Pentax Super TakumarPentax SMC TakumarSigma 50/1.4Zeiss 50/1.4 AEat 1.4
at 2.0
Sigma is the clear winner, then SMC, then Zeiss, then ST. Thanks for sharing (really).
>>220875Dunno, some people say busy borkeh has character and others prefer smooth, blended borkeh.It's all subjective.
>> Strong field curvature: not suitable for copy work.What's field curvature and what the hell is copy work?This is listed as a weakness of the Sigma.
>>220882>What's field curvatureBarrel distortion, pincushioning; straight lines being curved.>and what the hell is copy work?Copying things for reference, buildings, architecture, documents, etc.
>>220887Oh I see. I've never heard of a normal focal range and higher lens having barrel distorstion. :/Kind of weird they would mess it up on a 50mm.
Man. I'm srsly getting that lens. It will companion my 85/1.2L II very nicely :)
>>220888>I've never heard of a normal focal range and higher lens having barrel distorstion. :/Many people who care about 'copy work' can be very, very, very picky about any distortion at all.
Was the dick necessary?
>>220875seriously?it looks the opposite to me.borkeh on the sigma is boring as hell.
That Sigma's got some sexy bork.
>>220907some people like hard bokehothers like smooth bokehWHO KNEW
>>220907QFsubjectiveT.It's the same issue I have with (for instance) the f/1.2 Canons and that supposedly godly 135mm Minolta. Way too smooth and sleek.But like we always have to emphasize, it's subjective.Judging from these (he really needs to equalize contrast and color for a good comparison of bokeh, though, it makes it hard, especially between the two Taks):At f/1.4: Super-Tak > SMC-Tak > Zeiss > SigmaAt f/2: Super-Tak > SMC-Tak > Sigma = Zeiss.
>>220873lolso obvious it's a f/1.2 vs. three f/1.4s, way to hax at lens design Sigma
DELICIOUS SIGMA BORKEH
is wish someone would do a comparison of the borkeh from sigma 50 to sigma 30...
how the fuck did you get a super takumar, you faggot
>>220921You really think Sigma wouldn't jump at the chance to market an affordable, autofocus 50/1.2 (instead of a slightly pricy* 50/1.4) if it was actually an f/1.2 lens?*Don't jump on me if this is wrong; I seem to remember some rumblings about the Sigma being more costly, or less of a value than would be expected, something of that sort, compared to Canikon 50/1.4s. I haven't checked prices.
>>220931everyone knows the 30mm sucks shit for bokeh so there's no point
STOP SAYING IT WRONG YOU ASSHOLESBORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.BORKEH.
>>220938lrn2lensopticsyou can make it a 1.2 but it's only usable at 1.4 and onit's got a larger front element than the canon 50/1.2 and is almost as heavy and largeit's a 1.2 sold as a 1.4
>>220967The size of the front element doesnt matter as much as the fact that it's very far away from the aperture diaphragm.
>>220967If you took your definition of lens aperture from wikipedia, which states "aperture is defined by the size of the front lens in an optical system", you are terribly misinformed.
>>220967Woop dee shit, you lose 1/2 stop. ZOMG O NOES THIS WILL RUIN MY PICTUREZYou can boost exposure 1/2 stop in post and I doubt anyone at all will be able to see the increase in grain.
>>221019You loose a whole stop.
damn it sigma, where's my 4/3 version
1.4 to 1.2 is 1/2 stop.Actually a little bit less than that, more like 1/e, but the point is that it's not 1 stop.1 stop is 1.4 to f/1.0
>>220882no, this is field curvature.Field Of View obviously exagerated for mspaint effext...
>>221045I stand corrected.
>>221047what thehow does that translate to real life? i don't understand the drawing :/
>>221115better pic than>>221047upper diagram is how a lens should be, with a flat focal planelower diagram is what happens with some lenses, a curved focal plane that can cause objects at the edges of the frame to fall out of focus for no apparent reason
>>221120ah but aren't pretty much all lenses softer in the edges than at the center? i thought it was to be expectedi remember reading about the Tamron 17-50 having strong curvature also
>>221121Most lenses are softer in the corners because the optical design and/or glass is imperfect. You can't do anything about that, while with lens that has a strong field curvature you can arrange your objects so they all fit into the curved focal plane (see pic).
>>221125oh i see, thanks for the explanation dude
One more thing that can happen if you focus differently.