50mm f2.5 Color Skopar

2067644760_c524acfb57_o.jpg
 
kermaier said:
I think the R-D1's in-camera JPEG engine uses aggressive noise-reduction, so detail may be a bit obscured. Here's the same photo, with simple exposure and contrast adjustments done in Epson PhotoRaw, with light NR applied.
Click to expand...
The R-D1 has four different settings for JPEGs, some have more than less NR, but the standard setting doesn't seem to apply much in my view. If the shot is sharp, its sharp in JPEG too.
 
Kermaier, the bokeh behind and to the left of your daughter looks good! Medium distances are usually the toughest for bokeh. I like the rendering also - from what I can gather from web sized images. Thanks!

Dan
 
Seems to me that the 50/2.5 Skopar is a very good general-purpose 50mm lens. It's sharp enough, not too contrasty, it draws pleasingly and it's extremely compact. Maybe its low profile is due its lack of a distinctive "signature" like some other well-regarded 50s such as the Elmar 2.8 or 3.5, pre-asph Summilux, Canon 50/1.2 LTM, Zeiss C-Sonnar, etc.

::Ari
 
CV lenses always have to jump that extra hurdle of lack of snob appeal. Once you get some internet posts of only a couple of dissatisfied users, they unfortunately stick and rumours of softness, bad bokeh, etc., don't disappear. They are amplified and continued by people never having tried a lens they like to criticize.

Good for us 50/2.5, 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 users though, since lenses stay affordable 🙂

Roland.
 
morgan said:
That's pulling up mostly shots from the 35mm 2.5 skopar. I tried adding 50mm to the tags, but only returned one shot.
Click to expand...

Here's a much bigger set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/voigtlandercolorskopar50mmf25/

I'm very happy with the size and construction of mine. It's very usable in all sorts of daylight; less so inside. The rendition wide-open is very pleasing and not a 'techy' looking as some other modern Japanese lenses.

The small size is a bonus on the CLE.
 
ferider said:
CV lenses always have to jump that extra hurdle of lack of snob appeal. Once you get some internet posts of only a couple of dissatisfied users, they unfortunately stick and rumours of softness, bad bokeh, etc., don't disappear. They are amplified and continued by people never having tried a lens they like to criticize.

Good for us 50/2.5, 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 users though, since lenses stay affordable 🙂

Roland.
Click to expand...

Once one or two negative statements get out there, they are repeated ad nauseam by people who have never actually seen the lens, let alone shot photos with it. Insist on seeing images. 🙂
 
Thanks everyone for input. Sounds like the 50/2.5 is a good lens to buy.

I have mocked up the total length/hood of the lens protruding from the mount and it cannot be see in the frame line.

Shopping time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom