Discussion in 'Photography, Art & Design' started by Jumeira_Johnny, 2 Mar 2010.
micro four thirds only for now
as beasty as that lens is still loving the 50 & 85 f1.2Ls i've got
but still want one
I wonder how sharp it'll be. Still, amazing price, considering that the only other f/0.95 in production is $13000.
It's an impressive lens and I'd like to see an EF version. I'd also like to see how sharp it is, as scq says. The only other F/0.95 lens out there is well over $10k.
As it's a micro four thirds lens, it's worth talking briefly about effective DOF. Its equivalent DOF on a 35mm full frame camera would actually be closer to F/1.9 due to the smaller sensor size, so the 50mm F/1.8 II will give a shallower depth of field on a full frame camera. DOF is an inverse of the format size, so a sensor that has a crop factor of 2x will have 1/2 the depth of field of a 35mm sensor at the same aperture.
It's cheap because it's a knock off of a lens designed for a surveillance camera. It lacks the mechanism for an SLR to shut the aperture when the shutter opens. If you look at the mount you'll see what I mean.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theleggett/sets/72157623527995554/ Test shots.
Slightly off topic - how good is the Canon EF 50mm f1.8? The price is very tempting, but is it worth even that price? Are there other options around the same price (at most $50 more)?
It's amazing. Build quality is pretty poor (probably poorest in a lens after the kit), but it shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't drop it or bang it around. Image quality is stellar, especially at f/2.8 — as good as any other lense, L, Leica, Zeiss, whatever.
The price-to-performance ratio cannot be beat. The only other lens I can think of that offers that level of value is a Voigtlander 15mm for M mount, and even that's $500 or so.
You can't go wrong with the 1.8 unless you can afford the f/1.4 which I like since it offers much improved build quality, a distance/focus scale, and an actual focus ring.
Thanks scq. Guess it makes sense then, since the f1.4 is WAAAAAY out of my price range
As scq says, the 50mm 1.8 is a great little lens. The AF performance is pedestrian at best, but don't let that put you off. You won't get that kind of quality from anything else in Canon's range that's cheaper than the 50 1.4.
I went for the 50 1.4 for a couple of reasons - I found the AF was too slow compared to the L glass I've got and the build quality was pretty poor too. The image quality was exceptional for a piece of glass that cheap though and, in many respects, the images were almost indistinguishable from those off my 28-70 F2.8L at 50mm.
In response to Tim, I think the 50mm at f/2.8 probably beats the L lens in terms of sharpness. You really just can't beat a prime, especially non-wide primes like a 50 which from what I hear, has had the greatest amount of research invested into it since it had been THE lens for years.
That said, having looked at sample shots of the 28-70 L, it does offer near if not exceeding prime quality across its ranged, but compared to a stopped down prime, it probably is on par at best. Either way, we're comparing a $120 lens to a $1400 lens, so value wise, the f/1.8 is far better.
Back to the topic, looking at those sample shots with the Noktor, I can't say I'm impressed. They're so soft, you might as well just get a f/1.4 and jack up your ISO a stop and the noise will still beat out the haziness of the glass. I suppose it's some sort of aesthetic effect. If you want your photos to look like a Kenny G music video or a sappy romance from the 80s, then this would be perfect. Other than that, I can't stand the soft-focus appearance of the shots.
That said, the Leica Noctilux is a bit hazy too, but certainly a lot sharper — but that's why you're paying $13000 as opposed to $750. Completely different format, but Voigtlander makes f/1.2 lenses for around $1000 that are pretty decent for the M mount.
I still am not sold on the Micro 4/3 format. As if 1.6x DSLR sensors aren't small enough already. Sure 4/3 offers better quality than a standard point and shoot, but for billing itself as an SLR format, its noise handling lags far behind what Nikon and Canon are putting out. If anything, they need to make a 1.6x micro format — a Leica X1-esque camera with the same sensor (1.6x) with interchangeable lenses would be amazing.
Samsung's NX10 uses an APS-C sensor and it's about the size of a GF1.
I find something repulsive about that viewfinding hump. Love the rectangular form factor of the Pen/Sony Alpha concept/GF-1. There's just something so disingenuous about a digital viewfinder.
Yeah, I've spent quite a bit of time with many of these tiny DSLR-alikes and it's difficult to get on with the electronic VF when you're used to a proper optical VF.
I personally think they give you a different approach which can be of benefit.
Interesting lens at an appealing price, particularly as I've now moved to m4/3 from a Canon SLR.
Regarding m4/3 quality and noise. I've gone from a 20D to the GF-1 and I'd say quality is easily as good as the sensor is a few generations newer, even if it is smaller. Okay the newer Canon SLR may be better but I never had one so the GF-1 is working just fantastically for me.
I still get caught a few times trying to put the thing up to my face (I don't have the EVF) but I'm getting used to shooting with the screen. As an ex-SLR user and something of a purist I don't much like it, but it's workable, especially for the gains (or losses) in size and portability.
Interesting for the price. I've been toying with the idea of getting a Canon 85mm 1.2L!
Just waiting for one to pop up at a great price on ebay/forum somewhere...
Separate names with a comma.