minoltist7
pussy photographer
I know this was asked many times.
but I know some people own both.
Which is better for portraits?
My primarily concern is bokeh and transition between sharp/unsharp areas.
but I know some people own both.
Which is better for portraits?
My primarily concern is bokeh and transition between sharp/unsharp areas.
Kim Coxon
Moderator
If you send me a 50 Planar, I will let you know. 
Kim
Kim
Avotius
Some guy
If you are looking for a portrait lens that is brutally unkind to the most minor of details the planar if the one you want. It is very good at picking out the slightest little things that you might not notice. The nokton I understand is also very very sharp but as I have no practical use with one I cant say for sure on the portrait front.
Anyway, the transition between sharp and unsharp areas with this lens gives photos a nice roundness when done right. For some reason I have not been able to duplicate this roundness much with black and white, but I usually shoot color with this lens so never went in depth to see how to use this lens properly with black and white.
Some pictures to show this roundness with portraits and also the brutal detail it is capable of capturing. (by the way, sorry to those people on here who have seen these photos over and over again, I have some stuff that I need to get developed and what not as soon as I get time from stuff going on here in Chongqing)
Note, most of these shot on Fuji Superia 200 with the lens wide or widish open.
(this is one of those black and whites that to me just didnt have the roundness of the color ones, worth looking into later maybe)
This shot is very very unflattering to the subject (he didnt care, he knows he looks that way) but also you might notice the flare in the top left corner. Very rare that I see this lens flare.
So there you have it, there should be enough example there to show you basically how this lens renders transitional areas and details.
Anyway, the transition between sharp and unsharp areas with this lens gives photos a nice roundness when done right. For some reason I have not been able to duplicate this roundness much with black and white, but I usually shoot color with this lens so never went in depth to see how to use this lens properly with black and white.
Some pictures to show this roundness with portraits and also the brutal detail it is capable of capturing. (by the way, sorry to those people on here who have seen these photos over and over again, I have some stuff that I need to get developed and what not as soon as I get time from stuff going on here in Chongqing)
Note, most of these shot on Fuji Superia 200 with the lens wide or widish open.
(this is one of those black and whites that to me just didnt have the roundness of the color ones, worth looking into later maybe)
This shot is very very unflattering to the subject (he didnt care, he knows he looks that way) but also you might notice the flare in the top left corner. Very rare that I see this lens flare.
So there you have it, there should be enough example there to show you basically how this lens renders transitional areas and details.
minoltist7
pussy photographer
Thanks, Avotius. Sharpness looks outstanding (I would say, even too much sharp for my eyes - but probably due to postprocessing), and background blurred very nice.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
What about the Zeiss 50/1.5 sonnar? I havn't had it long enough to have a strong collection of images to sell it but initial impressions are that it's a great portrait lens.
kross
sonnarism
planar hands down.... ok, i'm bias...
nevertheless, i noticed that cv 50mm f2.5 performs as good(bokeh & sharpness) as
the planar at half of planar's price.... it's a great lens imho, but it goes unnoticed
probably becoz it's cheap and at f2.5....
nevertheless, i noticed that cv 50mm f2.5 performs as good(bokeh & sharpness) as
the planar at half of planar's price.... it's a great lens imho, but it goes unnoticed
probably becoz it's cheap and at f2.5....
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
I second the advice about the Sonnar, though I don't own it.
I've had the Nokton and have the Planar:
Nokton: very sharp, nice bokeh, harsh transition (min. focus distance = 0.9)
Planar: sharp (that is less sharp than the Nokton), very nice bokeh, nice transition (min. focus distance = 0.7)
(Sonnar min. focus distance = 0.9)
I'm leaning towards the Nokton 50, a better performer overall imho.
But for portrait only, the Summitar is my favorite. I've never used the Summilux pre-asph/asp so I can't tell for this one, but the Summitar is surely one of the very best lenses for portrait.
Best,
Marc
I've had the Nokton and have the Planar:
Nokton: very sharp, nice bokeh, harsh transition (min. focus distance = 0.9)
Planar: sharp (that is less sharp than the Nokton), very nice bokeh, nice transition (min. focus distance = 0.7)
(Sonnar min. focus distance = 0.9)
I'm leaning towards the Nokton 50, a better performer overall imho.
But for portrait only, the Summitar is my favorite. I've never used the Summilux pre-asph/asp so I can't tell for this one, but the Summitar is surely one of the very best lenses for portrait.
Best,
Marc
Avotius
Some guy
minoltist7 said:
Most people ask me that, wondering how hard did I sharpen the images and what not, just for the record with the zeiss planar lens I almost never have to unless I have totally missed something which you could tell then.