FS7: The Prime Hunt Is on...

Dont know about that. on a 'like for like' but I can see a 50/1.8E being sharper than an 50/1.2ais

Ive got a 28/2.8e and a 28/2ai - the latter is certainly soft wide open but sharpens up at 2.8.

S
 
Fotojorno said:
Canon EF 50mm 1.2 = $1,450
Nikon Ais manual focus 50mm 1.2 = $650 (new) $300-$400 used
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-GREY/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html

Smooth manual focus with solid stops, will adapt to anything, iris ring, will last FOREVER, you can still buy the manual ones new or used at a good discount.

I think I've gone blue in the face advocating for Nikon lenses over the years but people seem so hung up on "they focus the wrong way". Unless your shooting PL a lot (in which you'd prob have a AC focusing) or you also use a ENG camera, a lot. The excuse doesn't carry much weight. I get it when everyone had 5D or C300 but those days are gone and we're mostly talking Sony cameras here. I actually still own a Contax/Zeiss 50mm that I used as a interview lens 5 years ago on a Panny AF100, fantastic lens.

Hey if budget allows go ZF or one of Zeiss's other new full frame offerings. But to still consider EF lenses with all of the head aches that go with them seems a step backwards.
Click to expand...

I used to have the Nikon 50 1.2 AIS and its pretty useless <f2.0 as are a lot of older super speed lenses (and some newer rokinons etc to some degree...). Only the very center of the lens gets brighter and the last stop or so increases ghosting and ugly halation and CA far more than any other stop. It's just a bunch of fuzz and aberrations in low light wide open. Also watch out for the f1.2 L lenses which sometimes aren't really much faster than the f1.4s except they tell Canon DSLRs to gain up in software to make them look brighter...

Contax Zeiss are nice, I used to have a set, but watch out for ones with buzzsaw bokeh/apertures and they arent very fast by today's FF35 prime lens standards...

Do watch out for random old lenses, especially nikon AI/s, they are built pretty solid all metal by todays standards but they often develop a lot of play in the focus gear and internal movement, you'll likely get weird jumps in your frame when you change or start or stop your focusing direction in some more worn out ones.
 
Ben Scott said:
The Contax 50mm f1.7 (which is according to the Lens Doctor actually around f1.5) - while far cheaper and not having quite the heavy robust build quality - is much much sharper than the f1.4 (which is essentially the same as the ZE/ZF version except for coating), absolutely razor sharp.

I offloaded my Contax 50 f1.4s a few years ago and the 1.7 is my go to for 50mm these days.
Click to expand...

how is the bokeh with only six blades? I haves some Zeiss Hasselbad lenses but the bokeh is far from round and nice
2016-02-22_Bokeh.jpg
 
Last edited:
My use of my Nikkor Ais 50 1.2 and 85 1.4 is not to shoot them wide open but to stop down and be in the sweet spot by 2.8 instead of 5.6 on a slower lens. Personally I've never used either lens wide open and see no need to do so. Yes, old beat up Nikkors like any brand can develop some slop and image shift, my cure is not to buy old beat up lenses. Brand new, manual focus Nikkors are still cheaper then a lot of the options out there and very good lightly used ones are not hard to find.
 
I made a very similar post, but there's doesn't seem to be a strong consensus so far.

I'm curious about the Sigma ART series v the newer Zeiss Milvus. Anyone had direct experience w/both?

I like the idea of being able to use the Sigmas w/the A6300 for AF.
 
egproductions said:
I have mostly primes. The one that gets the most use for me on a 4k camera is my Sigma 50mm art. The focal length is great for interviews and if finishing in HD can be cropped to 100mm for closeups. Here is a video i just finished up. FS7 and 50mm art with speedbooster:

http://www.eliecreative.com/rss11172015/Thank_You_v5.mp4
Click to expand...


That's a GREAT example. I was having issues finding a lot of lit interviews in reviews.

What aperture were those filmed at? Anything to be wary of w/the Sigma?
 
That particular one was shot at a post boosted f7.1. The lens is great all around. In general 50mm lenses are almost always great but this one in particular is exceptional. The only thing i noticed is that there is slight focus breathing. Its usually not enough to notice but in this particular video, it would have been best if there was absolutley no focus breathing at all so that I could match the backgrounds perfectly.

I usually shoot interviews at a post boosted f-stop of 2.8 with this lens. More from a dof standpoint than a lens performance reason. The speedbooster itself causes some cornern softness that i'm not fond of.
 
traviswears said:
Anything to be wary of w/the Sigma?
Click to expand...


One thing to be aware of is that pretty much all recent stills lenses have very strong anti-flare coatings but that means they don't flare easily and when they do it's just ugly little ghosts that look more like internal reflections than flares. Vintage lenses tend to flare a lot nicer as they have less aggressive coatings or lack coatings on some surfaces, but that can also lead to lower transmission and more variation in contrast from veiling glare etc. I used to own contax zeiss and nikon but eventually got rid of them because frankly if you go with modern lenses you can get zooms that in many ways outperform old primes, especially when you consider you end up having to light to/expose for an f2.8 or f3.5 anyway since most vintage sets have very slow wides and telephotos. When you consider any vintage f1.2 or 1.4 is pretty nasty below f2 or even f2.8 you're better off just going with short zooms that perform just as well in most image characteristics but match better and save lens changes and owning many lenses. Flaring or a softer look is the only reason I can see for vintage primes, but then again I've used some zooms from a decade or two ago that flared pretty well and still had relatively modern image performance.
 
Last edited:
Good points about flaring. I don't mind flaring in any instance except for interviews. Otherwise, a flare or two never hurt anybody.

I love lens tests but one thing I rarely see is people in these tests! Which to me, is the single most important thing when considering a lens. How does it render skin tones? I don't care how sharp a tree branch in the corner is. I want to know what a person sitting in well-lit chair looks like!

I'm going to do some testing next weekend. Plans are to test the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 Milvus, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART (w/2X center crop on a SB ULTRA at 25mm to replicate the speed and FOV) against each other.

Any other requests while I'm at it?
 
Why center crop the 18-35? I say just leave it at 35 and compare that, cropping doesn't really provide much of a comparison. Are you testing them all on the SB Ultra? I'd definitely be interested to see a flaring comparison between the Milvus and ART since flaring is the one thing I'm not happy with with any of my ART lenses since they are clearly designed for flare suppression, not for nice looking flares.

As for skin tests, that's probably good to test though I imagine it's not something that changes that much except with the color cast and contrast of the lens, and both of those things are easily correctable in post or often simply taken out of the equation using push auto whitebalance. Also any diffusion or halation effects of a lens are interesting to see on skin but really how pleasing vs overpowering such an effect is depends a lot on framing so it's hard to make a hard judgement about it unless your test mirrors a very common framing and lighting setup that you use a lot.
 
traviswears said:
I made a very similar post, but there's doesn't seem to be a strong consensus so far.

I'm curious about the Sigma ART series v the newer Zeiss Milvus. Anyone had direct experience w/both?

I like the idea of being able to use the Sigmas w/the A6300 for AF.
Click to expand...

i think there is a strong consensus - or there is for me. These stigmas and modern zeiss are just not that interesting - why get a plastic fantastic for $1000 when you can get a metal classic for $300
Just to get sketchy af?
yes af has a place but not really for primes
as one builds a set of lenses to do work there usually ends up being an af option in there somewhere - typically for use on a gimbal
Oddly I quite like the sony glass for this - 16 pancake and 18-252
mainly I like them because they were "free" with camera body purchases.

imo it is really important to baby your budget to get lots of glass - from 10 to 400 - and also baby the budget to get audio kit lights - things that will really up your production values..
 
As an "old fart" I've mainly ignored AF - should it actually work id probably get 2 or 3 zooms - maybe 18-35 and the new 50-150 or whatever it is and a mid 24-105
 
Af glass also sucks because you change the iris in the menu - it is critical to configure any sony camera to use the menu as little as possible
in the long term that electronics interface can also..
-die
-be bummed by firmware
-not work with the new camera de jour (bodies last two years glass 20)

id never buy seriously into e-mount
 
I've never really liked Speed Boosters because of the barrel distortion they introduce.

Leica R lenses are great. A little better built than Contax Zeiss, more romantic look with luscious colors. If you get a set of f/2.8s they're not expensive at all. In fact the f/2 Summicrons 50 and 90 are positively cheap. Plus the zooms are two-touch.
 
morgan_moore said:
Af glass also sucks because you change the iris in the menu - it is critical to configure any sony camera to use the menu as little as possible
in the long term that electronics interface can also..
-die
-be bummed by firmware
-not work with the new camera de jour (bodies last two years glass 20)

id never buy seriously into e-mount
Click to expand...

3 posts in a row?! Looks like you're having a little conversation with yourself there. A party about how you don't like AF, don't like Sony menus, don't like E-mount, don't like the newer lenses and how I should buy more lighting and some zooms that I already own.

The reason I'm testing on skin is because that's what I care about most. I realize you can correct certain things in post. My curiosity is how the different lenses render the images differently under similar conditions.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
nyvz said:
Why center crop the 18-35?
Click to expand...

Because if you use the SB, you can approximate the speed of the Sigma 1.4 on the Sigma 1.8 and if you center crop you can approximate the FOV. Thus, I'm going to see if buying a new lens is worth it when I can potentially replicate a very similar image with a lens I already have.

I'll include the Rokinon and an old Nikkor 50 1.4 manual classic in this test as well.
 
On my phone I cant edit posts. So adding further thoughts, sorry if that was bad presentation.

Consideration of AF (read s*%tty manual focus feel, lack of end stops)
E-mount (that wont work on canon, nikon, panny, black magic or whatever your next camera is, or have been forced to rent for the project, and has crap resale value)
and access to the iris would seem to be relevant to your choice of primes.

I want my primes to feel nice, fit many cameras and have an accessible iris that doesn't pack up or get bummed by firmware.

Maybe Im nuts.

S
 
Last edited:
I have gotten rid of all electronics based optics a while back and have to say that the quality of my work has gotten much better.
having to work around the inequities of these lenses limits you tremendously and sorry no image stabilisation is not really helpful. For proper work there is no substitute for proper mechanics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top