JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
absolutic wrote:
after I read all the negative reviews about it being not very sharp, I am pleasantly surprised. Granted I am using the 45 on the 24MP R8, I don't currently have R5M2 anymore, so I can't tell how it resolves 45mp, but on my 24MP it looks fine. Interestingly I received Nikon 40mm F2. for Z mount at the same time and tested that lens. I was shocked how soft that 40mm Nikkor was on my 24MP Z6III. I have not seen lenses that soft for a long long long time. The 45 1.2 on the other hand is a keeper for me.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54964773018_e46a9539a0_b.jpg45 1.2 RF by Dmitry Brodsky, on Flickr...Show more →
Even on the R5ii, it looks sharp enough relative to what my expectations were going into it. Surprised to hear how soft the Nikkor is.
---------------------------------------------
artsupreme wrote:
Looks good. I'm liking the uncorrected versions of this latest batch of Canon RF lenses. That harsh vignetting can be cleaned up a bit with some inverted radial masks.
I think this lens is going to be very popular.
I too, prefer the uncorrected look for the majority of my lenses and leave corrections off accordingly.
---------------------------------------------
rscheffler wrote:
In the R6III and 45/1.2 thread, Gary Voth mentioned he observed quite prominent focus shift in the f/2.8 range at nearer focusing distances. It appears that the best way to counteract this is to set the EVF exposure simulation setting to exposure + DOF. This will force the camera to stop down the lens to the shooting aperture while focusing, which for this lens will be beneficial because it will then compensate for the focus shift that otherwise would affect images if AF was done wide open. From my brief testing of this setting (with a different lens), it appears the camera will AF with a shooting aperture as small as around f/5.0. If set smaller than f/5.0, the camera will open the aperture to around f/5.0 to perform AF and then stop down to the shooting aperture to provide DOF preview once AF is done.
Thanks for posting these. My impression from the DPR sample image gallery was that the lens was decently sharp for its price. Your test photos do reveal bokeh quality that I do not like, which specifically is how the bokeh balls at the image edges are significantly smaller than near the center. With any lens there will be some optical vignetting that affects peripheral bokeh ball size and shape, but it seems to be quite an extreme case for this lens. It will be interesting to see how much is due to optical vignetting and if there is also field curvature compounding the issue....Show more →
Thank you both for sharing and confirming the fix to mitigate this issue. I've changed the setting but have yet to have much shooting time to test. I should be getting some time tonight though.
I also tend to agree regarding the bokeh quality. The shapes are rather odd. However, I also am one of those weirdos that keeps a stable of old lenses because of their weird bokeh (some Helios 58mm lenses and their 85 for the swirls, Zenitar ME1 for it's square bokeh, etc). Personally though, I care more about how much dimensionality this lens will produce across varying conditions. If it does well in that regard, I will be more forgiving to some of the weird specular highlight shapes. 
---------------------------------------------
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Not sure why
But I seem to prefer a little vignetting these days??
It occurred to me a while back that when I used lenses without corrections turned on the pictures had a filmic look. At first I couldn’t understand why then realised the vignette was giving a more ….3D pop??
If I turned corrections on the shot just becomes flat.
The 45/1.2 does seem nice… I bet paired with a light weight body like the R8 makes a fantastic combination.
Well done canon 👍🏻
Right there with you.
---------------------------------------------
netexpress wrote:
The bokeh is horrible IMO. I'd like to see an image that goes edge-to-edge. The MTF charges look pretty bad in the corners. I think I'll skip this lens. And I rarely say anything bad about Canon lenses. But a cheap 1.2 prime for portraits? Why not? It still can be a lot of fun!
As stated above, I tend to agree with regard to the bokeh shapes, but if this thing ends up yielding images that have a specific look across varying scenes, I'll be plenty happy. I've had all the near perfect lenses and have kept some, but have offloaded many (including the RF 50/1.2) because I just didn't care much for the images.
---------------------------------------------
philip_pj wrote:
'If I turned corrections on the shot just becomes flat.'
As a rule, outer frame 'aberrations' are designed to form an image that looks akin to our natural vision. 'Perfect' lenses are themselves an aberration, departing from our natural true-to-life vision. Some supporting evidence from the masters in the cine world:
‘curving focus roll-off creates a dimensionality that has always set M lenses apart from more advanced optics that can be precise to the point of boring.’
‘modern lenses pop into focus in a flat and layered manner that appears unrealistic by drawing attention to themselves.’
‘the M 0.8 lenses roll into focus on a curve that more accurately recreates natural perception.’
‘this creates images that feel different and dimensional, that appear satisfying on a subconscious level.’
That is from Leitz, the others are the same (except Zeiss). We naturally see outer frames (edges of vision) as having lower contrast, lower resolution and a steady decline of brightness. The cine design masters know this.
Will stills photography lens designers get there at some stage? I think they will, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. Give them five years or so.
They are presently lost and wandering around in the high tech desert of their own fever dreams of perfection and endless 'sharpness' - to the neglect of creating lenses that make beautiful artistic images. Once they realize this, they might issue a mea culpa and reform themselves. Don't hold your breath for now, though. They have the rubes just where the marketing department wants them.  ...Show more →
Agreed. This is one of the reasons I have stuck with the original Sigma 35/1.2 on the Sony side. The MKii, the Viltrox, or GM1.4 just don't yield the same look. Distortion, a touch of field curvature, etc. never killed anyone.
There's a time and a place for modern, more near perfect lenses. But they don't always pump out the images we love most. With regard to the RF45 though, I'm looking forward to finding out where it falls.
|
