Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best 28 or 35mm f1.4 MF lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:46 pm    Post subject: Best 28 or 35mm f1.4 MF lens Reply with quote
Hi,
I am looking for a 35 or even better a 28mm lens with the following characteristics:

- ideally f1.4, f1.8 should be ok as well
- outstanding (that is very smooth and pleasant) bokeh WO
- very sharp, if not WO at least from f2.8 onwards
- possibly close focusing

What is your advice here?

Thanks


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Buy a new Samyang, old 1.4s are expensive and not great unless it's a Zeiss which costs $$$$

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/brands/c_28.html

They don't do a 28mm but there are 1.4/24 and 1.4/35, both are excellent and not expensive.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wolan
You have a Fuji x-t2 ? Original 35mm f1.4 For a crop do not take the old ff lenses. This is just my opinion.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aah, for Fuji X I agree, the native Fuji lenses are all extremely good, specially designed to present all the rays perpendicular to the sensor - the lenses match the requirements of the sensor exactly. Leica performance for a fraction of the price.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergun wrote:
wolan
You have a Fuji x-t2 ? Original 35mm f1.4 For a crop do not take the old ff lenses. This is just my opinion.


yes, I have an X-t2. I am a bit refraining from buying Fuji lenses, as I nourish the hope that Nikon will come out with a mirrorless camera on its own.

Which one would you recommend? the 23mm f1.4?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Aah, for Fuji X I agree, the native Fuji lenses are all extremely good, specially designed to present all the rays perpendicular to the sensor - the lenses match the requirements of the sensor exactly. Leica performance for a fraction of the price.


That is very interesting, where a can read more about this?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I agree.
The Fujinon Super EBC 35mm f1.4 made for your camera is simply superb.
I doubt that you will find a better lens
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How about the Vivitar Series 1 VMC 28 / 1.9 ? it really is very good indeed.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Samyang has just released a 35mm f/1.2 ED lens for mirrorless APS-C cameras:

https://www.samyanglensglobal.com/product/detail.do?SQ=48

It sells for between $450 and $500.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
How about the Vivitar Series 1 VMC 28 / 1.9 ? it really is very good indeed.


That lens is popular and expensive because of its hard background bokeh Smile
A bit like wideangle Trioplan! So not exactly what wolan seaches - at least when we talk about background bokeh. Forground bokeh shoul be very smooth.
I think it will be hard to find a fast wideangle lens with really smooth background bokeh. In some situations near all bokeh looks smmoth, but for a real bokeh test setup not much likely.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some quick bokeh shots with the Fujinon Super EBC 35mm f1.4.
I think that the background is quite smooth
These at f1.4
T

#1


#2


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wolan wrote:
sergun wrote:
wolan
You have a Fuji x-t2 ? Original 35mm f1.4 For a crop do not take the old ff lenses. This is just my opinion.


yes, I have an X-t2. I am a bit refraining from buying Fuji lenses, as I nourish the hope that Nikon will come out with a mirrorless camera on its own.

Which one would you recommend? the 23mm f1.4?


I can't decide for You. Depends on what your preferences are. I had both the 23mm and 35mm. 35mm is more suitable for shooting people, blur interesting. 23mm is more versatile for travel , indoor shooting and even landscapes. I'm more used 23mm.

p/s Fujifilm sold with all lenses.

Last edited by sergun on Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:03 am    Post subject: Re: Best 28 or 35mm f1.4 MF lens Reply with quote
wolan wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for a 35 or even better a 28mm lens with the following characteristics:

- ideally f1.4, f1.8 should be ok as well
- outstanding (that is very smooth and pleasant) bokeh WO
- very sharp, if not WO at least from f2.8 onwards
- possibly close focusing

What is your advice here?


Best lenses in this class are most probably the latest Leica-M ones, but most probably a little bit overpriced. Wink

For me the best lenses which fulfill most of your criteria are the ones from Voigtlaender: CV Ultron 35mm/F1.7 and CV Ultron 28mm/F1.9 both with aspherical elements in LTM/M39. The close focusing capabilities are not state of the art (typically for RF-lenses) but in such cases I simply add some M39 distance rings as needed.

Finally it's simply a matter of taste and money. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
Some quick bokeh shots with the Fujinon Super EBC 35mm f1.4.
I think that the background is quite smooth
These at f1.4
T

#1


#2


Thanks for sharing pictures. I trust it is a good lens, but 35mm on a APC-S sensor becomes 50mm, I really need the angle of view of a 35mm o 28mm. Sorrz, in my original post I forgot to mention that I use focal length reducers for my Nikon and M42 lenses, so when I say 35mm I intend 35mm FX (although the reducer does not get you 100% there).


Cheers.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, if you're using focal reducers then just buy something cheap as it's a waste of time putting a superb, expensive optic on a focal reducer as the IQ will be constrained by the quality of the focal reducer rather than the lens.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Metabones speedbooster Reply with quote
I beg to differ ad focal reducers.

Just as an ordinary "teleplus" differs from the Leica Apo extenders, different diminisming adapters differ -and may well function better with some lenses than others. I would be far more in doubt about using multipliers than using reducers.

I have one Metabones for R-optics and one for Contax -according to mr. Caldwell, the design takes account of the thick glass in front of the M4\3s sensor. For my purposes, both reducers give impeccable results. I have not done any controlled exposures with- and without, but the practicalities at least are favourable: they are shorter than the adapters I would have had to use.

I have mainly used them on slightly longer lenses, the R180\4,3 as well as on the Z 100\3,5 since I was using these fairly compact ones on a FF camera at the same time, but I have also tried them for closeups on an R 60\2,8 and a Z 60\2,8 , no complaints, but then again I have not done any stringent tests, just taken pictures.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's just simple logic - the strength of an imaging chain cannot be greater than the weakest link in that chain.

What's the point in putting a very expensive lens on a focal reducer?

I say that because, applying the simple logic, the IQ of the lens, no matter how good, is constrained by the IQ of the focal reducer.

The focal reducer might be very good, but I doubt the quality of the focal reducer matches the quality of a really expensive lens.

Granted, I've only used a v1 Zhongyi focal reducer, and it was terrible, people assure me the later versions are much improved.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 I have it but I love even more to use Minolta MD latest 35mm f1.8 , Konica UC 28mm 1.8 pretty unbeatable.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:38 pm    Post subject: Attila Reply with quote
Yesterday I got a Distagon 28mm f2.8 but the adapter yet. This is my first Contax. I see You have in your signature Sonnar 180mm f2.8 is a version of T ? Off the top but still can show with photos ? On the Internet there is almost nothing.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:51 am    Post subject: speedbooster Reply with quote
Yes, just like any chain of information handling, one extra link will influence the result. In the speedbooster case, the extra adapter-glass apparently compensates for the extra sensor glass in the MFT cameras. This sensor glass is well known to interfere with the outer fringes of pictures by lenses not designed for MFT.

According to this:

http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/The%20Perfect%20Focal%20Reducer%20(Metabones%20Speed%20Booster%20ULTRA%20for%20M43)%20-%20Whitepaper.pdf

the main purpose of the adapter, shrinking of the image circle, seems also to improve contrast.


Admittedly, the piece I link to was authored by the lens designer, but seems to be underpinned by some serious efforts.

And finally; in order to use the longer optics on the MFT one would in any case have to use adapters, thede adapters are a little bit shorter, well made and if one does not really need the field of view of a 200mm the 0,71x100 gives the field of view of a 135mm plus one step bigger aperture if needed.

p.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That all sounds like marketing speak to me. My understanding is that it's not the sensor glass that causes issues, it's the microlenses and the problem only occurs with rays of light hitting the sensor at too acute an angle, something which is only likely to occur with certain types of wide angle lens. I have yet to see any such issues with the 50 or so lenses I've tried on my four MFT cameras (2xLumix G3, Lumix GF1, Olympus OM-D E-M5).

Also, I don't understand how shrinking the image circle would cause an increase in contrast, that again sounds like marketing speak.

I don't see the advantage of being a few mm shorter than a regular adapter.

I'm not saying these focal reducers aren't useful, but I am very skeptical about these claims as they don't make logical sense to me.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:17 pm    Post subject: glass and refraction Reply with quote
Good point, a little bit shorter mount is a very minor advantage - and you might add, it is gained at the expense of more weight compared to a straight adapter.

On the other hand, using the same lens on two different formats is practical. That is of course also possible witth a straight adapter, but "140mm v\s 200 mm" angle of view and one stop more opening on MFT is a plus point.

The contrast bit due to the "optical shrinking" can be read out from the curves presented. My Sonnar is perfectly adequate anyway.

Someone with deeper insight in the interplay between glass microlenses and sensors can perhaps expand on the interplay between the two interacting phenomena of :
- refraction influenced by the thickness of plane parallell glass in the light path (and consequent slight shift of the incoming rays)
and
- the skew-ray-light spillage\loss-versus-well-depth problem that would occur even without glass in front of the sensor
As I read the unusually thorough marketing piece, the adapter is designed to counter the first, not the second effect. I understand that the effects will be stronger for a wide angle, but since my MFT wide is perfectly adequate, I have not tried to adapt any FF wides.

p.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's just simple logic - the strength of an imaging chain cannot be greater than the weakest link in that chain.

What's the point in putting a very expensive lens on a focal reducer?

I say that because, applying the simple logic, the IQ of the lens, no matter how good, is constrained by the IQ of the focal reducer.

The focal reducer might be very good, but I doubt the quality of the focal reducer matches the quality of a really expensive lens.

Granted, I've only used a v1 Zhongyi focal reducer, and it was terrible, people assure me the later versions are much improved.


I don't know about focal reducers but over on dpreview, ProfHankD who studies optics professionally has shown that using 2x extenders with APS-C cameras on full frame cameras can actually increase measured performance. So I'm not sure why reducers should necessarily diminish quality of a manual lens that often has its own aberrations.

I think it's more accurate to say that any addition such as a focal reducer will impose some resolution costs. But whether that small or large cost is offset by some compensatory benefits is unclear.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1