lensfan wrote:
I do appreciate close focus for background melting. I have no doubt fellow FMers understand how to blur background by focusing on a close subject. If your background is not melted away this means you are not focusing close enough. 50GM has no issues blurring background - no doubt about that. But what I'm trying to say is that I find this lens to have a unique rendering style which reminds me of some 'clinical' manual focus lenses - you have this sharpness for in-focus subjects but rather detailed background at medium distances behind compared to similar or many slower high quality lenses. I love to have this quality as I'm tired of modern style lenses which melt everything in most situations. This is what I'm after here.
On the other hand, APO 50 which I would expect to behave more like a summicron lens, to have a 'clinical' or busy style rendering for medium distance objects, I find it to be smooth and smoother than 50GM in those types of situations.
Just shot this on 50GM at f1.2. I find this background busy... And those half-circle bubbles once again. https://i.imgur.com/Ku746Ma.jpg...Show more →
This is a great sample! You are 100% right that the bokeh is busy in this shot. The reason is not the lens though. Those half-circles mean you're shooting using EFCS, which when combined with high shutter speed (due to f1.2) ultimately degrades background blur smoothness.
Now, if you shoot the APO at the same shutter speed as the GM, you will see the same effect. Alternatively, try shooting the GM at the same shutter speed as the APO or switch to Electronic (Silent) or Fully Mechanical shutter and the bokeh will be smooth again.
j4nu wrote:
This is a great sample! You are 100% right that the bokeh is busy in this shot. The reason is not the lens though. Those half-circles mean you're shooting using EFCS, which when combined with high shutter speed (due to f1.2) ultimately degrades background blur smoothness.
Now, if you shoot the APO at the same shutter speed as the GM, you will see the same effect. Alternatively, try shooting the GM at the same shutter speed as the APO or switch to Electronic (Silent) or Fully Mechanical shutter and the bokeh will be smooth again.
Got it - will try to do some additional shots as soon as I can. Indeed, in those sunny conditions it was always 1/8000 and images were still overexposed a bit. I supposed it was silent shutter that causes half-circles. Thanks!
p.84 #19 - the gas bubbles surfacing in the harbour are pretty disturbing, imagine if you 'needed' the image to be right - a lot of PP is needed. Being an early adopter, I tried to give the 50AL every opportunity to shows its dark side in near focus-busy background situations, a couple are shown below.
It's rare for me to not use around 50% of the frame to the in-focus subject in close focus exercises, to let the very high f2 microcontrast shine - bokeh is a complement to me, not the main thing. One feature the 50AL seems to avoid is the popular 'painted on' look of subject superimposed over bokeh that Sony may be engineering into the GM series' images, for the impression of greater 3D. Cosina tends to favour context bokeh, with softly drawn identifiable subjects more dominant than creamy abstractions. You see this quite clearly in the pre-release images:
philip_pj wrote:
... the popular 'painted on' look of subject superimposed over bokeh that Sony may be engineering into the GM series' images, for the impression of greater 3D.
IMO, it's the opposite: the "painted on" look of subject superimposed over blurred background is the death of 3D, although proper lighting can help reducing the sense of flatness.
So here goes the comparison:
* 50GM 1.2 -1EV
* 50GM 2.0
* 50APO 2.0
Silent shutter off this time. Hand held. Frozen fingers. Wind pushing a bit. Composition is a bit different. A few hours earlier in the day compared to yesterday's shot. Wanted to be done with it asap due to weather.
lensfan wrote:
So here goes the comparison:
* 50GM 1.2 -1EV
* 50GM 2.0
* 50APO 2.0
Silent shutter off this time. Hand held. Frozen fingers. Wind pushing a bit. Composition is a bit different. A few hours earlier in the day compared to yesterday's shot. Wanted to be done with it asap due to weather.
I got some shots with both eCurtain and Silent Shutter off. Was in a hurry to catch the dying light so I grabbed 35APO-L instead of 50APO-L - so no comparison this time. Much less light so conditions are much easier for the lens. Converted to jpeg in Lightroom, no lens corrections.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think that close-up lenses are more practical with telephoto lenses. With wide angle and normal lenses, extension tube(s) make more sense as you don't need that much extension to get high magnification.
In the case of a 50mm lens native 0.15x magnification, one would need a very strong 5+ diopter to get to half-life size (1:2) while a short 16mm extension already gets you there. It depends on how strong a lens performs at MFD but in general terms, we should strive for the shortest tube or weaker diopter to achieve the highest IQ for equal magnification.
Fred, I just ordered the achromat +5 for this lens and then stumbled across this post. Was it a mistake not to purchase the tubes at this focal length or are we splitting hairs in terms of performance?
I've been in the same imaginary boat and tried both extension rings and aforementioned +5 achromat and can clearly say the achromat gives the better results (this has been true for everey lens I tried). It induces some CA towards the edges but with the rings (10 or 16mm), the edges become unuseable mush with funky distortion.
Egg Salad wrote:
I've been in the same imaginary boat and tried both extension rings and aforementioned +5 achromat and can clearly say the achromat gives the better results (this has been true for everey lens I tried). It induces some CA towards the edges but with the rings (10 or 16mm), the edges become unuseable mush with funky distortion.
Awesome, thanks for the feedback. I want a walkaround pseudo-macro so it sounds like I went with the right choice.
Has anyone taken shots with the 50mm APO Lanthar with a Tiffen Black ProMist or other diffusion filter? I am curious whether the diffusion filter can soften some of the "too sharp for portraits" criticism that these lenses can have. I am considering selling my 50 Summilux for this lens (don't use 50mm as much but like it for portraits) and am wondering how a diffused/softened approach to this lens might work out. Thanks!
I have 1/2 strength Tiffen Black Pro Mist filters for my 35, 50 and 85mm GMs. Not because they are too sharp but rather its gives the option of a different look.
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
Has anyone taken shots with the 50mm APO Lanthar with a Tiffen Black ProMist or other diffusion filter? I am curious whether the diffusion filter can soften some of the "too sharp for portraits" criticism that these lenses can have. I am considering selling my 50 Summilux for this lens (don't use 50mm as much but like it for portraits) and am wondering how a diffused/softened approach to this lens might work out. Thanks!
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
Has anyone taken shots with the 50mm APO Lanthar with a Tiffen Black ProMist or other diffusion filter? I am curious whether the diffusion filter can soften some of the "too sharp for portraits" criticism that these lenses can have. I am considering selling my 50 Summilux for this lens (don't use 50mm as much but like it for portraits) and am wondering how a diffused/softened approach to this lens might work out. Thanks!
I too have been looking at the black pro mist filter with this lens in mind, the over processed portraits are almost the norm nowerdays, especially in club photography, I am guilty of it, though I have been trying to rain it in
These filters seam to take the harshness of super high resolution high sharp portraits while keeping detail contrast and a natural look, K&F do one for the magnetic system I use making it super easy to pop on and off.
50GM has no issues blurring background - no doubt about that. But what I'm trying to say is that I find this lens to have a unique rendering style which reminds me of some 'clinical' manual focus lenses - you have this sharpness for in-focus subjects but rather detailed background at medium distances behind compared to similar or many
