Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and correctly understanding a simple comment I wrote and, you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated that a sharp image is a better departure point for PP and making an appealing photo even if it means to take away that sharpness and put some softness in its place. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It's not worthy of consideration.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision. I am not going to waste my time here arguing with you any more. Bye.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and understanding a simple comment I wrote correctly and you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated that a sharp image is a better departure point for PP and making an appealing photo even if it means to take away that sharpness and put some softness in its place. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It's not worthy of consideration.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision. I am not going to waste my time here arguing with you any more. Bye.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and understanding a simple comment I wrote correctly and you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated that a sharp image is a better departure point for PP and making a photo more interesting even if it means to take away that sharpness and put some softness in its place. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It's not worthy of consideration.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision. I am not going to waste my time here arguing with you any more. Bye.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and understanding a simple comment I wrote correctly and you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated that a sharp image is a better departure point for PP and making a photo more interesting even if it means to take away that sharpness and put some softness in its place. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It carries nothing.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision. I am not going to waste my time here arguing with you any more. Bye.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Did you come up with all that non-sense by yourself? You are not even capable of reading and understanding a simple comment what I wrote correctly and you claim there is much science behind this that you are aware and understand?!
I never equalized sharpness with image quality. I simply stated a sharp image is a better departure point for PP and making a photo more interesting even if it means to take away that sharpness and put some softness in its plpace. The picture produced by the Nokton is useless in my opinion. Its lack of sharpness is meaningless. It carries nothing.
YOU DO HOWEVER SEEM EQUALIZING UNSHARPNESS WITH IMAGE QUALITY which I find problematic.
Oh, please you do not get to fool me into thinking you understand a super concept backed by philosophy, science and a deep artistic vision.
philip_pj wrote:
'Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?'
I'm the one to argue this case with you. Me and the great accumulation of evidence in the cine field as DPs all over try to work around the harsh look of digital and the sheer unpleasantness and repulsive look it (unnecessarily) imparts to human skin. DPs want to take the harsh edge off their footage.
We will be moving on from the simplistic equation we see in your above - that 'sharpness = image quality'. As its reach and power fall away dramatically in the box office, the cine world is now understanding the simple truth that 'image appeal = image quality'.
They see now that they don't decide this, the viewing and paying public do! And they don't want the fake digital look, outside of cartoons.
APO and APO-adjacent lenses are flat lenses that aim to deliver super levels of color correction, to the relative neglect of all other considerations broached in the design phase of lens development. Portraits are not a primary design target.
ARRI and others now openly talk about their efforts to portray skin in a true-to-life manner. These people, who occupy elevated positions in the field, understand they have to treat spatial frequencies differently. They reduce high spatial frequency lens micro-contrast to provide a real world facsimile to their imagery, while retaining lower spatial frequencies to shape the content. Even sharpness addicts Zeiss now do this.
As for dealing with new age sharp lens rendering in post,
(i) you are spending valuable time trying to undo what the lens was designed to excel at;
(ii) the micro-contrast is baked in and it will still impact the image in other deleterious ways because the entire aim is not true-to-life presentation - so we often encounter: bokeh ball effects of over-corrected SA, very poor image depth (lots of ED/APD glass), and
(iii) a general lack of character caused in part by an overemphasis on corners and outer frames.
The entire notion that such lenses can be as good as dedicated portrait lenses is therefore questionable. A lot of people are starting to see this - a good development.
Nov 30, 2025 at 12:49 AM
Previous versions of raminolta's message #16938808 « 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them? »
