Thanks, I’ll have a gander at your flickr at some point. What’s your username? As I said, the rendering has always looked nice to me. Of course, in and ideal world I’d have the 35mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM as they both render beautifully.I had one and at times it was my favourite lens. If you like I can sort out about a million pictures taken with itOr you can just google for some.
AF’s not really an issue as it’s for static subjects, neither is sharpness across the frame. The main thing for me is nice rendering (subjective), plenty of pop/3D, and almost a Brenizer type look.Sorry I don't have flickr as I'm a luddite these days
You should really read up on the two lenses, look at examples and make your own mind up. If you can get a Canon that doesn't suffer iffy focus I suppose any differences between the two are going to be sharpness across the frame and bokeh at the wider apertures. At the time AFAIK and from what I read the Sigma was considered to be the better lens but there might be something about the look the Canon gives at wider apertures.
Interesing, I find that the older lenses have more character and often more pop. I used to love the look the cheap and cheerful Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8 gave. The voigtlander’s starting to get into the too expensive category for meI may be wrong but I don't think you'll get all that from one of these old 50mm f1.4's.
I'm tempted by the 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.4 but I really don't like the bulk and weight of these lenses and feel too self conscious point big kit at people and things. A more compact way of getting wide apertures and nicer bokeh could be to look at the f1.2 E mount Voigtlanders but these are obviously MF. I have the 40mm f1.2 which was the first one they did but they're since brought out the 35 and 50mm f1.2's and now have SE (Stills addition) options which lack the declick option to make them a touch more compact. If these had all come out at the same time I don't know which I'd have gone for but I think it's worth restricting yourself to just one
In your place and if AF speed isn't an issue I'd take a sideways look at the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 SE. It may not give you quite the smoothness of bokeh as the Sony 50mm f1.2 but it's a fraction of the size. There's a massive review on Fred Miranda, actually he's reviewed all these lenses as has Philip Reeve.
Interesing, I find that the older lenses have more character and often more pop. I used to love the look the cheap and cheerful Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8 gave. The voigtlander’s starting to get into the too expensive category for me
Thanks for this. I don't get blackout either, however if you pan you get a slideshow/lag type experience. Obviously you won't notice it if you're shooting statically
Get a kind of smearing. Not really distracting.Thanks for this. I don't get blackout either, however if you pan you get a slideshow/lag type experience. Obviously you won't notice it if you're shooting statically
Thanks, maybe I'll get to try one at some point. With the A9-II it's difficult as there's a moment's kind of pause before the 'slideshow' starts meaning that you kind of have to play catch up with the images. Hard to explain, but when you're trying to get tack sharp images at 1/20 etc it makes it tricky.
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing
)
Some 50’s have it tbf, but only on certain shots. I’ve fancied trying the Mitakon f0.95 for a while but it’s too expensive to take a punt on.
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing
This is probably the best 'pop' I managed with the 45mm[
A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Compared with this taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 a few years back
NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Actually side by side there's not as much in it as I thought
There is a technical reason why it’s 55 rather than 50, I remember reading a long winded explanation of it some time ago but can’t remember the details. Something to do with light transmission.
Think the engineers just took a 50 and turned it up to 11
I’m still trying to find stuff to sell to make up for buying the 70-200mm let alone the 50. Besides, for the times I use a 50mm I just can’t justify that kind of money, will only get used a handful of times a year at most.
Quite like the FE55 myself. Renders rather nicely with really nice colours and micro-contrast. Not to mention is small, really sharp, decent AF, no coma so it's great for astro.
As mentioned, that's well out of budget so I'm looking for the next best thing (or maybe 3rd or 4th best thing
This is probably the best 'pop' I managed with the 45mm[
A9_03003 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Compared with this taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 a few years back
NZ7_1291 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Actually side by side there's not as much in it as I thought
it certainly has somewhat unique "softer dreamy" rendering you don't get with many other lenses. Reminds of the EF 50mm f1.2.
I may well pick up an old 50 for the rendering. The AF was usable and very much like my old D610 and 50 f1.8D, but with more critical requirements.it certainly has somewhat unique "softer dreamy" rendering you don't get with many other lenses. Reminds of the EF 50mm f1.2.
The word on the street is that it's closer to a f1.3 lens than a f1.4 lens.
AF isn't great on either
There is a new samyang 50mm f1.4, not sure how good or bad that is. looks to be a completely different optical formula.
