06-15-2016, 08:44 AM
this is all getting a little dpreview forum like....
Pana/Leica 12mm f/1.4 coming
06-15-2016, 08:44 AM
this is all getting a little dpreview forum like....
Quote:I agree with Brightcolors here. MFT is not the right place if shallow DoF is the _primary_ objective.I could not care less about shallow DOF (quite the contrary, to be honest - I hate this side of using large aperture lenses when actually shooting what I'm shooting - it's impossible to do any group portraits for example - but I appreciate getting a little bit more light). F/2.8 primes for my Canon make little sense to me because I have a 16-35/4 IS so when I'm not scrambling for more light, I'm just using this, whatever the circumstances. Why lug around a lens that gives you almost nothing worthwhile?
Quote:On a side note, was it not you who shot with a 1D mkIV which has an 1.3x crop factor, though?
Yes, that was me. So I would be getting a bonus of a wider actual FOV. Again, something to think about.
Quote:I could not care less about shallow DOF (quite the contrary, to be honest - I hate this side of using large aperture lenses when actually shooting what I'm shooting - it's impossible to do any group portraits for example - but I appreciate getting a little bit more light). F/2.8 primes for my Canon make little sense to me because I have a 16-35/4 IS so when I'm not scrambling for more light, I'm just using this, whatever the circumstances. Why lug around a lens that gives you almost nothing worthwhile?You don't get more light on MFT at f1.4 than f2.8 on FF, though... And ISO can be set to whatever the situation asks for.
Trying to guess why MFT + this 12mm f1.4 lens appears so interesting to you, while you use a big DSLR with well spaced controls. Is it just the weight? It can't be the ergonomics.
Nor the size of the lens (as pointed out, it is not really small nor light).
Just as curiosity remark: Easy, cheap and light way to have 18mm on the 1D mk IV is to put a EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM on it.
I might appreciate a smaller backup body and specialist lenses tailored to it while shaving off some of the total weight and investment (I'm in a poor financial shape now). I'm not using the Canon 24/1.4 much, so I'm a little apprehensive about having so much money tied up. It's a lens that has its uses for me though, so I would not want to lose the capability. To boot, I'm aware of the fact that the 24/1.4 L has severe coma problems - I've seen that aberration creep even well into the APS-C sensor of the Sony NEX-3 (that me & my astronomer pal have tried it on), let alone the 1D4 sensor, even slightly stopped down. Thus a lens with better coma correction (I know that not many f/1.4 lenses may )
P. S. To be fair, I do not appreciate the fact that whenever someone mentions an interest in Âµ4/3 and APS-C (to a lesser extent) lenses, someone else starts bringing up all that stuff about (supposed) equivalence, whatever it is, and criticizing that interest. It would be a bit like saying "why do you need that bulky junk" whenever sometimes expresses interest about FF gear. Some things matter for some people while meaning diddly squat to the other. I am not a fan of shallow DOF - actually it's a big problem for me whenever I stumble into this issue - while it obviously matters a lot to some. That in itself doesn't invalidate my point, nor my work (no, being into mega-shallow DOF doesn't make anyone an amateur by designation as has been implied by a person above).
P. P. S. BC - Surely the 10-18 has piqued my interest after you proved its worth on FF, but the 16(17)-35 is my go-to range - has been since time immemorial - and I only need a lens to slot below it (I'm not into the 24-xx zooms like most of the shooters around me). For about 6,5 years I've been using the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 but also contemplating all kinds of crazy ideas (mostly using APS-C ultrawide zooms as primes towards the middle of their range). In the end, I always decided that I'd be better off just keeping the Sigma because it's a pretty old lens - selling it wouldn't give me a lot of money, and definitely not enough to buy a modern APS-C ultrawide. Since I'm not using this lens very often either, just like the 24/1.4, I'm not pressed to upgrade it, but I also can't imagine living without something in the range unless I move to FF, where 16mm would be plenty. I know that 14/2.8 on FF is ridiculously wide - I tried that when I was using a borrowed 5D Mark II for a while (didn't like it), and there was not a whole lot of subjects that really demanded such wideness.
06-15-2016, 11:02 AM
any you have to remember that "full frame" is really only a crop of a phase one sensor...
Another thing to remember is that full frame lenses are usually pretty rubbish wide open towards the edges.
06-15-2016, 11:05 AM
It is fine to like or want MFT, Rover. You mentioned the 24mm f1.4 Canon and this lens maybe being a replacement, which made me explain that this "Leica" is actually equivalent to f2.8 on FF. That does NOT mean that this lens is somehow worse, or that MFT is not a choice. It just means: put things into perspective.
I have often pointed out to others that FF has no real advantage over APS-C, other than a possible more shallow DOF. I have used the same equivalence examples to demonstrate that, and have voiced my opinion that maybe going FF for that person was not the best idea, in regards to his/hers shooting interests.
I am not of the opinion that FF is best, or should be desirable for everyone, to the contrary.
06-15-2016, 11:09 AM
Quote:Another thing to remember is that full frame lenses are usually pretty rubbish wide open towards the edges.
Which goes not for dedicated APS-C lenses? ^_^
Besides, I don't would use the word "rubbish" for the fast Sigma Arts, but have to admit that I hardly use the corners when shooting wide open, as there's no AF-point on my D810 close to the edges. I also don't shoot landscapes wide open, so I could at least use LiveView to focus.
DoF at f/1.4 is ridiculously thin, so some of the "poor edges" might come from focus problems as well. And the weight of those lenses is simply a punishment for the owner.
Quote:any you have to remember that "full frame" is really only a crop of a phase one sensor...See my post above, concerning your 1st point.
On the 2nd point:
It would be more correct to write: "Another thing to remember is that large aperture lenses usually are pretty rubbish, wide open towards the edges".
Which is often true. And which is pretty meaningless in a comparison debate, as the smaller sensored systems do not offer similarly big apertures.
Again the Canon to put things into perspective: Is the Canon 24mm f2.8 rubbish towards the edges?
Not according to PZ:
Will a bigger aperture lens at that big aperture (like lets say a Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art) be less sharp at the extremes than the smaller aperture lens at that smaller aperture (like for instance this "Leica" 12mm f1.4)? Yeah probably.
Does it make sense to make that comparison? Probably not.
It is the same as me putting my Nikkor-Sâ€¢C 55mm f1.2 lens on my camera and making an image at f1.2, then complaining it can actually give me that 45mm aperture because it is not as sharp as my Nikkor-Sâ€¢C 55mm f1.2 lens on my camera set at f5.6.
JoJu makes a good point in above post as well: with large apertures, edge performance most of the time does not matter (at least not with non-(super) telephoto lenses).
Anyway... back on topic:
Sharpness test "Leica" 12mm f1.4:
And how it renders (pretty nicely I think):
06-15-2016, 11:40 AM
My point was actually along the lines of you have to stop down a bit on large aperture lenses to get sharpness across the frame, thus removing some of the advantages of a larger sensor. Of course there are exceptions and FF gives the option of thinner DOF.
As a concept this lens make as much sense as the EF 24mm 2.8. Unfortunately the pricing is on the steep side. MFT largest problem is its compared against slower speed lenses from larger formats. In this respect is looks pretty bad value wise.
I think really you have to decide what size camera your willing to carry and what resolution is required. I think this new panaleica looks great; the 25mm 1.4 produces really nice images, so if it can follow along the same lines it should be good.
06-15-2016, 12:33 PM
Quote:My point was actually along the lines of you have to stop down a bit on large aperture lenses to get sharpness across the frame, thus removing some of the advantages of a larger sensor.
Not every picture needs "sharpness across the frame" - a main reason to spend that money on a fast lens is to isolate a subject against the "rest". If you have sharpness across the frame, you don't isolate and treat each item equally. So it's more the question "do I really need fast and heavy glass or am I happier with more DoF?" Of course, I always can stop down a f/1.4 lens but I can't step up a f/2.8. And even the f/2.8 are best at two f-stops stopped down. It might be prejudice, but most good and modern f/1.4 are better at f/2.8 than f/2.8 lenses wide open. There's a lot of exceptions to this statement...
Quote:MFT largest problem is its compared against slower speed lenses from larger formats. In this respect is looks pretty bad value wise.
To me, APS-C is a good way to go. I don't see so much weight or size reduction for APS-C ILC to Î¼4/3. Also, to me it becomes less attractive to have a body which is difficult to use because every button is so small and all are densely packed on a tiny body. Leaving not much space for an average European thumb.
Quote:I think really you have to decide what size camera your willing to carry and what resolution is required. I think this new panaleica looks great; the 25mm 1.4 produces really nice images, so if it can follow along the same lines it should be good.
I agree, I just think, the smaller the device and it's lenses is, the tighter the tolerances have to be. Because at wider apertures each Î¼m counts and makes a difference between centerred and decenterred lenses.
|Users browsing this thread:|