|
Matt Golowczynski
DPReview Contributor
Lives in
London, United Kingdom
Has a website at
https://www.mattgolowczynski.com
Joined on
Sep 27, 2011
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |
| Piled Up by chrisby from Blue & Red | Standing in the way of control by Mikey Dee from Walking the Darker Side of Town | The Blues Singer by cjf2 from Color me Wild - Shades of Blue | Mirrored Pen Tip by RyanB123 from Writing utensils - Still Life | The perfect couple by ruley74 from A Big Year - Birds 2022 |
Strolic Furlan: Good job Matt! Great pic.
Thank you very much, Strolic!
Fog Maker: I always been a huge fan of the 85mm 1.2 II and written quite a lot about on here.
However, that kind of photography where parts of the face is out of focus doesn’t look good in 2019. ‘Buttery’ shots is not what people are looking for these days and it seldom translates well into smaller displays, not to mention huge prints.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to this survey, would you?
Flashback: Impressive images Matt. Love that contrast. No doubt about it Canon know how to make a lens. . .
Thank you!
BrentSchumer: Matt you have a pleasing eye; please do more camera testing!
You're very kind – thank you, Brent!
drummercam: Focus ring: "It’s well damped and works through its focusing range in roughly a third of a rotation. This might not sound like much, but its 80mm diameter means it still travels a fair distance between its extremes."
That second sentence really seems to be inventing a negative. It's like saying that a mere third of Earth's orbit around the sun, given the orbit's huge diameter, still takes a long four months. I don't get the point. Is there a practical upshot here regarding the pitch of the focusing helical? Or a real-world, practical drawback to the chosen helical pitch? Is manual focusing or quick-shift re-focus affected by the fact that a one-third rotation at an 80mm diameter travels 83.77mm? Is, say, a 70mm travel "better"? What does changing the pitch of the helical to get 70mm (or any other "better" value) of rotational focus travel do to the rest of the lens design? Is it not possible that a one-third rotational focus ring travel on this lens is in fact perfect?
"Is it not possible that a one-third rotational focus ring travel on this lens is in fact perfect?"
The point was that it's absolutely fine, considering that other lenses – in particular, focus-by-wire types – may require more of a turn to run from the MFD to infinity (which, in turn, may make it easier to adjust focus in finer increments). Less inventing a negative, more highlighting a positive.
drummercam: Not "costly" compared to some other contemporaneous FF 1.4's. Much less expensive than some, in fact.
Nor "bulky." 72mm front thread here versus others at 77mm.
Anyone buying this lens knows how to easily deal with LoCA.
Ergonomics/handlng at 80%? How arbitrary. This video [https://youtu.be/lp-JipCtRPQ] shows Thorsten Overgaard calling quick-shift manual focus adjustments on Leica CL lenses useful and "unique" (7:51 forward). IDK how "unique" quick shift refocus is among the other DSLR 50's with which this lens competes, but it's a good handling feature that apparently is outweighed by the tester's odd way bumping AF/MF switches.
Ribbed rubber focus rings are more "comfortable" than the dimples here? Crazy talk. The Pentax dimpled focus/zoom/body ring rubber material is an excellent, robust, lens-protective material.
Class leading imaging is all that one needs to know here. Its other features follow suit perfectly, regardless of arbitrary detractions.
@Drummercam - I'm glad you enjoyed the images. Dimples vs ribs is not a deal-breaker, and the fact that this wasn't listed in 'Cons' shows you how little this ultimately matters to a prospective buyer. But why should that mean it's not worth commenting on in the copy? This is an excellent lens with excellent sharpness and excellent control over most aberrations. The copy makes this very clear. But it suffers from noticeable loCA and that's potentially an issue when you consider how this lens is likely to be used. This isn't a faultless lens – optically or otherwise – and your original comment seems to imply it was unjust to highlight its weaknesses. I'm not really sure I can do anything about that - perhaps we can just agree to disagree here?
drummercam: Not "costly" compared to some other contemporaneous FF 1.4's. Much less expensive than some, in fact.
Nor "bulky." 72mm front thread here versus others at 77mm.
Anyone buying this lens knows how to easily deal with LoCA.
Ergonomics/handlng at 80%? How arbitrary. This video [https://youtu.be/lp-JipCtRPQ] shows Thorsten Overgaard calling quick-shift manual focus adjustments on Leica CL lenses useful and "unique" (7:51 forward). IDK how "unique" quick shift refocus is among the other DSLR 50's with which this lens competes, but it's a good handling feature that apparently is outweighed by the tester's odd way bumping AF/MF switches.
Ribbed rubber focus rings are more "comfortable" than the dimples here? Crazy talk. The Pentax dimpled focus/zoom/body ring rubber material is an excellent, robust, lens-protective material.
Class leading imaging is all that one needs to know here. Its other features follow suit perfectly, regardless of arbitrary detractions.
@Alex Sarbu - No problem at all, you're very welcome! My focusing ring of the moment is probably the one found on the Panasonic 24-105mm f/4 Macro OIS. Not as grippy as the one here, perhaps, but a delight for the digits nonetheless.
drummercam: Not "costly" compared to some other contemporaneous FF 1.4's. Much less expensive than some, in fact.
Nor "bulky." 72mm front thread here versus others at 77mm.
Anyone buying this lens knows how to easily deal with LoCA.
Ergonomics/handlng at 80%? How arbitrary. This video [https://youtu.be/lp-JipCtRPQ] shows Thorsten Overgaard calling quick-shift manual focus adjustments on Leica CL lenses useful and "unique" (7:51 forward). IDK how "unique" quick shift refocus is among the other DSLR 50's with which this lens competes, but it's a good handling feature that apparently is outweighed by the tester's odd way bumping AF/MF switches.
Ribbed rubber focus rings are more "comfortable" than the dimples here? Crazy talk. The Pentax dimpled focus/zoom/body ring rubber material is an excellent, robust, lens-protective material.
Class leading imaging is all that one needs to know here. Its other features follow suit perfectly, regardless of arbitrary detractions.
With respect, "excellent, robust, lens-protective material" is not exactly the opposite of "comfortable to operate". All of these can co-exist.
Similarly, stating the filter thread's diameter tells you very little about how bulky the lens is considered as a whole, particularly as the diameter of the outer barrel will be wider than this.
It was also stressed that the issue with the AF/MF switch was not an issue with the lens itself, more an observation. Other lenses have switches that are more flush with their outer barrels, which, together with their overall design and weight, may make them less susceptible to this.