Re: 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
raminolta wrote:
I wanted to make the photo somewhat more interesting from my personal perspective, not to create any special glow.
I simply do not find anything interesting in the image produced by the Nokton lens.You like that image, good for you. Let's say these things are subjective and we have different tastes. I however reserve the right to express my opinion: there is no contest here: the image produced by the GM lens is superior and suitable for proper PP. The image from Nokton is blurred in an uninteresting and meaningless way. I wouldn't waste my time on it.
Nifty Fifty wrote: raminolta wrote:
After a couple of minutes of PP (time mostly spent to think what outcome I like more):
GM glows
Hm, I don't see any glow, I only see a GM photo that still clearly stands out from the Nokton photo.
There's certainly a lot more that can be done if you're familiar with all the electronic tools, but like I said, it's not as easy as you think.
Perhaps you now understand why someone who likes the type of (un)sharpening rendering of a particular lens would want to take pictures with that lens and not simply with the "best" lens, only to try to correct it afterwards in Lightroom.
And don't worry, the Nokton is clearly sharper at portrait distances. :-)
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the "GERMANY" on the dial is not legible in the GM photo, but it is in the "blurry" Nokton photo.
raminolta wrote:I didn't want to make dramatic changes to the image. I would have wanted to clean the background from the clutter (keeping the coffee maker).
I'll write it a third time. This isn't about the picture, because it's not really a picture. I simply wanted a subject that effectively showcases the glow and the alarm clock was just sitting there.
I'm sorry, but those are all just excuses. You said you could easily match the results of a "sharp" lens (here the GM) to the results of a "less sharp" lens (here the Nokton) in post-processing. I've reminded you of this several times now. The fact that you're simply ignoring it because you realize you can't do it is childish, even if it's a typical approach in forums.
You named an edited image "GM glows".This shows that you are well aware of what it's supposed to be. It's just that there's no glow visible in it.
Yes, I said so and I still think one can mimic the image of a soft lens to a very good degree of accuracy (maybe not %100 but close) in PP if one wants to but I never said I am going to take on this just to prove my point to somebody. If somebody is emotionally set to believe in something, he can always find a tiny difference and zoom on it to claim the contestant has failed the challenge. In any case, it's waste of time. When I spend time on a photo it's because I want to improve it not to degrade it. That's why I came up with the version I presented not because I want to mimic the 'Nokton effect'. When I have fee time, I have a lot of interesting photos of myself to spend my time on to make them presentable; I am too busy to try to mimic a soft haziness.
Nov 30, 2025 at 09:04 AM
Previous versions of raminolta's message #16938907 « 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them? »
