take portraits with it.
Those who are more capable than I can produce even (much) better ones.
.