Two Legacies

Started Jan 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
verybiglebowski Veteran Member • Posts: 3,982
Re: Two Legacies

PVCdroid wrote:

verybiglebowski wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:

Thank you everyone, and especially verbiglebowski for the images and the resolution charts. It looks like on the A7r the Zeiss outresolves the Canon, but I wonder if in the real world there would be any noticeable difference, especially since I will be using it on the Nex 7, probably with a SB. I am curious to hear about your preference for the FD, any particular reasons?


My preference for Canon FDn 50/1.4 is based on the fact that it is f/1.4 and cheaper than Plannar f/1.7. From my previous observations on NEX 7 -, I found it sharpest in the center at f/1.4, while Plannar 50/1.4 was slightly better on the borders.To be sure, I calculated MTF50 just to confirm my visual perception.

The border superiority of the Plannar (f/1.7 in this case) is even more visible on FF according to recently posted samples, but in the center of the frame, I am not so sure. If there is difference between the two, I wouldn't say it is field relevant.

If I find time, I might check MTF figures, or anyone can do it from posted samples. (Please note, that unlike when publishing results on my blog, sample shots that I took for you, weren't critically aligned and I had only one or two focus attempts. As a result, slight focus shifts are possible...)



I bookmarked your blog. It's a good reference point.


I bought a NEX 5N a couple weeks ago and the seller threw in a Canon FDn 50mm 1.4. I didn't realize what I had until I put it on and shot a few with my NEX-7 and the 5N. I was so surprised at how well peaking worked on it and started researching only to realize it was something special.

Lucky you

I do have the SEL5018 and it does a very good job but it's fun to work with legacy lenses sometimes.

SEL 5018 is also very nice lens. I personally like it very much.

I'm not sure why bokeh is criticized on the Canon though. It looks very good to me.

Bokeh is very subjective and its perception depends more on your background, distance and lighting, than on the lens character. But when you put more lenses next to each other and shot in the same conditions, you might start to realize differences in quality and not in quantity of the blurred area.

Quite some time ago, I took few shots with NEX, at 50mm and f/1.8 with different lenses, and uploaded them here in the gallery.

When you look at them without direct comparison, most of them looks good/nice. But when you switch between FDn 50/1.4 and EF 50/1.2L i.e., you will see the difference (at the same aperture, lighting, distance etc.)

I find most of popular 50/1.4 lenses to have indifferent bokeh, with some having it more nervous than the others. FDn 50/1.4 is somewhere in between.

But I like more characteristic rendering, such as already mentioned EF 50/1.2 or on contrary, MOG Primoplan 55/1.9 .

Bokeh is however always about personnel preferences and nothing more. There is no good or bad.

-- hide signature --

Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!

 verybiglebowski's gear list:verybiglebowski's gear list
Sony a7R Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 Zeiss Otus 85mm F1.4 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow