AdaptedLenses
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #10 · Micro Four-Thirds Image Thread | |
Sorry, didn't mean the Oly 1.2 lenses couldn't be fun. I meant that more as I take it places like the beach with my family, I don't necessarily want a large or overly expensive setup.
And actually, the Nikon 50/1.2 on an A7II and Techart Pro is a blast to shoot. Without the Techart it would be a nightmare at f/1.2. As Wilbus notes below, it's not a sharp lens at f/1.2 but if you take the overall image instead of pixels, it draws in an attractive way. The Techart puts the sliver of focus right where you want it, and A7II's IBIS works well, this combo can shoot handled well into the evening. Obviously it's a larger setup though.
I'm also not a shallow DoF junkie, which is actually another reason why I wouldn't spend on the f/1.2 lenses. f/1.4-f/1.7 on m4/3 is thin enough for me. Subject separation and focal distance are still playing a larger role than just a stop or two of aperture.
millsart wrote:
F1.2 glass isn't fun on m43 
You can shoot at lower shutter speeds and/or lower ISO, and paired with the amazing IBIS, and AF ability it opens up quite a world of shooting.
Sure your Nikon 50/1.2 on the FF can get shallower DoF (if that is important to you) but how "fun" is it to shoot ?
I'd rather give up a little DoF (I'm honestly not a fan of ultra shallow DoF anyways, because to me it all too often looks like the subject is standing in front of a green screen) and have the ability to handhold my camera, in low light, touch the screen to focus on my subject's eye, and still get a crisp, in focus shoot, at ISO400 and a shutter speed of 1 second.
Again, I'm not a shallow DoF junkie, but I certainly found fast glass on m43 really expanding the shooting envelope of the system, and to me, that brings the fun and enjoyment of the hobby.
I've owned Nikon DSLR's, A7Rii, you name it, fastest and most expensive lenses made, and while some of them were truly exceptional, like the Nikon 105mm f1.4, they weren't that fun, because the operating range was fairly limited. Focusing the 105/1.4 was tricky as I missed a ton of shots with any slight movement, not to mention needing to keep the shutter speed surprisingly high due to no IBIS.
Sure I could produce an image of just an eyeball in focus, so its was a good tool, but it never really felt "fun" as you really had to work at getting the best results. Nothing wrong with working hard mind you, but with m43, the fun, to me, comes from being able to near effortlessly produce results that would of been far more challenging with other systems, if not impossible. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Wilbus wrote:
Not saying you should go with F1.2 lenses on m43, I totally understand if you have another system as well BUT the Nikon Ai-S 50mm F1.2 can't be compared to any of the F1.2 m43 offerings. (I have the Nikon 50mm F1.2 Ai-s).
The Nikon is Good at F2 and great beyond that. At F1.2 it's dreamy and characteristic, which is really just a friendly way of saying it's down right optically poor 
Now I use it at F1.2 and it can give good results, even in sharpness OK but it really lacks everything in terms of quality at F1.2. Usually not sharp, often depending on distance to subject. Low contrast, dreamy and hazy in highlight areas, lots of CA. Basically every optical flaw a lens can have. Though it does have gorgeous bokeh 
The m43 offerings are great from F1.2 and very well corrected for most optical things, not only sharpness.
...Show more →
No, no, I agree with you. The old Ai-S 1.2 doesn't compare to any modern offerings. Part of why I like that lens is it's dreamy at f/1.2 and f/1.4 then switches over to very sharp at f/2. I have no doubt that the f/1.2 Oly lenses are optically pretty good at f/1.2, but then they don't really have an advantage over the Nikkor at f/2... Not arguing against those lenses by any stretch, they just don't make sense for my kit.
Back to photos... If I may, where did the quality come up short on the photos from the other evening? I did compress at a quality of 4, which I've learned anything below 7 compresses tonality as well and things can look muddy, but its also likely my processing. Wondering if you have any detail so I can see where it's coming up short.
Thanks.
|
That's one way to go! 
