1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

I have the "FF look"

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by MAubrey, Sep 26, 2013.

  1. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Okay...Okay...sorry for the title. It's terrible. It's a gimmick and nothing more.

    What we actually have here is a comparison between a Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4+speedbooster (=41mm f/1) with a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 converted to EF mount, shot at both f/1.2 and at f/2. The Voigtlander should be roughly equivalent to the brand new Voigtlander 42.5mm f/.95--even down to its unique cats eye bokeh (this is still a Voigtlander after all...)

    Some caveats:
    Non-scientific
    No tripod
    Different metering
    3:2 vs. 4:3
    Slightly different angle of view (41mm is 82mm equivalent)

    All I'm really interested in here is making observations about the character of the two lenses and I thought you might be interested.

    Canon 85mm f/1.2@f/2:
    [​IMG]

    _9260014.

    That's not bad at all. The bokeh is a little different, but the amount of blur is the same (as expected). The Canon 85mm has the advantage of already being stopped down by 1.5 stops, so it has significantly less coma than the Voigtlander, which is wide open. The Canon is also sharper with less CA, too (again, its stopped down)...and it has the advantage of an aspherical element, so there's very little "glow" compared to the Voigtlander.

    So what do you gain at f/1.2?

    [​IMG]

    Mostly just bigger circles...but not really that much bigger, I'd say. I think for the most part, the Voigtlander lenses go a long ways in giving us the narrow DOF quite nicely.

    And I'm looking forward to an EF mount speedbooster to put my 85mm f/1.2 on so that I have a 60mm f/.9.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Mu-43 Veteran

    335
    Feb 20, 2010
    I think the Canon shot is dialed in the best- the subject is sharp and contrasty, and sets off very well against rapidly OOF background. For me, that is the 'FF look'.

    The Voigtlander shots looks fine of course as well. The wide open shot may not have enough DOF to hold the entire plant in focus. But that (and the reduced contrast) gives it a nice dreamy look.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    See, for me though, those are qualities that I prefer to avoid at all costs, especially the last one. Having a subject partially out of focus is one of my biggest pet peeves. But then, maybe that's why μ43 is my primary system and my 5D only comes out on the rarest of occasions. Well, there's that, along with weight, lens size, etc...
     
  4. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Here are two more:

    This is a Canon FD 135mm f/2 wide open compared to the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. in this case, the Olympus handily wins the resolution/sharpness competition, as well as the CA battle. It also makes up what is lost in narrow DOF with slightly more subject compression. But again, I think μ43 still does a very good job holding its own:

    Canon FD 135mm f/2
    [​IMG]

    Olympus 75mm f/1.8
    _9260001.

    I would have provided a shot of the 135mm at f/2.8, but it's getting too dark and I didn't want to pull out the tripod.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  5. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Thanks for doing this. Maybe we should start a "fake FF Look" thread. :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Interesting comparison, definitely shows what the Speedbooster can do. What's going on with the top of the fence in the second shot (Voigtlander 58mm? Not good! The third fence shot is definitely a nicer photograph than the second, that is the Voigtlander at f/1.2 yeah?
     
  7. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    The problem with the fence in the second is sloppy editing--all three pictures were exposed for the highlights with pushed shadows with a localized brush in LR. I just didn't put much effort in and it shows particularly in that picture. These are throw away's for comparison; they're going to be deleted within a week.

    The third is the Canon 85mm at f/1.2
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    733
    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    Robert
    What body was used here? Or are you trying to compare both on a m4/3 body, in which case I am confused where the FF comparison comes in. Of course I am confused as to why that comparison is important in the first place.
     
  9. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Thanks for clarifying! Interesting comparison, thanks for posting it!
     
  10. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Hi Don, the 85mm f/1.2 and the 135mm f/2 are both on a Canon 5D and the μ43 body is an E-M5. They're FD lenses, but I've converted them to EF using an EdMika kit.

    Is the comparison important?

    Nope, not really.

    But I do like to know of the equipment that I own what is the best tool for a given job, so if I have two similar lenses, I'm invariably going to compare them at some point. Surely, there are people out there who have compared, say, the Panasonic 25mm to the Voigtlander 25mm. In my mind, this isn't much different than that. Except, I also have two different bodies, too. Typically, in such cases, I just form my opinion alone and then delete the test images. I don't put the comparisons on the internet normally. But since there was such a kerfuffle about the supposed "FF look" I contributed this. I had been meaning to compare these sets of lenses to each other for a while anyway.

    In any case, "Important" and "Interesting" are distinct concepts. And both are very subjective and highly dependent to the person making the evaluation. And you're certainly not expected to find any of these silly photos either important or interesting.