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!
Hi Kurt, yeah the couple things I've shot at f/1.4, 2.8 look remarkably good and seem to compare quite well with my 50/1.4 ASPH ... but that lens isn't here for me to do a f/1.4 to f/5.6 shoot out ... to be sure.Hi Marc, glad to see this comparison. As a big fan of the 50mm focal length and wide open shooting, it looks to be an intoxicating option. I can't believe I'm asking, but have you tried it stopped down? If it's an excellent normal lens (equal or nearly equal to the 50lux) it'd be awfully tempting down the road. A perfect all-around, 1-lens dark to light wrecking crew.
Kurt
Me too Kurt, 6 months of "Moscow Grey Skies" here in the upper midwestern, Detroit Michigan area. It's the Great Lakes effect.That would be very impressive, Carsten. An expensive choice for certain ... but, here in the upper Midwest with 6 months of gray and overcast skies, fast lenses rule. I've found that I really don't want/need a bag full of specialist lenses ... I only end up using several focal lengths 90% of the time.
Yes, I've shot extensively with lots of speedy lenses ... Canon 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L-MKII, CV 35/1.2, Sony Zeiss 85/1.4, Contax N 85/1.4, CZ 85/1.4, ZF 85/1.4, Nikon 85/1.4 ... etc. etc.Marc, I know you have worked with a lot of these lenses, so I am curious to know how you would compare the 50/0.95, the Canon 85L and perhaps the Nikon 85/1.4? Apart from the availability of the 0.95 I mean, just character, sharpness and boke.
Yes, I owned 2 copies of the Zeiss/Contax 85/1.2 Anniversary model ... and used the very rare 55/1.2 briefly. Some of my favorite film shots were taken with the 85/1.2 on the odd Contax AF AX ... which allowed more keepers, and actually allowed the lens to be focused closer than marked due to the internal AF method of the AX camera. I also used one with a slightly shaved back on the Canon 1DsMKII ... but it was a bear to focus manually and I just sold it preferring to use the AF Canon 85/1.2L. If you can't focus the darn thing, it doesn't matter how good it isThanks, that is really interesting.
There was once a huge thread about the 3D-look in images over on FM, and the general question of boke also came up. One of the items of discussion was exactly how sharpness rolled off with distance. We tend to just discuss boke as if all lenses have equivalent roll-off (in magnitude if not in character) at the same f-stop, but this isn't true, as is easy to verify. Different lens designs have a different sharpness falloff with distance. The Zeiss designs tended to be more gradual, and the boke had more "character", i.e. more detail was discernible in it, leading to greater 3Dness, whereas the Leicas were pretty abrupt, and the boke was very blurred, leading to less 3D, but more subject isolation.
Do you have any experience with the famous 50-/60-Jahre editions of the Zeiss 85/1.2?
I have only tried the 85L-I briefly, and was surprised to see that CA was quite visible. Other than that, it had a really nice look, something I don't recall seeing in other Canon lenses I have tried. The 200/1.8 and 200/2 are also meant to be excellent.
I used to have a Canon 5D and an 80 Lux-R, and that is to this day one of my favorite lenses. It was soft-on-sharp wide open, a beautiful look.
CarstenThanks, that is really interesting.
There was once a huge thread about the 3D-look in images over on FM, and the general question of boke also came up. One of the items of discussion was exactly how sharpness rolled off with distance. We tend to just discuss boke as if all lenses have equivalent roll-off (in magnitude if not in character) at the same f-stop, but this isn't true, as is easy to verify. Different lens designs have a different sharpness falloff with distance. The Zeiss designs tended to be more gradual, and the boke had more "character", i.e. more detail was discernible in it, leading to greater 3Dness, whereas the Leicas were pretty abrupt, and the boke was very blurred, leading to less 3D, but more subject isolation.
Do you have any experience with the famous 50-/60-Jahre editions of the Zeiss 85/1.2?
I have only tried the 85L-I briefly, and was surprised to see that CA was quite visible. Other than that, it had a really nice look, something I don't recall seeing in other Canon lenses I have tried. The 200/1.8 and 200/2 are also meant to be excellent.
I used to have a Canon 5D and an 80 Lux-R, and that is to this day one of my favorite lenses. It was soft-on-sharp wide open, a beautiful look.