[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1304005856' post='7950']
40mm are indeed a little odd on APS-C. It's somewhere in-between everything.r
[/quote].
My Nokton 40/1.4 is in between but very useable. :-) It is sharp but the bokeh is sometimes harsh. This and the 16 mm are the only lenses I use. My A-Mount lenses are to big with the adapter. Maybe the native Zeiss 24/1.7, which will be announced in some weeks, lens is a option to you. I would buy a wide angle and a normal lens. Sometimes limits are better.
[quote name='Marco' timestamp='1304024713' post='7963']
.
My Nokton 40/1.4 is in between but very useable. :-) It is sharp but the bokeh is sometimes harsh. This and the 16 mm are the only lenses I use. My A-Mount lenses are to big with the adapter. Maybe the native Zeiss 24/1.7, which will be announced in some weeks, lens is a option to you. I would buy a wide angle and a normal lens. Sometimes limits are better.
[/quote]
what do u mean when you say that sometimes the bokeh is harsh? so, do you think it would be a good choice or I better go for the 35mm?
04-28-2011, 09:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2011, 10:10 PM by mst.)
[quote name='Guly88' timestamp='1304026103' post='7967']
what do u mean when you say that sometimes the bokeh is harsh? so, do you think it would be a good choice or I better go for the 35mm?
[/quote]
From the samples I have seen I'd say the bokeh of the 35/1.4 isn't any better. Both are not really stellar in this regard. That's part of the price you pay for the small size.
However, I must admit that I don't know of any alternatives in this focal range that deliver better bokeh. At least not in this price class (the Leica Summilux certainly has better bokeh) or with the same maximum aperture (otherwise I'd recommend the Zeiss 35/2.8). The Voigtländer Nokton isn't all that great in this regard either (and apart from that it's HUGE).
Talking about Zeiss: Klaus already mentioned that the Contax adapter is a bit of a hazzle. So, instead of the Contax G 21 I'd consider the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 instead. And there are also quite a few more tele options. There's the latest generation Leica Elmarit 90/2.8 (which unfortunately increased in price again on the used market) and also a 90/2.8 Hexanon (certainly the smallest fast 90mm lens I have found so far). The older Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 lenses are quite affordable, but also noticeably softer.
If you consider a 75mm lens instead, take a look at the new Heliar 75/1.8 which Klaus has already mentioned. It's quite big though (for a 75mm lens). The previous and now discontinued Color Heliar 75/2.5 is also an attractive option and can often be found used for prices around 200 EUR.
Finally, since you mentioned the 50mm Heliar Classic: it's a nice looking lens ... and that's about it. Optically it's unimpressive (not bad, but not stellar either, there are lots of better Fifties out there), its MFD is 1m (which is probably less of a problem on a NEX than it is on the Leica M) and mechanically it has some issues. Not regarding build quality (which is great), but the aperture ring is rather stiff so each time you adjust the aperture, you also change the focus setting. In addition, there is only one set of aperture markings, which point downwards for most focus settings. So, except when the lens is set to or at least close to infinity, you cannot see which aperture currently is selected.
Finally: please note that I don't own a NEX and all my experiences I have with the lenses mentioned here are from using them on the M9.
Out of curiosity: do you plan to purchase native E-mount lenses, too?
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
...yes, but just the 16mm pancake. Do you think that the bokeh effect would be better with a 50mm -75mm equivalente on the NEX - M-Hexanon? I mean, maybe I should try to find a 50 M-Hexanon instead of a 35 or 40mm Voigtlander...
04-28-2011, 10:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2011, 10:37 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Guly88' timestamp='1304028747' post='7970']
...yes, but just the 16mm pancake. Do you think that the bokeh effect would be better with a 50mm -75mm equivalente on the NEX - M-Hexanon? I mean, maybe I should try to find a 50 M-Hexanon instead of a 35 or 40mm Voigtlander...
[/quote]
You get more blur with longer lenses. But of course, you get a more narrow field of view too, with longer lenses.
Lenses of 50 mm and below just are not bokeh wonders, not even the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM has really smooth bokeh. To me, field of view is most important in focal length choice for a photo, and the quality of bokeh and amount of blur secondary. The field of view makes the image, and the bokeh is about how that image gets rendered.
Look at for instance my close up images with the Canon EF 35mm f2. Its bokeh is not excellent, there are almost no 35mm lenses with excellent bokeh (maybe two real exceptions, both of them being a Zeiss). Almost noone uses that lens for what I use it for, 35mm lenses are seen mainly as "full frame street photography" lenses. Most people use 90-105mm macro lenses for those kinds of close ups. BUt I happen to really dislike the field of view of that class of macro lens on APS-C... it is the field of view that gives my photos their character.
And, to be fair, the bokeh of the lens does not look half bad at all, in my images.
Longer lenses can get more blur, and usually also more pleasant bokeh, but their use is more restricted... a 75mm lens will mainly be used for portraits (head or bust only). a 40mm will be more flexible in its uses.
It is for you to decide upon a focal length, and what you want to do with it.
I'd get a 20 to 24mm for street photography/snapshots, that 40mm for a versatile "standard prime", and only a longer lens (like 75 or 90mm) when you want to shoot portraits.
What is it you actually (want to) photograph? It should point you in certain focal length directions. If you don't really know that yet, you can not really go wrong with that 40mm f1.4 "almost standard prime". Makes more sense on 1.5x APS-C crop factor than the awkward 50mm lenses, in my opinion (which is why I got that 35mm f2 myself (on 1.6x crop factor APS-C))..
I'd get a 20 to 24mm for street photography/snapshots, that 40mm for a versatile "standard prime", and only a longer lens (like 75 or 90mm) when you want to shoot portraits.
...ok, but are we talking about 35mm focal lengths or about the equivalent for APS-C? because in the first case using them with the NEX I will have a 30 to 36mm for street, 60mm as standard prime, and 109mm for portraits...is that what you wanted to say?
What is it you actually (want to) photograph? It should point you in certain focal length directions. If you don't really know that yet, you can not really go wrong with that 40mm f1.4 "almost standard prime". Makes more sense on 1.5x APS-C crop factor than the awkward 50mm lenses, in my opinion (which is why I got that 35mm f2 myself (on 1.6x crop factor APS-C))..
...I really don't know yet for sure, but having to answer now to that question i would say street and portrait. I'm going to fly to New York in november and it will be great to have something useful and versatile to photograph the city. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
quote 'mst'
However, I must admit that I don't know of any alternatives in this focal range that deliver better bokeh. At least not in this price class (the Leica Summilux certainly has better bokeh) or with the same maximum aperture (otherwise I'd recommend the Zeiss 35/2.8). The Voigtländer Nokton isn't all that great in this regard either (and apart from that it's HUGE).
are we talking about the 35 f 1.4 Nocton? 'cose it doesn't seem huge to me...
T alking about Zeiss: Klaus already mentioned that the Contax adapter is a bit of a hazzle. So, instead of the Contax G 21 I'd consider the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 instead. And there are also quite a few more tele options. There's the latest generation Leica Elmarit 90/2.8 (which unfortunately increased in price again on the used market) and also a 90/2.8 Hexanon (certainly the smallest fast 90mm lens I have found so far). The older Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 lenses are quite affordable, but also noticeably softer.
...ok, maybe the contax G adapter is a little bit odd, but - probably also for this reason - I can have "the same" lenses for a little less money...the new 21mm Zeiss is about 900 euro <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> and, another point in their favor, is their weight. they are lighter the the others: 190 g for the Contax G sonnar 90mm 2.8 VS 307g of the konica M-Hexanon 90mm f 2.8...even if I have to admit that I like more the second one. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Guly88' timestamp='1304055042' post='7972']
I'd get a 20 to 24mm for street photography/snapshots, that 40mm for a versatile "standard prime", and only a longer lens (like 75 or 90mm) when you want to shoot portraits.
...ok, but are we talking about 35mm focal lengths or about the equivalent for APS-C? because in the first case using them with the NEX I will have a 30 to 36mm for street, 60mm as standard prime, and 109mm for portraits...is that what you wanted to say?
What is it you actually (want to) photograph? It should point you in certain focal length directions. If you don't really know that yet, you can not really go wrong with that 40mm f1.4 "almost standard prime". Makes more sense on 1.5x APS-C crop factor than the awkward 50mm lenses, in my opinion (which is why I got that 35mm f2 myself (on 1.6x crop factor APS-C))..
...I really don't know yet for sure, but having to answer now to that question i would say street and portrait. I'm going to fly to New York in november and it will be great to have something useful and versatile to photograph the city. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
I am talking about the actual focal lengths... so, a 20 to 24mm lens. Which makes 20 x 1.5 = 30 to 24 x 1.5 = 36mm full frame equivalents on APS-C.
I still think the 40mm will be a very nice lens to have, also for NY. And then a 2nd lens, a bit wider (20-24mm, 30-35 FF equivalent on APS-C).
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304062840' post='7975']
I am talking about the actual focal lengths... so, a 20 to 24mm lens. Which makes 20 x 1.5 = 30 to 24 x 1.5 = 36mm full frame equivalents on APS-C.
I still think the 40mm will be a very nice lens to have, also for NY. And then a 2nd lens, a bit wider (20-24mm, 30-35 FF equivalent on APS-C).
[/quote]
...well, I would have the 16mm SONY ( -->24mm eq )...
[quote name='Guly88' timestamp='1304066374' post='7976']
...well, I would have the 16mm SONY ( -->24mm eq )...
[/quote]
Then you are set, I think?
|
