Fujitsu
Well-known
Yes, it´s quite new vs quite old here. I currently own the 50/1.5 Nokton Asph but would love a tad less depth of field for "high speed" portraits in available light.
Would the Canon 50/1.2 be the right lens for the job? Will I notice much of a difference between 1.2 and 1.5 close up?
(I have previously tried the Nokton 50/1.1 but did not like it because of bulk, handling and - most importantly - overcorrected results.)
Would the Canon 50/1.2 be the right lens for the job? Will I notice much of a difference between 1.2 and 1.5 close up?
(I have previously tried the Nokton 50/1.1 but did not like it because of bulk, handling and - most importantly - overcorrected results.)
aad
Not so new now.
Wouldn't getting a 75 to 90mm lens be cheaper?
WilliamK
Member
He said he was looking for speed and using available light, aren't the 75s and 90s slower than F2? (I'm not trying to be a dick I really don't know anything about those focal lengths)
EDIT: and to answer your question maybe the difference between 1.2 and 1.5 is too small to really be worth the money, have you tried using a different higher ISO film?
ferider
Veteran
I wanted to suggest a 90/2 as well, but it will be really hard to focus on the Bessa.
To the OP: try the Canon, but don't sell the Nokton. The Canon has very shallow DOF, even less than it should have at 1.2, so yes, this should be noticable in the end result.
But (1) it is a big lens and (2) some like, and some don't like its signature (I sold my 50/1.2 copies). OOF will be less smooth than with your Nokton.
Another option is to get a fast lens that gets you closer. My modified Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM does that. Or a Summilux 50/1.4.
Roland.
To the OP: try the Canon, but don't sell the Nokton. The Canon has very shallow DOF, even less than it should have at 1.2, so yes, this should be noticable in the end result.
But (1) it is a big lens and (2) some like, and some don't like its signature (I sold my 50/1.2 copies). OOF will be less smooth than with your Nokton.
Another option is to get a fast lens that gets you closer. My modified Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM does that. Or a Summilux 50/1.4.
Roland.
Frontman
Well-known
The closer you get the more of difference you are going to notice. With a 50mm lens you are going to get minimum depth of field at 1 meter or so, beyond that depth of field increases the further you go out. The depth of field you get at 1 meter is going to be shallow, and will probably give you the effect you are looking for. I have a couple 1.2 lenses by different manufacturers, and though I like them, I find that I don't use them as much as I thought I would.
On the other hand, the 50mm focal length is not an ideal portrait lens close up. It tends to exaggerate perspective when used close, and the narrow depth of field you get so close up is more than a novelty or special-effect as opposed to something which you would use regularly. My favorite portrait lens is the 90/2. With this focal length you have a little more room to work with, your subject's features will not be exaggerated, and you can still get a somewhat narrow depth of field without being kissing distance from your subject.
On the other hand, the 50mm focal length is not an ideal portrait lens close up. It tends to exaggerate perspective when used close, and the narrow depth of field you get so close up is more than a novelty or special-effect as opposed to something which you would use regularly. My favorite portrait lens is the 90/2. With this focal length you have a little more room to work with, your subject's features will not be exaggerated, and you can still get a somewhat narrow depth of field without being kissing distance from your subject.