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

CANON FD 1.2/85mm L wide-open on NEX C3
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:06 am    Post subject: CANON FD 1.2/85mm L wide-open on NEX C3 Reply with quote
Maja Keuc, Klumpanje 2012











PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, really strange results, at first I thought they were out of focus but looking closely I can see the odd little bit of hair or other detail that does look in focus.

This shows why shooting fast lenses wide open is a bad idea, you get really soft results where only a tiny portion of the frame is in focus.

Sorry to be critical but these are not good.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting set.

I like the flare very much. Did you use a hood? I am curious if the flare can be controlled by using a hood.

I think it is very hard to get a shot that looks sharp under all the crazy lighting they use at such concerts. Do these look sharper in B&W? I found that for some of my shots that was the case:

Color:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6293925768

B&W:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6293403103

Notice the difference it makes for the drums, which seem to glow in the color version, but look more sober in the B&W version. My shots were taken with the Cosina 55/1.2 wide open.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting flares. Strange result regarding sharpness. My copy is super sharp, even wide open. Also, i think your position might be too close for a 85 at f1.2 to cover the minimum dof for portraits.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hmm, really strange results, at first I thought they were out of focus but looking closely I can see the odd little bit of hair or other detail that does look in focus.

This shows why shooting fast lenses wide open is a bad idea, you get really soft results where only a tiny portion of the frame is in focus.

Sorry to be critical but these are not good.


Good fast lenses are meant to shoot wide open with them. And 85/1.2 is better then good, it's superb and proved to deliver awesome results wide-open.
Images look a bit blurred because the subject was moving, and the flares are quite nasty.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hmm, really strange results, at first I thought they were out of focus but looking closely I can see the odd little bit of hair or other detail that does look in focus.

This shows why shooting fast lenses wide open is a bad idea, you get really soft results where only a tiny portion of the frame is in focus.

Sorry to be critical but these are not good.


Good fast lenses are meant to shoot wide open with them. And 85/1.2 is better then good, it's superb and proved to deliver awesome results wide-open.
Images look a bit blurred because the subject was moving, and the flares are quite nasty.


It's bad technique to shoot this type of subject wide open, stop it down to 2.8 and turn up the ISO and results would be a lot better.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
RTI wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hmm, really strange results, at first I thought they were out of focus but looking closely I can see the odd little bit of hair or other detail that does look in focus.

This shows why shooting fast lenses wide open is a bad idea, you get really soft results where only a tiny portion of the frame is in focus.

Sorry to be critical but these are not good.


Good fast lenses are meant to shoot wide open with them. And 85/1.2 is better then good, it's superb and proved to deliver awesome results wide-open.
Images look a bit blurred because the subject was moving, and the flares are quite nasty.


It's bad technique to shoot this type of subject wide open, stop it down to 2.8 and turn up the ISO and results would be a lot better.


I can't agree on that... Unless you have a low-light monster, but we speak about an APS-C... To my eye some of the pictures were shot@ ISO800-1600, stopping down the lens from 1.2 to 2.8 is 2 and 1/3 stops, means ISO would have to go very high (and ISO 6400 or even worse 12800 ain't gonna do any good to the pictures...). I could go a stop higher on ISO, leaving the aperture wide open but getting shorter shutter speed to freeze the action.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:


I can't agree on that... Unless you have a low-light monster, but we speak about an APS-C... To my eye some of the pictures were shot@ ISO800-1600, stopping down the lens from 1.2 to 2.8 is 2 and 1/3 stops, means ISO would have to go very high (and ISO 6400 or even worse 12800 ain't gonna do any good to the pictures...). I could go a stop higher on ISO, leaving the aperture wide open but getting shorter shutter speed to freeze the action.


+1. To my eyes there is a clear motion blur here, so the only thing that these pictures need is higher shutter speed (and lower ISO), which means even faster lens. Sometimes f1.2 is just not enough for the light. The idea that fast lenses such as this are meant to be shot stopped down is nonsense. Fast aperture is there not just to blur the background.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The expression and poses captured in the photos are very interesting. They are not really sharp and the light is challenging to say the least, but this isn't the lenses fault. Most of the shots are slightly front focused I think rather than motion blur. It is challenging to get the focus right under these conditions, to say the least. I would have tried my luck with burst or stop it down slightly. The depth of field is rather thin with 85/1.2.

Wide open the 85/1.2L is fine for portraits and even action shots under the right conditions. I recently used mine for my sons' karate grading but the light while not pleasant was not as difficult there plus the NEX-5n is better for MF assist, I think.

Here are a few shots wide open:





Last edited by DanielT74 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:50 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for all replies. I din't use hood. It's true photos taken from bigger distance are sharper. BW also helps. I'll post some samples later. Anyway i am pleased with this situation a lot. Lens is great wide-open. I find it as confident as any F1.4 i tried. Details are present with high magnification; i didn't sharper this results. I can't wait to shoot more with exactly the same set. Maybe trying with more calm hand Smile.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:13 pm    Post subject: wide open Reply with quote
nice lady, pl. try again,


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice capture !

Good Job !!

Liveness !!!

+1


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I kinda like the results. Some are not perfectly sharp, but I don't think it's a priority here.
The lens seems to perform very well in the sharper shots, so probably it's more a matter of movement-shutter times.
I like the use of flare in most of them, it makes interesting a light situation that may look really boring otherwise.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A rare occasion, but I find myself agreeing with Ian. It is common to display wide open test results with such a lens, or even photos where depth of field is used artfully, but in this case the event and type of pictures deserved greater depth of field. A fast lens is still great in such low light situations to aid in focus, but the photographer needs to find the best combination of aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. Sometimes there is no perfect solution, but there will always be a best combination. I will say to enjoy your lens however it pleases you, but I will suggest giving much more thought to where, when, and how fully open is used.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A little perspective here. To say that focussing is challenging with the 85 f/1.2 is an understatement! I have the EF version of this lens. It is incredibly sharp wide open - when I can nail the focus - which isn't all that often. Just take a look at the depth of field of chart for this lens:





Let's say your subject is 3 meters (9.8 ft) away from your camera. Your dof wide open at that distance is only .1 meter (3-15/16")! That's about the distance from the tip of my nose to my ear. If you are moving, or your subject is moving - forget about critical focus.

Here is some great info on both the MF and AF versions of this lens:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF85mmf12LUSM/index.htm


When it is focussed on the mark it is one hell of a sharp lens - even wide open!


Best,

Paul


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice series!
for those who don't see the performance, take the last one and sharpen it a little, you will see all the skin imperfections


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The results aren't perfectly focused but they convey a great mood, you should definitely keep taking that lens to concerts.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
A rare occasion, but I find myself agreeing with Ian. It is common to display wide open test results with such a lens, or even photos where depth of field is used artfully, but in this case the event and type of pictures deserved greater depth of field. A fast lens is still great in such low light situations to aid in focus, but the photographer needs to find the best combination of aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. Sometimes there is no perfect solution, but there will always be a best combination. I will say to enjoy your lens however it pleases you, but I will suggest giving much more thought to where, when, and how fully open is used.


With all due respect, but technical problems with these images have nothing to do with too shallow depth of field. Picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll present a picture. It's taken with Canon FD 50/1.2 wide open on E-PL1 (2x crop) close to MFD. Assuming focus distance of 55 cm, the DOF calculator gives depth of field of 0.39 cm. That's not a typo, it's less than a half of a centimeter. However, IMHO it does not look gimmicky or as blurry mess because focus is spot on, the sharpness retreats gradually, and downsizing increases the DOF.



OP's pictures are clearly either OOF by a good meter or suffer from motion blur or both (most likely), which is compounded by contrast robbing flairs and difficult lighting. Granted, it's very difficult to nail focus on a jumping up and down singer, almost impossible to do it at f1.2. But still, that does not change the point that perfectly focused the pictures would look fabulous at f1.2 and probably a lot worse at f2.8 due to ISO being too high.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fermy, I agree mostly except that the DoF of 55mm @1.2 is a lot deeper than of 85mm @1.2.

It is strange to say that portraits should be shot at f2.8 or some such. Sometimes it works to have more DoF but sometimes shallow DoF works too. I posted some portraits shot at f0.95 in the Cine forum, here's one of a workmate from yesterday:




I think shallow DoF can be used to good effect (much better than my skills allow at the moment).


PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a great picture, Omar, and an excellent model you have there!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DanielT74 wrote:
Fermy, I agree mostly except that the DoF of 55mm @1.2 is a lot deeper than of 85mm @1.2.

Depends on the focusing distance (and crop) really. 50mm near MFD on E-PL1 has shallower DOF than 85mm at 3 meters on NEX.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
RTI wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hmm, really strange results, at first I thought they were out of focus but looking closely I can see the odd little bit of hair or other detail that does look in focus.

This shows why shooting fast lenses wide open is a bad idea, you get really soft results where only a tiny portion of the frame is in focus.

Sorry to be critical but these are not good.


Good fast lenses are meant to shoot wide open with them. And 85/1.2 is better then good, it's superb and proved to deliver awesome results wide-open.
Images look a bit blurred because the subject was moving, and the flares are quite nasty.


It's bad technique to shoot this type of subject wide open, stop it down to 2.8 and turn up the ISO and results would be a lot better.



Well here is some concert shots with Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 on old EOS 20D.
Shooting such lenses is tricky and I try to get shutter speed low enough to have sharp results even without stopping lens down and raise iso too high to get too high noise.







Nikkor 105/1.8



PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those are wonderful shots Tanheis, sharp and in focus, quite a contrast to the OP's shots.

I must clarify, when I said turn up the ISO, I was merely thinking 800 instead of 200, 800 isn't that noisy on the NEX-3 and a good denoiser like Dfine can certainly cure it.

I do find with the NEX if I have a fairly large and heavy lens on it, I can cradle the lens in my left hand and get shakefree shots with lower speeds, for instance 1/100 is quite possible with a 135mm lens this way.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
True my first selection was impulsive and badly processed emphasizing colors more then sharpness.
Here few quite sharper:










PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, Pancolart, those are far better. The first B&W is a superb example of proper use of shallow DOF. If these all were at fully open, then you were far enough away to get decent DOF. I stand by what I said about when and when not to use a shallow depth lens wide open. And it is a big difference composing a shot of a baby where you can position the camera to best align DOF with the subject and a situation where there is movement, making it difficult. In such a situation I would try to find the best combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for the situation with select exceptions like your first B&W.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2