goamules
Well-known
I've been wringing out a mint, in box Angenieux F/0.95 cine lens I have, on my G-1. Of course, such a fast lens needed to be tested first in low light. I was impressed at the results both indoors at night, and outdoors. Two at F.95:
Next are a couple in medium lighting, sunset then sundown. These I believe I stopped down to F1.4.
larger
I really like the way the background is uniformly blurred, it looks like an impressionist painting of a desert behind her.
Next are a couple in medium lighting, sunset then sundown. These I believe I stopped down to F1.4.
larger
I really like the way the background is uniformly blurred, it looks like an impressionist painting of a desert behind her.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
It looks like it vignettes really badly at f0.95. Interesting how the image circle is significantly smaller than the sensor at f0.95, then widens quite a bit as you stop down the lens. The image circle only barely covers the width of the frame, let alone the diagonal.
I'm not sure I like the background, everything looks doubled, as if there was camera shake. I find it more irritating than anything else. The foreground looks nicey sharp, though (difficult to tell on the small screen).
Certainly an interesting lens.
I'm not sure I like the background, everything looks doubled, as if there was camera shake. I find it more irritating than anything else. The foreground looks nicey sharp, though (difficult to tell on the small screen).
Certainly an interesting lens.
goamules
Well-known
At F.95 the lens is slightly soft, similar to how my Canon 50/1.2 is. Coming from the large format world, I like the soft focus glow that others would call flare. It's funny how LF photographers go for soft lenses (when an 8x10 contact print from a sharp lens is amazing) and 35mm and m4/3 photographers go for the sharpest lenses.
It's a hard task to build a super sharp, super fast lens. The Angenieux exhibits a little spherical aberration wide open, as do most ultra-fast lenses. By F1.4 it sharpens up nicely:
And I'm seeing F8 to be the sharpest aperture, even more so than F16 or F22 on this cactus. F8 here:
larger
It's a hard task to build a super sharp, super fast lens. The Angenieux exhibits a little spherical aberration wide open, as do most ultra-fast lenses. By F1.4 it sharpens up nicely:
And I'm seeing F8 to be the sharpest aperture, even more so than F16 or F22 on this cactus. F8 here:
larger
goamules
Well-known
It vignettes at all apertures. Some of the above were cropped. It was made for tiny 16mm film. I've seen some film and digital movies shot with this lens, and there is no vingetting. I have to figure out how the guy did that as video on his Panasonic. I like the small size and light weight on my G1. When I've used the Canon F1.2 it certainly covers, but it's like carrying a boat anchor around your neck.
Last edited:
fotomeow
name under my name
goamules, thanks for sharing the Angenieux results, I have been very interested in the cine lenses on cameras, whatwith all the adapters these days, I hope to use one int he future!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I LOVE that last image... talk about "3D effect"! Excellent.
goamules
Well-known
Well thanks! I was basically just trying to take something in subdued light that I could test the lens' sharpness. Cactus spines are sharp, so there you go!
Shade
Well-known
Looks like a veryy interesting lens. However the double bokeh thing that someone mentioned is quite pronounced and is a bit sore to my eye if I stare too long at the picture. No offense.
goamules
Well-known
It looks like a Sonnar bokeh signature to me.
Bugleone
Established
That woman would make any lens look good.....
goamules
Well-known
Thanks, I'll tell her!
Steve M.
Veteran
Right. You could have used a pinhole lens w/ that subject and youd' still be fine!
I do like the shots of her, and you may have a promising lens there, but that background bokeh isn't the best.
I do like the shots of her, and you may have a promising lens there, but that background bokeh isn't the best.
retnull
Well-known
I've used his lens for two years now, on the G1, GH1, and G3, and it's incredible. A keeper for sure. Mostly I shoot at f2, because the bokeh loses its craziness and just looks distinctive and gorgeous. F8 is supersharp without being clinical. I shoot the lens in square format to avoid the vignetting.
goamules
Well-known
Yeah, it seems like F8 was good for sharpness to me too, and F1.4 or F2 seems to get rid of the flare.
As to bokeh assessment, it's hard for me to say. It seems it's usually pretty subjective. For everyone who loves a Petzval's swirl, there is someone else that says "it makes me nauseous" for example. I usually just like something that's not obtrusive, and I agree the first shots above were unusual and perhaps stand out a little. Just as some like a swirl, I kind of like the look. I'm sure this has been discussed many, many, times, but what makes "good bokeh"? And do most people agree?
Here's a fun exercise. Which of the similar, backlit below shots would you say exhibits "good bokeh" and why? Or if none are "good", why?
As to bokeh assessment, it's hard for me to say. It seems it's usually pretty subjective. For everyone who loves a Petzval's swirl, there is someone else that says "it makes me nauseous" for example. I usually just like something that's not obtrusive, and I agree the first shots above were unusual and perhaps stand out a little. Just as some like a swirl, I kind of like the look. I'm sure this has been discussed many, many, times, but what makes "good bokeh"? And do most people agree?
Here's a fun exercise. Which of the similar, backlit below shots would you say exhibits "good bokeh" and why? Or if none are "good", why?
Last edited:
wblynch
Well-known
none of those three exhibit what I consider good bokeh 
..oh, why?
Because it's so busy it distracts from the subjects. It's almost painful to me. (and that might be only me)
..oh, why?
Because it's so busy it distracts from the subjects. It's almost painful to me. (and that might be only me)
goamules
Well-known
none of those three exhibit what I consider good bokeh
..oh, why?
Because it's so busy it distracts from the subjects. It's almost painful to me. (and that might be only me)
Interesting, glad you commented, no one else did. Because one image is from a Sonnar 50/1.5, one from a Canon 50/1.2, and one from the Angenieux 25/0.95. All lenses that have extensive reviews about their bokeh. I picked images that all were backlit, shot wide open, with specular highlights that really accentuate whatever the bokeh is.
I guess I'll post some from Leica glass next. My point is bokeh is very subjective. Sharpness and such are quantifiable. There can be no argument (though there often is). But color rendering and bokeh and the proverbial "drawing" of a lens is not quantifiable. It's love/hate. For everyone that likes the color, bokeh, or drawing of one image, you'll have another that doesn't.
In a lot of ways I agree it's too busy a background on all three. But I shot them to be that way, so I could attempt to quantify what makes good bokeh. Maybe the answer is not to allow bokeh to become a major part of the image, i.e. stop down or move the framing so it's not so strong. But people act like there are hard and fast rules about color rendering and bokeh, and I haven't seen any. Just like two people at a beer tasting; one will say "too much bite", another will say "excellent hoppy overtones." I introduced a girl to a melodic, harmonic, string band CD once. When I picked it up and asked how she liked it, it was the same answer, "It was almost painful, gave me a headache." This from a girl that only listened to Madonna type pop.....I guess I don't see how beautiful music or interesting swirls on a photograph can be "painful."
Last edited:
portocar
Member
which one is the Sonnar 50/1.5, Canon 50/1.2, and which one the Angenieux 25/0.95?
Also, you mentioned there are extensive Bokeh discussion on these lenses, where might i find them.
Thanks
Also, you mentioned there are extensive Bokeh discussion on these lenses, where might i find them.
Thanks