T
thearne3
Guest
Interesting comparison to the 20 1.7. From what I can see, the sharpness is comparable. However, the 25 1.4 shows significant blue CA around the white stripes in the man's jersey...
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Darn! I thought it was too good to be true. I wonder if the camera needs a firmware update to cope with the lens?Interesting comparison to the 20 1.7. From what I can see, the sharpness is comparable. However, the 25 1.4 shows significant blue CA around the white stripes in the man's jersey...
Way more bulky! Yet bulky (and heavy) in a totally satisfying way. It's ironic that I abandoned Nikon bodies because they were too heavy and bulky but wound up with a Canon pro body. And if I were to go back to Nikon (unlikely, because hardly any 3rd party lenses can be adapted to Nikon bodies), I'd want a D3x.Jonathon
speaking as one who wishes for full frame size in compact body I would ask:
would that not be as bulky?
And to mine, the visible difference in distortion in the man's face in the image taken with a 40mm equivalent versus a 50mm; neither the recommended focal length for portraits but the 20/1.7, much as I like it is definitely not for face shots!There is also an interesting (quick n dirty) comparison with the 20/1.7. To my surprise I really do think the 25/1.4 is sharper, wide open.
Don't you think big part of that perspective change, if not all of it, is attributable to DPR's getting closer to subject with 20 than they did with 25? It is obvious they are closer because person occupies more percentage of real estate in shot with 20 even though opposite would have been true if both were shot from same distance.And to mine, the visible difference in distortion in the man's face in the image taken with a 40mm equivalent versus a 50mm
... and in one where they kept aperture apples to apples they did not keep perspective apples to apples, while in other they did not keep neither aperture nor perspective apple to apple, nor was seemingly white balance.They just added a couple of additional shots to the comparison.
OK but only very slightly closer so as to fill the frame with the same amount; it's the difference between a 40mm and a 50mm, it doesn't warrant such a variation in distortion. I'm not knocking the 20mm for what it is, an excellent lens which I also use, I am however still surprised at the comparison with a lens that is only marginally longer in declared focal length.Don't you think big part of that perspective change, if not all of it, is attributable to DPR's getting closer to subject with 20 than they did with 25? It is obvious they are closer because person occupies more percentage of real estate in shot with 20 even though opposite would have been true if both were shot from same distance.
feel a bit that way about the oly lenses I have ... keeps me thinking of a 5DI was never the slightest bit interested in Canon bodies/lenses but the Canon 1D series body plus Leica/Zeiss lenses suits me perfectly. Go figure.
.
It is much much more than "slightly". Height of head on shot with 20 is approximately 20% bigger when it should have been opposite and whole layout of a shot indicates height and angle of shot have changed too which will cause huge change in perspective, especially with shots taken so close.OK but only very slightly closer so as to fill the frame with the same amount; it's the difference between a 40mm and a 50mm, it doesn't warrant such a variation in distortion.
My point precisely.It is much much more than "slightly".
I have impression you misunderstood me. I didn't mean "more than slightly distorted due to lens", I meant DPR got much closer to subject than necessary to have playing field level when taking a shot with 20 and that is what butchered perspective, not the difference in focal lengths.My point precisely.
OK, I think I'm thrashing this one too far:I have impression you misunderstood me. I didn't mean "more than slightly distorted due to lens", I meant DPR got much closer to subject than necessary to have playing field level when taking a shot with 20 and that is what butchered perspective, not the difference in focal lengths.
They did _NOT_ have to get that much closer. They got _MUCH_ closer than they needed to. They needed to get only as close to make height of head same, but they ended up getting so close that head is 20% bigger, plus they changed angles.My point is precisely that if they have to get THAT much closer ...