File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey guys, I could use an opinion. Given the following choices to use on a camera (rangefinder or slr, makes no difference) which lens would you take?

50mm F1.0
60mm F1.2

Both yield the same kind/size of bokeh, with the difference that the 60 is optically cleaner. On the other hand, the 50mm suffers from stronger optical aberrations but qualifies as a superfast lens, which is braggable. What would you pick, if given the chance to grab either for no money at all?

By the way, these are generic lenses, they're no Noctiluxes, NoctNikkors, or Canon 0.95s. Any of those absolutely pwn the lenses in question, no contest.

Opinions then?

E-peen enlarging aperture, wider angle, and faster speed
vs
Better optics, slightly slower, aperture not as impressive as the fabled 1.0.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Difference isn't much. A third of a stop? I'd take the 60mm.
>> Anonymous
no doubt take the better optics.
even if they were same aperture id take better optics
>> Anonymous
"fabled 1.0"? Do you work for a fucking marketing team? What kind of piece of shit "photographer" are you? Who the fuck cares about less than half a stop?

Just take fucking pictures, christ.
>> Anonymous
>>203497
disregard the 2nd half of that post lol
>> Anonymous
Well I'm assuming they're going to be better optics mostly because the angle of view is more closed, and 50 F1.0 is actually a bit of a stretch without using aspheric lenses, which these two dont have.
>> Anonymous
>>203497
>even if they were same aperture id take better optics
Being the same aperture would TAKE AWAY the "difficulty" in this decision. l2logic
>> Anonymous
>>203498
Your answer is not relevant.
>> Anonymous
>>203503
Your answer is not relevant.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

>>203498
>"fabled 1.0"? Do you work for a fucking marketing team?
No I don't, and good f/1 lenses are pretty rare, and most often extremely expensive. They yield awesome bokeh more often than none however, which is why I called them that. Dont like it? Sue me.

>What kind of piece of shit "photographer" are you?
I don't know, what kind of piece of shit are you?

>Who the fuck cares about less than half a stop?
I do, that's who.

>Just take fucking pictures, christ.
I will when I feel like it.

Now, for the question, are you going to answer it?
>> Anonymous
>>203508

Depends on what you will be shooting and how much cleaner the 60mm is.

I would probably go with the 60mm though. Nothing worse than finding out that an awesome shot is all soft and shitty.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
The 50, because I want to be able to use my goddamn 50mm framelines properly.
>> Anonymous
>>203514
Thanks.

I do agree as well. I've grown to prefer something slightly tighter than 50mm but not all the way to 80mm, so perhaps 60mm would actually be spot on for my purposes.

The lenses are likely to be shitty either way, however, so there might not be as big of a loss.
>> Anonymous
>>203516
50mm framelines? If the body is irrelevant to these lenses, would you still pick the 50?
>> Anonymous
Personally I'd take the fifty. Long normals don't set well with me, even a fifty's longer than I like... wider normals are my thing, and I prefer them to all other focal lengths. And to me, anything 60-70mm or so, in that weird range between normal and medium tele, is just awkard.

But that's just me. Are you the guy building his own lens and trying to decide what to make it? If you are, I'd go with whichever one would help you learn the most to eventually build a higher-quality and faster lens.
>> Anonymous
>>203530
Yes, I am.

I got an optical design program and have been working with it. It's been quite difficult to figure out how to make a functional 50mm 1.0 without the use of coatings and different types of glass. Because of those two reasons, the lens is likely to give shitty results anyways but something slightly easier might actually be more worthwhile, thus the 60mm f1.2 instead.
>> Anonymous
I'd say 60mm f1.2 then in that case.
>> Anonymous
>>203802
Yeah, I pretty much have to settle for that after all
>> Anonymous
Take the 50 so you can win a cock waving contest with anyone, well maybe besides the guys who own 1200mm with red rings on them.
>> Anonymous
>>203832
Zeiss already won the "shitty super-fast lens" category.

And the "not-shitty superfast lens" category.
>> Anonymous
>>203837

Even though you say it was shitty image quality, I'd love to try it in dark conditions, just to see what it would be like.
>> Anonymous
>>203832
This man understands what I meant about the 50 1.0.

Due to further development however, I'm going to have to work towards the 60mm 1.2 instead. I hope this shit doesn't keep happening.
>> Anonymous
>>203533I got an optical design program
What's the name of the program? Sounds interesting.
>> Anonymous
>>203502
thats what>>203499was for dumb shit.
>> Anonymous
>>203928
lol Easy, easy, he probably overlooked it.

>>203925
It's called Oslo, by Lambda corporation or something. I'm using the Educational/free version. I've read about a few others, but it seemed like the appropriate solution to a point.
>> Anonymous
>>203933
whenever im a dick i always get called on it
i dont understand lol
>> Anonymous
>>203938
lmao I kinda saw it coming, though I didn't imagine you'd actually come back for that one.
>> Anonymous
>>203940
would have gotten away if someone hadnt posted in this thread again, ive got nothing better to do this late than to come here and see if ive gotten any responses.0
>> Anonymous
>>203943
Hehe I know how that is.

Well, I'm going to sleep now. I'll post some progress once there actually is some (lots of testing and research since last post). Good night!
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
On topic: The 50, because I like that length better.

>>203533
Don't even the most basic (okay, not the MOST) lenses use multiple types of glass? I know absolutely nothing about optics but this:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/lenstest/elmar_3550_red_scale.html

suggests that even the basic Tessar type "kit" lenses of the old Leicas used multiple glass types.

Disclaimer: I know Puts comes off as a psycho a lot but he does have a ton of research done.
>> Anonymous
>>203961
Not psycho so much as incredibly pretentious.

Not to mention a horrible prose style. I know English isn't his first language, but he should write in whatever it is (Dutch, right?) and get it translated. It's always grammatically correct, aside from some comma splice errors, and he's obviously fluent, but anything he writes is very unnatural-reading.

But you're right, he does know what he's talking about when it comes to Leica optics.
>> Anonymous
>>203961
That is correct, even what came before the Tessar, the Cooke triplet, used 2 types of glass (read a bit on Crown and Flint type glass), one with a low RI and low dispersion (main type) and one with high RI and high dispersion. These are used together to correct for chromatic aberration in a +1-1 basis, depending on the materials' qualities of course. The point is they're used to cancel out color dispersion.

It is true that even the most simple lenses use more than one type of glass, which I do not have. Because of that, I already am aware that my lens will suffer from strong chromatic aberration. There will be no surprise there, but at least I can attempt to correct for spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism.

I've already looked at a very possible alternative for a second type of transparent material which I can use in the same way as this, but I don't know all of the details about it yet, so for the time being, I'll have to make do with one and check out the results.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>204210
When shooting black and white, CA comes out as Leica Glow, right? So all is not lost.
>> Anonymous
>>204735
I lol'ed.