Sometimes it is better to compress the background with a small telephoto lens, like an 85/120mm equivalent then forcing a 50mm aperture to insane levels (like f0. 95) to get a blurry background and a pleasing Bokeh: nobody likes an eye image in perfect focus with blurry nose and ears.

Shallow focus is not usually desirable. And so agree with a lot of people here that it's just a fad - and it is no more "cinematic" than stopping down. It must be said that some people use it very well and they shoot wide open because they genuinely like it. Separation between subject and background is a fine thing but you don't need f/1.2 to do it. Even if the 75mm Noctilux were the same price as the 75 Summicron, I'd still take the latter, mostly because of size and weight. The 75 Noctilux is very sharp wide open, but that is academic for me.

Then you might like the Fujifilm "Fujicron" XF F2 lenses. Affordable, small and lightweight premium lenses. I also like the small 18mm F2 and 27mm F2.8 pencake.

I have a Mitakon 35mm 0.95 for my APSC camera and I love it for night street photography.

@mattisulanto

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

When I recently got my first MFT camera and lenses I was pleasantly surprised by the smoothness of the bokeh. Moving from a full frame DSLR I was worried about bokeh quality, but turns out that MFT lenses have closer focusing distances. And with smaller bodies I can get much closer to my subjects which renders very smooth backgrounds even at smaller apertures.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

I was given a 50mm Pentax F1.7 which while a vintage lens adapts very well on new cameras and is easy to focus delivering very atmospheric results.

I'm tired of the bokeh trend. Just a few days I took a picture of my family in a nice setting. In one example I applied a shallow dof, in the other I closed it a lot. The result was much better closed, I could detail the setting we were actually in. It all depends on the result we want to get, but I have to say this: bokeh and shallow DOF is a trend in a world of concrete, ugliness where people are no longer wanting to show the set, because most of times there is no set, it's just me, me, me, no connection to the environment or society. It is a trend that has a certain dose of egocentrism, which characterizes our time and mindset.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you and I like how you put it.

@petegleeson1

3 жыл бұрын

It's an interesting take on things but I am not sure I am with you on the link of bokeh and egocentricity? The selfie and David Beckham setting off a trend to slide at the corner flag (where all the cameras were) I would align with the ego. But usually an image with a lot of bokeh is a photographer's choice rather than a subject? The selfie is often "here I am at"... so using too much bokeh would be a bit dim? I totally agree with you that an obsession with bokeh in everything and I would often see more of the environment in a shot.

@bronzepodcast

3 жыл бұрын

@@petegleeson1 I am not a photographer. I imagine professional uses of bokeh, to shoot products, weddings, where funnelling the image into a person/item makes sense. The thing is the online trend of bokeh, just shows how art and knowledge in general is not usually displayed in the mainstream culture. This happens in any field now, both science, philosophy, etc. Subjectivism and the majority picking what is true or false is building an empire of ignorance. It is a civilisational problem, photography is one of the fields where this is also noticeable. Best photographers just pick anything and make things happen, respecting artistic rules and conceptions acquired by others, professionals and geniuses. Today people erase this knowledge and jump into what any 1M sub KZreadr will tell them to do.

@LevAizik

3 жыл бұрын

​@@bronzepodcast The reason is that inexperienced photographers think bokeh will make their images look more professional.

Nice video that gives some really good answers to serious questions. In film day, since there was no OIS and even fast film could only be pushed to say ASA 800, an ultrafast was absolutely necessary for low light work. Today with autofocus, the sensors are easily capable of 3200 or greater, and OIS helps get the shot at even modest f lenses settings. So in this sense, the ultrafast lenses is a nice to have but is not a necessity. Never-the-less, I have an f1.4 and 1.7 that were bought just for low light street photography. I also get a chuckle about how the Auto or P selections choose the settings; viz.,low ISO, mid-lenses f stop and moderate shutter speed which gets the exposure but little else in most cases.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

I bought the 42.5 Leica DC Nocticron 1.2 lens, and it is among my favorite primes, but it may be a bit difficult to keep up with manual focus photographing playing children. But when I hit the right focus in that low depht of field It takes incredible pictures. But since I dont like the auto-focus, (My camera body for photo is the Lumix DMC-GX1, so it may be that the camera body is old and shooses to focus on things I dont want to be the main focus). Im not a professional photographer so It also may come down to practice. I think I will try steaping it down a bit in the future, It would give me a bit more depth of view, and make the focusing a bit more forgiving.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

Mega pixel race, sensor size race and now appature race. Super fast lenses are fun, but not much more than that. Not really a carry around lens at close to 800g :)

@marcusoutdoors4999

3 жыл бұрын

Try a Voigtlander manual focus, tiny lenses weighing less than 200g for 50mm f1.5, or 350g for 75mm f1.5. OK they’re manual focus but that can be fun too.

I have E-1, yes that lovely E+1 +14-54, em-10 with 25 1.4 and Z5 with 50 1.4. Z5 + 50mm 1.4 gives me that kind of a look @1.4 that none of the m43 will ever give me. That's why fast lenses are necessary and why I'll always keep both systems.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Hey, Matti! The fastest lens I have is a 25mm 1.7, on my Lumix G7 it makes for a great nifty-fifty and since I got it I haven´t even thought about going back to my zoom kit lens 14-42 mm, I just shoot everything with that 25 mm lens and enjoy the nice pictures... I think the pancake 14 mm they make would be nice as well, even if not so fast...

@mattisulanto

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Bokeh/shallow dof is very nineties, noughties & tennies. The 2020s is the age of deep dof. 😁

I prefer the faster vintage lenses when shooting manual with my M4/3's bodies and a suitable focal reducer. 28/2.0, 50/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/2.0...they cost a little bit more but are still a hell of a lot cheaper than modern lenses. Quality and results have been excellent for my use case. Close them down a couple of stops and they also tend to get damn sharp. That being said, my Canon 50/1.8 FD has terrific character, as does the Helios 58/2.0 and Jupiter 50/2.0. These lenses, if still in good shape, are terrific value/performance plays...if you are OK to shoot manual focus, typically in A or M. With modern focus peaking, it is a breeze.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

I bought a 17mm f1.2 because : 1) 17mm is a versatile focal length (in MFT) that I like to use 2) f1.2 may be useful (compared to f1.8) in low light (in MFT again), especially with this lens which is totally usable wide opened 3) It's an exceptional lens speaking of image quality : sharpness, bokeh is fantastic 4) The shallower depth of field procured by f1.2 aperture, especially at that focal length which is quite wide angle (again, speaking of MFT) may be appreciated (it's like a FF 35mm f2.4 so it's not a super fast lens in FF standard for the shallow depth of field criteria)

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

I have had a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor for a long time, but I can count the number of photos I took at f1.4 on the fingers of one hand. Most of my photos with it were taken at f4 just because there isn't enough depth of field at f1.4 to make it work for my uses. My Olympus 17mm f1.2 was my first lens that I would use at f1.2 or f1.4 much more often just because there is more depth of field, but even then, a lot of my photos are shot at f2 or f2.5 with it. I find a lot more use for the faster Micro 4/3 lenses just because I can still get enough depth of field at larger apertures. There's just a point where the super fast lenses for larger formats have such shallow depth of field that you can only use them for a few situations and not much else. I don't like making pictures that have only an eye in focus, but the nose and the other eye is very clearly out of focus for example or where I have multiple people, but you have only one of them in sharp focus. The reason for my lens choices are mostly the character of the lens. I love the way the 17mm f1.2 looks at different apertures. I also love the way my 50mm f1.4 looks when I use it. I do have a 50mm f3.5 Nikkor, but it's a different lens with a different look to it

@mattisulanto

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks. I much agree with you on this.

To be honest, even f/1.4 is too little for most purposes when shot on digital as the depth of field gets razor thin. When it's winter outside and you're limited to ISO 400 on a film camera, I prefer f/0.95 or f/1 to f/1.4 any day.

At times ( maybe most often) a lens' are either sharpest when u stop down from the maximum widest open aperture, or there are some distortions at their widest aperture , which they characteristically overcome when you stop down . So a faster lense will produce a better results when u stop down to a few stops compared to a slow lens which is at its maximum aperture .this to me a good reason to use a fast lens even though practically you may seldom use it at its widest opening

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for those tips😀

Well said! Agree with all of it! The Panasonic S PRO 50mm f1.4 that you own is bigger, longer, heavier, with a 77mm front diameter compared to the 72mm on the Sony. This once again puts another notch in SONY'S belt, and to introduced this lens for $300 less than Panasonic 50mm f1.4 could be a deal breaker for choosing brands. Doesn't look good for Panasonic trying to sell cameras when their AF issues continue into 2021with no end in sight so far this year. No matter what... these type of fast lenses are all over priced in my opinion, but as long as the keep selling them, the prices will continue to rise even in the mist of much growing competition. I know I can use a 70-200 2.8 and get better depth of field than these lenses. With the great low light performance of most of the top mirrorless cameras in 2020 I don't see the need to own a nifty fifty at f1.2 even if I own a F1.4 myself. I'm selling it because I can still get a decent buck for it and I hardly use it for portraits anymore. To me... this lens is a waste of hard earn money. There are much better options today for a lot less money and a lot more lens.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

If your main interest is bokeh, MFT is not the way to go. To get the same depth of field as a "vanilla" full frame F1.8 or f2 lens, requires exotic and expensive glass in micro four thirds. It is no exaggeration to say you could buy a full frame body for the price of a m43 lens that delivers equivalent bokeh, in some cases. Of course someone may want/need a lens for low light performance, and only an f0.95 or f1.2 can deliver it. MFT has many advantages but bokeh-for-your-buck is not one of them.

With my 45mm (on FF), shooting wide open (f1,8), I obtain very sharp subjects with dreamy OOF areas. For me is perfect and never felt the need of a f1,2 or f1,4 normal lens.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

Nice video. I would only add two basic points. First...ND filters...it's nice to start out with a really fast lens as opposed to a slower one. Secondly, as you indicated...sharpness. If you have an f/2 lens...typically it will be sharp in the corners at 2.8 or 3.5. You need to stop down a bit. Starting out at f1.2...you are ahead of the game. As you said...it probably will be sharp everywhere at f1.2. If you have an f/1.4 ... you are correct...no need to upgrade....maybe even at f1.8 (if it is a great lens)....still okay to stand pat. But I would think anything at f/2 or higher ... you will be missing out on some benefits.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm just an amateur picture taker. F1.8 is fast enough for me, and I generally stop those down to 5.6 unless conditions call for a larger aperture. F1.8 is fast enough for my low light shooting without flash. The faster lenses are larger, heavier, and more expensive. Not for me.

I have contemplated buying the PL 42.5 f/1.2 but have had other lens priorities. I do have a Mitakon 25 f/0.95 and I really like the images and the shallow (almost FF) DOF you can get from it. I often prefer the extra depth of field inherent to the M43 system but sometimes it's nice to be able to simulate a larger sensor for creative purposes.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

A really interesting chat although I was smiling at the ultra fast lens on the bookshelf reference. I cannot afford the Oly 1.2 primes for MFT, I think I might be tempted for the weather sealing but would be put off by the size and weight. I did however buy a second hand Panny Leica 25mm f1.4. Even if I could have afforded the 1.2 I think the 1.4 is a good compromise a lot lighter and a lot cheaper. The faster speed was a factor but I don't spend that much time in coal holes but I liked the rendering of the Panny Leica lenses. I have just bought another second hand lens the 45mm F2.8 macro, I absolutely love the rendering of this lens and while my M.Zuiko 45mm f1.8 is faster and also has a lovey out of focus effect. Given time and choice I could pick the lenses for different attributes on the day, but usually I would be far more likely to pick up the f2.8 now I own it, for the added macro flexibility and the really smooth out of focus performance and what I believe I see which is a particular tonal characteristic to an image. If I had bought the macro lens first I wouldn't have bought the same focal length at 1.8. I may be deluded but hey I'm happy :)

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. That bookshelf part was meant to make you smile😀

The largest aperture lens I have is the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 II. I find this is more than adequate. Even though this lens is not expensive, I find its characteristics, including the bokeh to be more than sufficient. In fact, I do not see a need for anything faster. Matti, did you ever make a video on lens filters? I would be interested in your opinion on UV filters routinely used on a digital camera. Back in the film days, they were used quite often. I don't know if they are as necessary today. Thanks for your interesting and informative videos!!

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. I'm working on the filter topic, but it's been delayed because of our dark winter. Now that the days are longer, I can finally start filming it.

Are they necessary, probably not, but for sure they are more versatile, and in my opinion worth the cost. I consider f2 slow...

I think many people are kidding themselves that they “need” such a shallow depth of field lenses. The size and weight and expense of these super-fast lenses is really uncomfortable. I have some 1.8 primes and a 2.8 portrait for FF but I generally buy F4 lenses. Why is that?? Well, I don’t shoot in the dark and I like a bit of DOF but given a bit of planning you can get good bokeh with them too. Basically, the camera industry is trying to get us to spend more and more money on our gear and that is why they come up with this kind of gear. If you are a confident photographer F2.8 is as far as you really need to go; and that is heavy and expensive enough. Cheers

@mattisulanto

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for your thoughts.

They're only necessary if you can afford them:) For me, they are best for night photography such as that last image you showed or for astrophotography. Trouble is you need a very wide angle lens for astro and not many of those are super fast. Good post- thanks!

Nice vídeo! In my use fast lenses are very useful for video in low light situations using MFT. I simply love my Noktons 10.5mm and 25mm f0.95! They are fantastic! The images have a lot of character! They are not super sharp, that’s perfect!

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing!

Very well analysed. I can add that fast wide or super wide angle lrnses do help with achieving as much background separation as possible because it is challenging by nature if you need the separation. Low light action fast shutter speeds (stage shows) f1.2 helps keep ISO down and daylight super fast shutter speeds (BIF with a tele) are also applications (so there f2.8 or f4.0 is fast vs a f6.3 tele). The rest of the time, I might take a f1.2 lens with but end up shooting everything with a f4.0 zoom for convenience and time saved.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

I like it when you question these fashion trends that everybody wants to participate in. I sometimes wonder why we want to use an open diaphragm when the old masters were aiming for f22 or even f32.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. That wide open trend is now and let's see how it lasts. I don't know which old masters you are talking about, but some of them used medium or large format and in that case F22 or F32 would be completely normal. But anyway, back then the shallow DOF was more of a problem😀

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

@@rayc1557 Thanks for the info. I have used large format cameras extensively for commercial and personal work, so I know how they work, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless😀

Great video , its ironic you have made this one , as i felt exactly the same when i saw that new 1.2 full frame lens , with most people stuck indoors in this global farce lol , so for now , have a good 2021. chow

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

I just got the lumix s5. It’s my first full frame camera. Coming from micro four thirds the depth of field is so different. F2.8 seems plenty shallow. My sigma 45mm 2.8 has plenty of bokeh even compared to my sigma 16mm 1.4

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

That's how it is and the 45 is a great lens😀

Recently I considered upgrading my Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 (MFT) with either it‘s version II or the Olympus 25mm/1.2. The latter may be better in almost every respect, but the optical difference wouldn’t be of much practical relevance, while the Panasonic/Leica lens is so much smaller, lighter and less expensive. On the other hand for particular video jobs I was not satisfied with the background blur that the Panasonic/Leica 15mm/1.7 can offer (while still being a very good lens!) and got the Mitakon Speedmaster 17mm/0.95. And in fact that helps - in these particular cases. For the Tele lenses I find myself often using f 2.0 and don’t need more speed . But f2.8 to 4 of the zoom lenses sometimes does not allow enough background separation.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing.

I own a very cheap Kamlan 50mm f1.1 Just because it looks nice attached to my Lumix GX9. But I never really tried to take pictures with it ;-)

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. That's the way to go😀

F1.2 lens set at F1.8 will normally outperform a F1.8 lens set at F1.8. Lenses have a tendacy to not be as good when stopped all the way down as they would when set to say F4.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

Worthwhile “ramblings.” It is often mentioned that it is the lenses, and not the bodies, that is the important investment, if only because sensors and bodies continually evolve, but a well-designed lens will live on for a lifetime. I rarely shoot even close to wide open, but as you suggest, the build quality and overall (if subtle) improvement make that more expensive lens both an investment and a treasure.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

@mawavoy

Жыл бұрын

It’s my understanding, the big resolution 50 and 100 megapixel sensors have more resolution than some vintage lenses can resolve.

May I ask which F1.2 lens was used in the video? This is a great video with valid information and insight. Really enjoy your contents! Great job mate! :D

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you. The photographs were shot on the Sigma Art 35mm F1.2, Sigma Art 40mm F1.2, Leica Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2, Canon FD 85mm F1.2 and probably some other lenses too😀

@leopoldtsai8

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattisulanto Thanks for the details! Again, love your work! :-)

Thanks Matti! Fast lenses are important for MFT cameras as they allow to shot in low light conditions with low ISO avoiding to increase ISO above 400 and get noiseless images. You are right that in all formats across all brands f/1.2 lenses usually come with extra low chromatic aberrations and astigmatism and as a result - very precise color rendering and evenly depicted micro details and textures. But on full frame mounts such lenses are often not affordable due to very high prices (up to $5000 for Leica 90 mm f/2.0). Also photographers on APS cameras do not have strong motivation to buy such lenses because they are less concerned by the noise at higher ISO values and what's more - shooting by APS camera with f/1.2-1.8 rare makes practical sense due to very shallow DoF. Most of those photographers don't understand who may need such expensive lenses.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

I agree with yoir comment. Thanx

Hi Matti - another great video - I have the Lumix G80/85, and last summer I got the Leica 12 mm F1.4 it is much better than the kit lens. I like the bokehI am considering the Laowa 7,5 mm F2.0 - because I enjoy making video with wide lenes. Do you think it would be a good decision to get the Laowa, or is too similar to the Leica? 💁

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. The Laowa is not like the Leica and if you need a super compact super wide, then you should get it.

@hanskirk-hiking9697

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks 😊

Hair style is looking 👌different

the step from extreme fast (f1.4) to ultra fast lenses (f1.2) is minor. wouldn't it be a more interesting to compare one of those f1.somethings with the wide spread sigma 45mm/f.2.8 and/or the abilities of the lumix 20-60mm at 50mm with a limit at f5.3 ? i would be really curious about this topic because i thought about replacing the 20-60mm with the 16-35mm added by a "fast" nifty fifty prime.

Case and point: I'm quite fond of the bokeh my Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestegon 29mm/F2.8, Lydith 30mm f3.5 and Auto Takumar 50mm f2 all produce, none of which would really be considered bokeh monsters. And the bokeh any of my macro lenses produces is crazy once you get down to 2:1...

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

I do have the Olympus 45 f/1.2 and it is a fantastic lens. I am also very happy with the f/1.8 version. The 1.2 is used for my professional portrait work but if I am walking around the park or city I prefer to go lighter and the 1.8 version never fails to produce great images. If I was not shooting professionally I'd likely not own a 1.2 lens.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. Client work sometimes requires certain gear.

@sstansm7f

3 жыл бұрын

45 mm f/1.7-1.8 at f/2.8 exceed resolution of PRO grade zoom lenses. So if you need very sharp portrait - shoot in the range 2.8-4.0.

I fully agree with you, ultra-fast lenses made more sense when we normally use films with ISO less than 400. If you want to have a smaller depth of field, it is easier to use a longer lens than a larger aperture lens. At full aperture the Olympus 75mm f 1.8 has the same depth of field as the 45mm f 1.2 and the 45mm 1.8 has less depth of field than a Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f / 0.95

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing.

Hi, why do lenses with large aperture (low number) called „fast“? And starting with which aperture a lense is usually called fast / ultra fast? eg.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

I guess they are called fast, because they let in a lot of light and allow fast shutter speeds. It depends on the lens type when it's called fast, but there is no exact rule that I'm aware of.

@arminleitner1097

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattisulanto Thank you!

Fast lenses are unobtanium for me and pretty wild looking compared to smartphone cameras I've used and very crop sensor cameras which don't have dof at all...

Sensors are starting to be so good that you can shoot 100k ISO and the photo is still usable. When the in-camera AI kicks in to the markets that you can choose the amount of DOF the really fast aperture/heavy/big lenses are gonna be obsolete.

Shallow DOF helps with focusing? Hm….not in my books.

Interesting fact: today that same "big manufacturers" released another 50mm with a maximum aperture of "only" 2.5 (along with other 2 light and small lenses). It's nice to have the choice but I sincerely agree with you that nowadays a fast aperture is way overrated. In the real world I find it quite useless even in portrait photography. And as a macro photographer I really strive to get the deeper depth of field possible all the time so I tend to have exactly the opposite problem. To each his own I guess :)

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I saw that news too😀 I like those compact primes much better for my photography.

Fast max aperture and on video manual f4 lens :D But yeah, we had f4 lenses and films with sensitivity of DIN 18 (equivalent of ISO 64 I think) and still vere able to shot photos even indoor. I'm using primarly Pentax Limited lenses so relatively slow ones (fastest is f2.4). I checked lately my photos and most are shot at f4 or slower, even on lenses that can go up to 2.4. I rather crank up ISO even if my old DSLR is not the best one above 800 then speed up lens. I always feel that I loose something at high speeds. But then I think I'm not the greatest fan of bokeh :)

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I guess your video is about major lenses manufacturer like Panasonic, Sigma, etc. I suppose, it does not apply to Chinese lenses f 0.95 witch are not really flagship lenses !

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

True, I was mostly talking about the first party lenses😀

One word.....Astrophotography

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks.

For shooting video indoor at night the wider the better. Grainy video sucks.

I couldnt disagree more, I think these lenses are rubbish with appallingly bad optical design. I will go further because of the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM I have dumped Sony, rescued all my classic Nikkors from my legacy drawer and bought a Nikon D780 to use them. It is clear from the decision to make the GM lens that Sony will not be making me a decent usable lens in the near future. I demand good low glass f1.8 primes and with Sony my wide and mid range choice is limited to f2.8 max (24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8 and the mechanically hopeless 50mm f1.8 which is good if you can get it to focus in time; good luck with that) everything else is either huge high glass or full of chromatic aberration. When did Zeiss decide it was a great idea not to correct their lenses for colour? I seem to have missed that moment in time. A decent lens should have no more than 10 glass elements; Olympus Pro lenses are easily the worst (quite a contrast with their wonderful low glass Premium f1.8 primes, wonderful images on my Lumix GX9). Only a company of profound arrogance can design a lens with 17 elements with bokeh so bad that they call it feather bokeh and sell it as a special feature!!! No its a bloody lens aberration! I hate modern over sharp brittle lifeless images with a passion. There is a reason a 7 element Leica f0.95 Noctilux costs £12500; reducing the lens count takes exquisite optics that cost a fortune to produce. its very cheap to simulate this with 18 cheaply manufactured elements made by machine but the deadening effect of too much glass cannot be overcome; the image is degraded by 36 air to glass surfaces. Sharpness is irrelevant as all modern lenses are sharp, speed above f1.4 is irrelevant unless you like portraits that look deformed (yes your brain interprets out of focus facial features as a deformity). The most highly prized lens quality is the ability to separate picture lements that are both in focus and this gives a stunning level of realism that you will never get from any of these high glass modern primes; I am yet to be impressed by any image from a Sony GMaster lens. Anyway , i think the backlash has started, we are now getting lots of low glass high quality primes from the far east and that is what people are buying (I have 2 wonderful Samyang primes). When manufacturers start making decent human scale high end glass for mirrorless I will return but for now I have gone back to my old Nikkors. (This article should probably interest you and explains fully yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics ) P.S. I could add that some of the most powerful and stunning natural light images of the 20thC were taken by the late great Jane Bown using an Olympus OM1 set to f2.8, she would have just laughed at these rubbish lenses, boys toys - winks

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing your extensive and informative opinion.

f1.2 is only a third of the stop more than a f1.4. The problem of this video is that it is coming with the launch of the Sony GM f1.2 which seems to an excellent optic with a nice bokeh , not bigger than the Sony 50 f1.4 and much lighter and smaller than the ....Panasonic 50 f1.4. Regarding price it is not much different than the Pana's one. Sorry Matti

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

No need to be sorry. I'd love to try that Sony, because it's probably an excellent lens😀

@metphmet

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattisulanto There are discussions if it is worth the 500 quids difference to the FE 50f1.4. The Pana is an oustanding lens but really big and heavy. But I understand very well your general point and f1.2 is also a question of prestige.

@mattisulanto

3 жыл бұрын

@@metphmet I'm sure there is that discussion😀