Quote:There are a few vintage 55/1.2 & 58/1.2 that offer similar FOV & DOF and are built like rocks.
I have a Minolta MC 58/1.2 that costed me around 300€ and is much smaller.
Nice lens. I have two 55mm f1.2's myself. Although they are smaller, they are not all that super in certain areas, though. For instance the heavy vignetting, which makes them hardly qualify as f1.2 lenses. Contrast is not that great with the Minolta, and bokeh is not great either (unless you blur the hell out of stuff by shooting up close). I ma not sure if all versions of the Minolta 58mm f1.2 have the same bokeh, though.
I have a hard time deciding which has worse bokeh, the Minolta 58mm f1.2 or the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 Aspherical.
I like what this german lens does. I know that the simple optics and narrow barrel of my 55mm f1.2's make them small, but they are not 'amazing" lenses. Back when they were new, they were expensive... Also your 58mm f1.2. 55mm is pretty far removed from 64mm, by the way.
Quote:Quite a lot you have saved:
recommended retail price of 1799 €
Actually in the scheme of things it's not so extortionate! But it's pro uses are limited being APSc only! (edited)
Quote:The 50mm f1.4 does not have pleasant bokeh.
I think your bokeh standards are much higher than mine.
For me, the image below has pleasant enough bokeh.
You will also note that the focus is on the rear eye with the front already (slightly out of focus). This was shot at f2.5 so good luck to anyone who wants to shoot your lens at f0.85 using manual focusing.
[sharedmedia=gallery:images:1277]
06-12-2014, 10:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 10:09 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:I think your bokeh standards are much higher than mine.
For me, the image below has pleasant enough bokeh.
You will also note that the focus is on the rear eye with the front already (slightly out of focus). This was shot at f2.5 so good luck to anyone who wants to shoot your lens at f0.85 using manual focusing.
Your photo is not a good example, as it has a far away background and a very close subject. Then, of course, bokeh problems get hidden. On the other hand, the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 does not have awful bokeh, not even in the hardest bokeh conditions. My 55mm's and my 50mm f2 are worse, I am sure. But the 50mm f1.4 does not do what this 40mm f0.85 seems to be capable of.
Why it is all of a sudden "my lens" according to you, I have no idea. I have not designed the lens, I do not own the lens, and I will never own that lens. I am not a mirrorless camera fan (even though I bought a cheap EOS M for specific applications).
2 points about manual focussing. I have no trouble focussing my 55mm's wide open (that is at f1.2, manual focussing). My Eg-S focus screen works pretty nicely for that. 2nd point: this 40mm f0.85 is a mirrorless camera lens. The cameras it is being built for have focus peeking, and magnified live view available. So, getting the focus right should not be too challenging.
And if you still find your Nikon to not focus too accurately, try a 6D or a 5D mk III sometime. You might be surprised. B)
06-12-2014, 12:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 12:30 PM by Klaus.)
Well, the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 has the essentially the same DoF behavior (56/40=1.4x, 0.85*1.4=1.2).
The Fuji lens is great, has AF and costs half of this lens ...
And, honestly, I think the Handevision has a very poor bokeh:
http://item.rakuten.co.jp/auc-stkb/ibelux-mft/
Click on one of the images to the left (-> overlay gallery) - then observe image #6 and #9.
#6 shows extremely poor highlights
#9 shows a Nisen bokeh
The cabbage patch shot looks rough, the rest look fairly smooth. What's Nisen bokeh?
Hmm, a schitzofernic lens. Nisen bokeh is when the background bokeh has the tendency to make double lines.
I noticed lately that good number of new manufacturers you might call them shops try to claim market share. I believe it all started with SLR Magic. Everyone has gone crazy to offer retro, all metal, manual focus lenses. And the most bizarre of all Petzval, for which one has to have a bag for aperture rings. While those offerings might be competent, I don't see any trade off in therms of price when the lens is good and performance upgrade when the lens is expensive. The only new player that made a significant dent in the existing market is Samyang.
I hope no one will offer retro batteries...
Quote: The only new player that made a significant dent in the existing market is Samyang.
I hope no one will offer retro batteries...
Samyang is not trying to be in the least retro, but is producing up to date (and better) optical designs at affordable prices that tempt people to live with manual focus, which in my view is very creditable, hence the dent. As for the Petzval, the word "pretentous" springs to mind!
Quote:The cabbage patch shot looks rough, the rest look fairly smooth. What's Nisen bokeh?
In #9 you can spot that the halo of the blades is very distinct instead of fading smoothly.
As far as the rest is concerned - the lens is, of course, capable of producing an extreme blur but that's just a function of the focal-length/aperture and doesn't relate to the quality of the optical design. That's like 500 horsepower in a truck vs a Ferrari.
|
