File :-(, x, )
beautiful borkeh Anonymous
Pentax Super Takumar
Pentax SMC Takumar
Sigma 50/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4 AE

at 1.4
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
at 2.0
>> Anonymous
Sigma is the clear winner, then SMC, then Zeiss, then ST. Thanks for sharing (really).
>> Anonymous
>>220875

Dunno, some people say busy borkeh has character and others prefer smooth, blended borkeh.

It's all subjective.
>> Anonymous
>> • 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.
>> Anonymous
>>220882
>What's field curvature
Barrel distortion, pincushioning; straight lines being curved.
>and what the hell is copy work?
Copying things for reference, buildings, architecture, documents, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>220887

Oh 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.
>> Anonymous
Man. I'm srsly getting that lens. It will companion my 85/1.2L II very nicely :)
>> Anonymous
>>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.
>> Anonymous
Was the dick necessary?
>> Anonymous
>>220875

seriously?
it looks the opposite to me.
borkeh on the sigma is boring as hell.
>> Anonymous
That Sigma's got some sexy bork.
>> Anonymous
>>220907

some people like hard bokeh

others like smooth bokeh

WHO KNEW
>> Anonymous
>>220907
QFsubjectiveT.

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 > Sigma

At f/2: Super-Tak > SMC-Tak > Sigma = Zeiss.
>> Anonymous
>>220873

lol

so obvious it's a f/1.2 vs. three f/1.4s, way to hax at lens design Sigma
>> Anonymous
DELICIOUS SIGMA BORKEH
>> tangerine !!/HVSCQvQHoK
is wish someone would do a comparison of the borkeh from sigma 50 to sigma 30...
>> Anonymous
how the fuck did you get a super takumar, you faggot
>> Anonymous
>>220921
You 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.
>> Anonymous
>>220931

everyone knows the 30mm sucks shit for bokeh so there's no point
>> Anonymous
STOP SAYING IT WRONG YOU ASSHOLES

BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
BORKEH.
>> Anonymous
>>220938

lrn2lensoptics

you can make it a 1.2 but it's only usable at 1.4 and on

it's got a larger front element than the canon 50/1.2 and is almost as heavy and large

it's a 1.2 sold as a 1.4
>> Anonymous
>>220967
The size of the front element doesnt matter as much as the fact that it's very far away from the aperture diaphragm.
>> Anonymous
>>220967
If 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.
>> Anonymous
>>220967

Woop dee shit, you lose 1/2 stop. ZOMG O NOES THIS WILL RUIN MY PICTUREZ

You can boost exposure 1/2 stop in post and I doubt anyone at all will be able to see the increase in grain.
>> Anonymous
>>221019
You loose a whole stop.
>> Anonymous
damn it sigma, where's my 4/3 version
>> Anonymous
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
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>220882
no, this is field curvature.

Field Of View obviously exagerated for mspaint effext...
>> Anonymous
>>221045
I stand corrected.
>> Anonymous
>>221047

what the

how does that translate to real life? i don't understand the drawing :/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>221115
better pic than>>221047


upper diagram is how a lens should be, with a flat focal plane
lower 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
>> Anonymous
>>221120

ah but aren't pretty much all lenses softer in the edges than at the center? i thought it was to be expected

i remember reading about the Tamron 17-50 having strong curvature also
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>221121
Most 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).
>> Anonymous
>>221125

oh i see, thanks for the explanation dude
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
One more thing that can happen if you focus differently.