NOT just Another 50mm thread

bohdank wrote in post #9465865
Ugh... JPG compression has really killed this.

hehe as it does!!

Also look at the Zeiss 50/2 Makro planar ef mount , i loved the images off it floating around here.

zincozinco wrote in post #9466086
my preference for the zeiss is that they are designed for MF, the sigma and the canons i had were not very nice when focusing manual. i really regret selling my planar to get the sigma....

i really dont use the 50 so much, thats one of the reasons i want the luxury of MF. like stated above the reson for a 1.2 is the ability too shoot at 1.2. however i mainly go around 2.0. - 4.5. but im guessing a 1.2 is sharper at 2.0 than for ex a 1.7 at 2.0.

this is the quest...

....but at F2 so is the Nikkor 50mm F1.4...so if THAT'S where you're going to use the 1.2, you might as well get a 1.4...by 2.8, you could get the Canon 50mm/F2.5 CM, or the much cheaper/more compact Nikkor 50mm/F2 which by F2.8 virtually matches the 1.4...
Here's a 100% crop taken with the Nikon 50mm/1.4 ais @ F2.8

Do not assume that a f/1.2 lens is going to be sharper by the time you stop it down to f/4 than a f/2.8 lens is at f/4. As always such broad generalizations boil down to specific lenses. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

kitacanon wrote in post #9466223
....but at F2 so is the Nikkor 50mm F1.4...so if THAT'S where you're going to use the 1.2, you might as well get a 1.4...by 2.8, you could get the Canon 50mm/F2.5 CM, or the much cheaper/more compact Nikkor 50mm/F2 which by F2.8 virtually matches the 1.4...
Here's a 100% crop taken with the Nikon 50mm/1.4 ais @ F2.8

...but heck, if we're talking sharpness (rather than usefulness in low light situations) here's a 100% crop @ 2.8 taken with the Canon nifty50!

What amount of sharpening was applied ?

zincozinco wrote in post #9466086
my preference for the zeiss is that they are designed for MF, the sigma and the canons i had were not very nice when focusing manual. i really regret selling my planar to get the sigma....

i really dont use the 50 so much, thats one of the reasons i want the luxury of MF. like stated above the reson for a 1.2 is the ability too shoot at 1.2. however i mainly go around 2.0. - 4.5. but im guessing a 1.2 is sharper at 2.0 than for ex a 1.7 at 2.0.

this is the quest...

I am totally with you on the quest part.

So was the zeiss SHARPER than the Canon f/1.4 by much?

I think that it is ok to say that generally an f2.8 zoom is going to be sharper at f/4 than an f/3.5-5.6, or that an f/1.4 prime is sharper at f/2 than an f/1.8, but there are certainly exceptions. Really a lot of that is because until you reach a point, the faster a lens is the higher quality it is. Canons f/4 zooms are often about a sharp wide open as the f/2.8s are at f/4, since they are all very well made L lenses. As said above it is going to be a case by case basis.

Additionally, I think f/1.2 gets to be a problem area because things become kinda non-standard and extreme. I know more about Canon's than the others, but it isn't really sharper than the 1.4 once the 1.4 is stopped down at all, and the f/1.2 starts to drop off pretty quick (not f16, more like f/4 or something). I'm making up the numbers, but they are close. I have seen a couple of reviews showing the 1.2 loosing sharpness to the 1.4 (and 1.8) pretty early, at apertures small enough I use them often.

Yes you are buying a 50 prime to use it pretty open, but I know in this case, unless you are shooting at 1.4 or 1.8, the 1.4 is almost as good or better than the 1.2. The 1.2 does however have better bokeh and better contrast/color.

There are lots of reasons to get the 1.2L over the 1.4, but sharpness at f/2 or higher isn't really one of them.

This doesn't apply as a blanket rule to other lenses, but just an example.

kitacanon wrote in post #9466223
...but heck, if we're talking sharpness (rather than usefulness in low light situations) here's a 100% crop @ 2.8 taken with the Canon nifty50!

ouch i just cut myself

laydros wrote in post #9466827
I am totally with you on the quest part.

So was the zeiss SHARPER than the Canon f/1.4 by much?

Yes you are buying a 50 prime to use it pretty open, but I know in this case, unless you are shooting at 1.4 or 1.8, the 1.4 is almost as good or better than the 1.2. The 1.2 does however have better bokeh and better contrast/color.

There are lots of reasons to get the 1.2L over the 1.4, but sharpness at f/2 or higher isn't really one of them.

This doesn't apply as a blanket rule to other lenses, but just an example.

my zeiss was sharper than the 1.4, but im not sure if i had a dub or not...? this is the other thing - i have lost a lot of faith in buying AF lenses, back front issues etc....

id like a silky smooth focusing ring and no plastic... a very bad example is: id prefer a a cadillac to a motorbike - both will get me from a to b - but the cadillac will get me there comfortably. I dont like the mf ring on most af lenses - i like it to be metallic and mechanical... anyway thats just a taste thing....

if i can find a converted 1.7 ill probably try it out, if not ill wait for a good price summicron/lux or zeiss 1.4 - I have seen a few minolta and zuiko on ebay where the minolta is the same price as the 1.7 and the zuiko same as summicron and planar 1.4, its just a question about confidence as well I trust zeiss and leica more than olympus and minolta...