pfogle
Well-known
iml
Well-known
The one in the middle made me laugh out loud 
I've grown very fond of my 50/1.2. I think I bought it at the right time, I get the feeling people are beginning to realise how good these lenses are.
Ian
I've grown very fond of my 50/1.2. I think I bought it at the right time, I get the feeling people are beginning to realise how good these lenses are.
Ian
pfogle
Well-known
... and here's some of a nice girl in a shop, the first at f2, and the second, and the 100% crop of her face are at f1.4
I think I can say this is a very nice lens
thanks to all who helped out while I was trying to get it up to spec.
I think I can say this is a very nice lens
thanks to all who helped out while I was trying to get it up to spec.
Attachments
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
pfogle said:... and here's some of a nice girl in a shop, the first at f2, and the second, and the 100% crop of her face are at f1.4
I think I can say this is a very nice lens
thanks to all who helped out while I was trying to get it up to spec.
Phil: Your photos are excellent. This lens is really a winner. It simply has been given poor evaluations in the past by some individuals for what ever reason.
Raid
ferider
Veteran
As Raid said, your lens is a winner, Phil. Pretty sharp at 5.6, corner to corner, and nice bokeh at 1.4. I like the first f2 portrait best.
For the IR picture (assuming taken on the RD-1) you just add a filter ?
Best,
Roland.
For the IR picture (assuming taken on the RD-1) you just add a filter ?
Best,
Roland.
pfogle
Well-known
thanks guys - couldn't have done it without you (and RichC too!)
by the way, Raid, the pix of your cute daughter (?) were a big factor in me getting this lens
here's the f2 portrait, 100% crop.
Roland, I do all my IRs on the R-D1, just use an R72 filter from Hoya.
To get a good contrast and foliage, just use the green channel, which is about 2 stops under-exposed compared to the red. So you have to over-expose like mad, then when you throw the red away, the results are fine. A quick and effective way to do it is to simply shoot with the camera set to b/w, green filter on the menu. Then you can just shoot jpg if you want.
by the way, Raid, the pix of your cute daughter (?) were a big factor in me getting this lens
here's the f2 portrait, 100% crop.
Roland, I do all my IRs on the R-D1, just use an R72 filter from Hoya.
To get a good contrast and foliage, just use the green channel, which is about 2 stops under-exposed compared to the red. So you have to over-expose like mad, then when you throw the red away, the results are fine. A quick and effective way to do it is to simply shoot with the camera set to b/w, green filter on the menu. Then you can just shoot jpg if you want.
Attachments
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
All the great results we're seeing from this lens seem to be confirming a theory of mine:
Just as there are some lenses that are excellent for film but don't perform as well on digital, there are some lenses that were mediocre for film but do better on digital.
I've had several 50/1.2s over the years and gradually stopped using them for film photography because I wasn't satisfied with the crispness of the results. I was doing mostly low-light work on fast, grainy films, and under these conditions the 50/1.2 just seemed to have a "mushy" look that I found unpleasant. I was much more satisfied with the results I got from the 50/1.4, or even from the 50/0.95 stopped down to f/1.2 or f/1.4.
But everybody's pix with this lens on digital RFs seem to look great. I suspect that what came across as "mush" on film works as "optical anti-aliasing" on a digital imager, while unsharp masking restores the crispness to the edges.
Guess it's time to put my 50/1.2 on the R-D 1 and see what it can do!
Just as there are some lenses that are excellent for film but don't perform as well on digital, there are some lenses that were mediocre for film but do better on digital.
I've had several 50/1.2s over the years and gradually stopped using them for film photography because I wasn't satisfied with the crispness of the results. I was doing mostly low-light work on fast, grainy films, and under these conditions the 50/1.2 just seemed to have a "mushy" look that I found unpleasant. I was much more satisfied with the results I got from the 50/1.4, or even from the 50/0.95 stopped down to f/1.2 or f/1.4.
But everybody's pix with this lens on digital RFs seem to look great. I suspect that what came across as "mush" on film works as "optical anti-aliasing" on a digital imager, while unsharp masking restores the crispness to the edges.
Guess it's time to put my 50/1.2 on the R-D 1 and see what it can do!
raid
Dad Photographer
jlw: You could also have had lenses that were in need of allignment. My tests never included digital cameras, and this lens came out as a strong performer. My 50/1.2 went twice to two different repairmen until I got it the way I liked it.
Raid
Raid