Best 50mm-ish lens to pair with Sigma 18-35mm

[TwoScoops]

5 minutes ago, meanwhile said:

Thanks, but would be too much trouble for you - I'm willing to settle for being approximate on fl.

I'm sure I've seen your stills port - which is great - before. ...Did you recently shoot with a model who uses the online name Bluesy?  This is my stills port http://ilikeicicles.weebly.com/

Thanks.  I'll have a look. No I don't know a Bluesy.

[meanwhile]

1 minute ago, TwoScoops said:

Thanks.  I'll have a look. No I don't know a Bluesy.

Must be a coincidence - I checked and she mailed me about shooting commercial style shots for her book with some guy called Chris in the NW asking me to look at his port, and then I probably saw your igram for some other reason. Weirder things happen - I look like a clone of Trotsky, bar the nose, and I used to hang out with a guy who only had to put a piece of black tape beneath his nose to look like Hitler...

[Nikkor]

Contax 50 1.7

[meanwhile]

6 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Contax 50 1.7

Isn't this the Zeiss/Vlander/Rollei under another name? And it probably sells as a Yashica as well...?

[mercer]

38 minutes ago, meanwhile said:

Isn't this the Zeiss/Vlander/Rollei under another name? And it probably sells as a Yashica as well...?

Not really... without a doubt the Contax Zeiss is the best of the bunch. And quite frankly one of the best lenses I've ever used. In all honesty, with the GX80 you'd be better off with the Contax Zeiss 50mm 1.7, the 25mm or 28mm f/2.8 and a Turbo II, than with the Sigma 18-35mm. That lens is going to be big, heavy and unbalanced on the GX80 and you can always use your feet to zoom.

[meanwhile]

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

Not really... without a doubt the Contax Zeiss is the best of the bunch. 

I'm fairly sure that they're literally the same lens with a different name on. The sample variation due to lens history - bumps etc - is going to drown out any reasonable performance distances. The HFT and T* coating are impossible to tell apart - and often the Rollei branded versions were produced at Zeiss with Zeiss's coating -

http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html
 

Quote

 

That lens is going to be big, heavy and unbalanced on the GX80 and you can always use your feet to zoom.

 

Foot zooming doesn't work. Trust me; I'm a stills shooter. If you move forwards to make Mr Stallone occupy as much foreground with your 50mm as  he would have done with a 100mm, he now has a different relationship to the background. Read eg

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/20/zooming-feet-not-zooming-lens/

FLs are a fundamental stylising choice for this reason. Eg Daido Moriyama is a 28mm shooter and Bresson a 50mm; DM is punk rock and HCB is a chamber quartet. If I need to balance a camera out with a heavy lens, then it won't be the first time. But focal length is fundamental.

[mercer]

Just now, meanwhile said:

I'm fairly sure that they're literally the same lens with a different name on. Often from the same factory.

I'm fairly sure they're not. The ONLY similarity are reports that some batches used the same glass, but the other construction elements could be and most likely are entirely different... otherwise they would all fetch the Contax prices. Plus with the Contax, some were made in Germany and some were made in Japan... so they were not all made in the same factory.

Either way, the Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7 is an inexpensive lens that is excellent for video, some would say the Contax Zeiss is a legendary lens. Why fight it when it so reasonably priced?

I wish I had these suggestions when I started out, I wouldn't be sitting on a couple dozen lenses I never use.., I'd have either a set of Nikkors (which I have now) a set of Minoltas (I have a few) or a set of Contax Zeiss (I want them but don't particularly need them)

If you want to go a little cheaper, there's always the Zeiss Jena M42 lenses. The 35mm f2.4 is another legendary lens. And the 50mm f2.8 is one of the cheapest, most stunning lenses you'll ever find. Pair them with a Turbo II and you're set. They also have a 20mm f2.8 that is very highly regarded.

[meanwhile]

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

I'm fairly sure they're not. The ONLY similarity are reports that some batches used the same glass, but the other construction elements could be and most likely are entirely different... otherwise they would all fetch the Contax prices.

The same vintage lens price varies on whether the lens has an all-black finish or black and silver. So no.

 

Quote

If you want to go a little cheaper, there's always the Zeiss Jena M42 lenses. The 35mm f2.4 is another legendary lens. And the 50mm f2.8 is one of the cheapest, most stunning lenses you'll ever find. Pair them with a Turbo II and you're set. They also have a 20mm f2.8 that is very highly regarded.

They're really nice lenses but won't give me the FLs I want. The East German Pentacons are nice too, but there's the same problem. I need - well, want - at least a 28mm equivalent - and 24mm would be better. This might sound fussy, but that's stills people for you...This how I think of a wide:

Quote

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/11/pet-peeve-proper-perspective-practice/

They are NOT to ‘get more into the picture’ or ‘get closer’. That’s absolutely the wrong way to shoot, and will result in far-away looking and very, very boring images.

Why?

It’s all about perspectives. A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, as the name suggests. This means, that things closer to the lens will be exaggerated in perspective compared to things further away; simply because the foreground subjects of a given size occupy a larger percentage of the field of view. A telephoto lens compresses perspectives; which is to say, a mountain 5km away will appear to be about the same size as one 10km away, because the angle of view of the lens is narrow, and both mountains occupy similar proportions of it – despite the difference in subject distance. It also helps that because of the higher magnification of a long focal length, your subjects are naturally going to have to be much further away.

 

 

A 28mm is for doing shots like this

..A 50mm with the same amount of subject would have had a tighter background without the strong diagonals and the subject wouldn't have had the distorted nose etc that cues a viewer that she is inside personal space. This shot is a Moriyama. Winogrand was another great 28mm shooter.

 

[mercer]

I understand the concept and that foot zooming isn't the same... it's just a figure of speech videographers tell other videographers when they want zoom lenses instead of primes.

And again, they are 100% not  the same lens. The Rollei's were based on a Zeiss design but never manufactured by Zeiss and I don't think they even used Zeiss glass. They were made in Singapore by Voigtlander and Rollei. The Contax Zeiss glass are official Zeiss lenses made in West Germany and then in Japan by Yashica. Some Yashica ML lenses are purported to use leftover glass from the Zeiss runs since they were made in the same factory.

[cantsin]

All this discussion is moot IMHO because no lens from the 1970s and 1980s, not even the best one, will render images like a contemporary Sigma Art or Zeiss with their extremely high resolution (4K optical resolution even on APS-C sensors) and high contrast image rendering. Today's high-end glass and lens coatings contain nano technology that wasn't available back in that time. The optical constructions of a lens like the Sigma Art or Zeiss Otis is significantly more complex than that of DSLR lenses in the past (which is why these newer lenses are bigger and heavier). The fact that you can shoot a Sigma Art/Zeiss with open aperture (at f1.8 or less) without major blur/lens softness was unheard of in that time. In addition, these modern lenses are optimized for electronic sensors whereas 1970s/1980s lens designs were optimized for film.

[anonim]

4 hours ago, meanwhile said:

Isn't this the Zeiss/Vlander/Rollei under another name? And it probably sells as a Yashica as well...?

Mostly the same, except 50mm 1.7 and 1.4 CY. Everything is well presented in this summary for Rolleiflex Zeiss lenses, plus these with Voigtlander sign.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Rolleiflex_SL35_lenses

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

All this discussion is moot IMHO because no lens from the 1970s and 1980s, not even the best one, will render images like a contemporary Sigma Art or Zeiss with their extremely high resolution (4K optical resolution even on APS-C sensors) and high contrast image rendering. Today's high-end glass and lens coatings contain nano technology that wasn't available back in that time. The optical constructions of a lens like the Sigma Art or Zeiss Otis is significantly more complex than that of DSLR lenses in the past (which is why these newer lenses are bigger and heavier). The fact that you can shoot a Sigma Art/Zeiss with open aperture (at f1.8 or less) without major blur/lens softness was unheard of in that time. In addition, these modern lenses are optimized for electronic sensors whereas 1970s/1980s lens designs were optimized for film.

There are serious discussion about modern sharp vs microcontrast lens trend.

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

[meanwhile]

1 hour ago, anonim said:

There are serious discussion about modern sharp vs microcontrast lens trend.

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

The author of that discussion certainly wants to be taken seriously. But, no, it's a joke and he's incompetent.

The main reason modern primes have more elements than older lenses is the switch from digital to film. He's too bloody ignorant to know this and too stupid to any research, but film accepts light from any angle whereas the thick filter - often 4mm deep - in front of a sensor means that it only sees light travelling parallel to the lens access - because the filter consists of long narrow tunnels like a lighting grid. This change in requirements adds a lot of extra elements, especially to fast lenses. If you don't have these elements then, with a digital sensor, contrast goes down, not up as Mr Stupid thinks. (This is why people who want to shoot vintage wide angles have the filters on A7's thinned, even though it reduces performance in other ways.)

It would be one thing the silly man actually addressed the above and disagreed - but he's too ignorant to even know the basics of subject he's ranting about. This is example of

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

..Which, yes, was discovered by the character from Archer. (True story: I look enough like Trotsky that people can't tell us apart except from the nose. And he's dead. And the friend I sat next to during my masters degree turned out to look just like Hitler - only no one noticed until he put a piece of black tape on his upper lip. Which won't make seem relevant unless you watch Archer, but there you go.)

 

[jcs]

55 minutes ago, meanwhile said:

The author of that discussion certainly wants to be taken seriously. But, no, it's a joke and he's incompetent.

The main reason modern primes have more elements than older lenses is the switch from digital to film. He's too bloody ignorant to know this and too stupid to any research, but film accepts light from any angle whereas the thick filter - often 4mm deep - in front of a sensor means that it only sees light travelling parallel to the lens access - because the filter consists of long narrow tunnels like a lighting grid. This change in requirements adds a lot of extra elements, especially to fast lenses. If you don't have these elements then, with a digital sensor, contrast goes down, not up as Mr Stupid thinks. (This is why people who want to shoot vintage wide angles have the filters on A7's thinned, even though it reduces performance in other ways.)

It would be one thing the silly man actually addressed the above and disagreed - but he's too ignorant to even know the basics of subject he's ranting about. This is example of

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

..Which, yes, was discovered by the character from Archer.

 

While I agree with you the information posted on that site is not based on science and the points made are not valid, when one focuses most of their energy on attacking the character of the person vs. what they say, it vastly diminishes one's credibility and projects lack of self esteem: perception is projection. With our planet on the verge of another world world (possibly nuclear), it is in our best interest at every level to figure out how to be kind to each other and work together, to help each other non-competitively. Tough times are ahead- the cat's out of the bag regarding global banking and its current state (crypto currency is a reaction to the problem and may not solve it). It's in our best interest to prevent more division, instead promote unity and helping each other, as that's the best chance of preventing the next big disaster or helping us to survive and heal if it cannot be prevented. While it's important to be aware of negative things such as war and global financial collapse, it's more important to be thinking about living in harmony, as our thoughts do indeed change reality in ways that are currently beyond our scientific understanding: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/implications.html

Here's a challenge for everyone: don't put anyone down or project negativity for a week. Smile at everyone you see. Meditate at least 10 minutes every day (it's easy once you start doing it regularly). See how people treat you differently and how your life and outlook on life changes. I'm not perfect and this post is a reminder for myself to practice the same.

On the topic of contrast, micro contrast, and resolution, it's all the same thing, the ability to measure differences / deltas / changes at multiple frequencies, from low to high. MTF charts and shooting lens charts are useful tools for showing lens performance without pseudoscience. The lens effect you mention regarding parallel light is collimation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator, https://oceanoptics.com/product-category/collimating-lenses/.

For aesthetic and artistic appeal, these kinds of tests are helpful: http://www.thehurlblog.com/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/, http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-online-why-do-we-want-flat-glass/. We can see that defects and artifacts can be appealing, depending on the intended use of the lenses and projects.

[meanwhile]

1 hour ago, jcs said:

While I agree with you the information posted on that site is not based on science and the points made are not valid, when one focuses most of their energy on attacking the character of the person vs. what they say

If you make an effort to spam the Internet with idiotic theories without making any attempt to research the subject you are ranting about, you are an idiot. Full stop. No one needs to be polite about this. If the guy had made any effort to actually learn the basics of the subject, no matter how incompetently, then he would have deserved some respect. But shouting as loudly as possible without making any attempt at gaining knowledge first deserves contempt. 

[Emanuel]

On 01/08/2017 at 6:31 PM, cantsin said:

All this discussion is moot IMHO because no lens from the 1970s and 1980s, not even the best one, will render images like a contemporary Sigma Art or Zeiss with their extremely high resolution (4K optical resolution even on APS-C sensors) and high contrast image rendering. Today's high-end glass and lens coatings contain nano technology that wasn't available back in that time. The optical constructions of a lens like the Sigma Art or Zeiss Otis is significantly more complex than that of DSLR lenses in the past (which is why these newer lenses are bigger and heavier). The fact that you can shoot a Sigma Art/Zeiss with open aperture (at f1.8 or less) without major blur/lens softness was unheard of in that time. In addition, these modern lenses are optimized for electronic sensors whereas 1970s/1980s lens designs were optimized for film.

Even though, a very distinct look for sure... ;-)

[meanwhile]

Quote

 

cantsin said:

All this discussion is moot IMHO because no lens from the 1970s and 1980s, not even the best one, will render images like a contemporary Sigma Art or Zeiss with their extremely high resolution (4K optical resolution even on APS-C sensors) and high contrast image rendering. Today's high-end glass and lens coatings contain nano technology that wasn't available back in that time. The optical constructions of a lens like the Sigma Art or Zeiss Otis is significantly more complex than that of DSLR lenses in the past (which is why these newer lenses are bigger and heavier). The fact that you can shoot a Sigma Art/Zeiss with open aperture (at f1.8 or less) without major blur/lens softness was unheard of in that time. In addition, these modern lenses are optimized for electronic sensors whereas 1970s/1980s lens designs were optimized for film

 

The above is about 70% correct but no more and it's interesting to consider why -

- "Nano tech coatings" - this is just marketing; nano has just been added as a cool word. You can claim any damn coating to nanotech because it contains molecules and that's how big they are. Coatings were already excellent quite a long time ago, since then it's been a case of chasing diminishing returns

- "Modern lenses are optimized for electronic sensors whereas 1970s/1980s lens designs were optimized for film" Yes, but also no. The main change is that rays have to more parallel to the lens axis when they hit a digital sensor because of the filter stack. But

-- This generally isn't a significant problem for anything but wides

-- It generally isn't a problem if you sample only the centre of a lens

-- A well-designed focal length reducer could well design around the problem and correct the rays (I haven't checked)

-- Filter stack thickness varies by something like a factor of five. The deeper the stack, the more parallel the rays have to be. So it is quite possible that a lens designed for a thin stack digital will have the same problems as a film lens on a thick stack camera, especially if the lens is a wide and the sensor sizes are the same. I think a Nikon lens on a Sony body might have this problem and therefore reduced contrast at the edges of the frame, but I can't be bothered to google for stack thicknesses

- The main improvement in lens performance has come from the use of more complex grinds thanks to computer controlled machinery and different "glasses" with balancing characteristics. And improved quality control for better quality per cost - Sigma are probably the best example here with their Foveon based lens testing and aggressive use of plastic lens mountings that are designed to either by perfect or to destruct when their elements are mounted.

 

[meanwhile]

A much better discussion of filter stack thickness than I'm capable  of

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/08/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-summary/

[PannySVHS]

@meanwhile, have you been a member of this forum before and have you been an exited and avid Canon Ti shooter with

interest in lens modding?

[meanwhile]

35 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

@meanwhile, have you been a member of this forum before and have you been an exited and avid Canon Ti shooter with

interest in lens modding?

No. I opened a profile years ago and never used it until now. And I don't have the hands on skills for lens modding. I wish I did!

I can sound relatively expert on a lot of technical subjects fast because I'm a good researcher and used to doing things like technical audits on business plans. So when got interested in stills about 18 months ago I realised at a certain point that dpreview type tests and mtfs were insufficient, wondered why film looked different digital, and spent a few hours doing research.

Other interesting things I realised:

- Sample variation of some lens designs with can be huge. Naturally marketing picks the best ones out to send to out on loan to reviewers... (The zooomier a lens and the faster, the bigger the scope for variation - even more so if the lens includes a sub 35mm FL on fullframe DSLRs, because then a lot of complexity gets added to work around the mirror box.)

- DSLR focus accuracy varies considerably and poorer focus costs resolution. These losses are eliminated from most tests. (Mirrorless cameras don't have this problem.)

The best site for interesting articles on camera tech is lensrentals.com, if anyone fancies a really good nerd-out. Some of their best articles -

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/01/cooking-with-glass/

Re. coatings https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/12/reflections-on-reflections-the-most-important-part-of-your-lens/

 

 

[anonim]

On 8/1/2017 at 9:02 PM, meanwhile said:

The author of that discussion certainly wants to be taken seriously. But, no, it's a joke and he's incompetent.

The main reason modern primes have more elements than older lenses is the switch from digital to film. He's too bloody ignorant to know this and too stupid to any research, but film accepts light from any angle whereas the thick filter - often 4mm deep - in front of a sensor means that it only sees light travelling parallel to the lens access - because the filter consists of long narrow tunnels like a lighting grid. This change in requirements adds a lot of extra elements, especially to fast lenses. If you don't have these elements then, with a digital sensor, contrast goes down, not up as Mr Stupid thinks. (This is why people who want to shoot vintage wide angles have the filters on A7's thinned, even though it reduces performance in other ways.)

It would be one thing the silly man actually addressed the above and disagreed - but he's too ignorant to even know the basics of subject he's ranting about. This is example of

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

..Which, yes, was discovered by the character from Archer. (True story: I look enough like Trotsky that people can't tell us apart except from the nose. And he's dead. And the friend I sat next to during my masters degree turned out to look just like Hitler - only no one noticed until he put a piece of black tape on his upper lip. Which won't make seem relevant unless you watch Archer, but there you go.)

 

Well, I'm not sure about all remarks of so-call MrStupid, but I've found that Sigma Art series lenses indeed are too contrasty and price paid for first impression of clinically 'clean' image is, in fact, losing some fine latitude. So I've sold it. And it seems I'm not that only one - look for examples discussion about comparison with Contax-Zeiss lenses (which are btw favorized also by mr Stupid )

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide/page290