[Clicker]

Thanks for the pictures, I do not have the attention span to do something like this, this will help quite a bit...

My patience isn't any better but this is the first hand-built lens for the Q, i'm just trying to understand it. We are the "guinea pigs" for this lens as i haven't found any other controlled test online other than the sheet included with the lens. As falconeye said, if you are happy with it fine as this is not to dispel anyone's images or abilities to use the lens but only to understand it's character nothing more.

[falconeye]

*edit* falconeye would a lensalign be better than the newspaper?

Lensalign is difficult to focus. It is ok if you run a series and select the one with best focus.

Newspaper (or magazine page) is nice though. At 3m distance, a Q pixel with 25mm is ~0.2mm or 10 pixels per letter. So, text should be sharp and legible (in 100% crops) and the deviations we're going to see are then relevant. Also, should be easy enough to focus manually, just try to read

[Clicker]

Lensalign is difficult to focus. It is ok if you run a series and select the one with best focus.

Newspaper (or magazine page) is nice though. At 3m distance, a Q pixel with 25mm is ~0.2mm or 10 pixels per letter. So, text should be sharp and legible (in 100% crops) and the deviations we're going to see are then relevant. Also, should be easy enough to focus manually, just try to read

Okay thanks and sorry about the late reply i went to bed, time zones have no sympathy for online discussions

There's renovations going on around me so i'll post when time permits again.

[Kirill_est]

I do not understand the point of this limited-edition lens, considering that it reaches the sweet spot only by 4.0, which is not good enough for the small-sensor DOF so I won't get much background blur unless I want the subject to be "foggy" I think was the word used by the designer himself (when shooting at open apertures).

It should either cost half of what it does OR provide top-notch sharpness already at 2.0, like the kit prime does.

[wanderography]

I do not understand the point of this limited-edition lens, considering that it reaches the sweet spot only by 4.0, which is not good enough for the small-sensor DOF so I won't get much background blur unless I want the subject to be "foggy" I think was the word used by the designer himself (when shooting at open apertures).

It should either cost half of what it does OR provide top-notch sharpness already at 2.0, like the kit prime does.

I dont think the prices that the others and I payed were the price of the lens. The person who is selling them sells lots of hard to find things you can only find in japan and sells them for a serious premium price. What we payed for really wasnt for optically the most superior lens in the world, we payed for a one of kind a lens no one else has outside of japan and from what I can see no more else are for sale, and that alone will set are Q pictures apart from everyone elses, which was worth premium price for me, and it's more of a soft look wide open and I happen to really like it gives a magical feel to the images really...

[wanderography]

Ok... original price of the lens is 38,000 yen, thats like 466 bucks. It's I guess sold out in japan too, they sold it at two places I think one still has them in according to this japanese chick on flickr... she said "I purchased this in the Lemon store in Shinjuku but last one.（www.lemonsha.com/）But it is sold also in the store Mapcamera(news.mapcamera.com/sittoku.php?itemid=13500).I bought it 38,000yen."

[Clicker]

I'm getting better at focussing (i wear progressive lenses in glasses, contacts are no longer an option) this lens is great imo for older folks and women.

This was at F2 to get some depth, tack sharp it's not but the image is 'clean" (not sure if that's the right description) without any PP like sharpening etc. I just resized and framed.
Indoors under cool flourescent lighting, i'm going to try and get my neighbours daughter for some outdoor portraits.

My dad is watching curling i couldn't get him to stay quiet for a few seconds...he's watching women curling...i think it's more the women he's interested in lol

---

Last edited by Clicker; 03-05-2012 at 05:37 PM.

[Kirill_est]

Sorry but this does not look good for a full resized image.
I thought it was a 100% crop before I read your explanation.
Maybe you did not nail the focus?

[Clicker]

It's possible (likely), i really have a hard time hand holding and trying to focus especially when the subject isn't static.

Here's one with daylight coming from the window, still F2,resized and framed.

[wanderography]

Sorry but this does not look good for a full resized image.
I thought it was a 100% crop before I read your explanation.
Maybe you did not nail the focus?

His focus is a tad off... I love how everyone judges a lens ability through a non professional photographer, its like asking a grommet at the skate park how his new skates are and throws out a soul grind and your like "it looks like them skates stick when sliding" no, just the kid is new on them skates... I posted images on my blog of the lens, it stays sharp, but below f4 things get this "glow" around them and thats what I think miyazaki meant by "foggy" below f4, guessing ruff japanese translation... The lens is super sharp, but if you have shaky hands, bad eyes you shouldnt be using a manual lens on the Q (shit if you have shaky hands and bad eyes photography is not for you anyways) I'm not gonna lie, military explained to me how my depth perception is inhuman and my eyesight is that of an american bald eagle so focusing is actually a joke for me with any lens and any camera and dont see the big deal in this focusing or the big fuss about the shit auto focus that plagues every camera to date, but like I said I believe photography is for people who can actually SEE and FOCUS on this world, not for old guys running around with $10,000 cameras to blast it point and shoot style locked in auto focus...

[eddie1960]

His focus is a tad off... I love how everyone judges a lens ability through a non professional photographer, its like asking a grommet at the skate park how his new skates are and throws out a soul grind and your like "it looks like them skates stick when sliding" no, just the kid is new on them skates... I posted images on my blog of the lens, it stays sharp, but below f4 things get this "glow" around them and thats what I think miyazaki meant by "foggy" below f4, guessing ruff japanese translation... The lens is super sharp, but if you have shaky hands, bad eyes you shouldnt be using a manual lens on the Q (shit if you have shaky hands and bad eyes photography is not for you anyways) I'm not gonna lie, military explained to me how my depth perception is inhuman and my eyesight is that of an american bald eagle so focusing is actually a joke for me with any lens and any camera and dont see the big deal in this focusing or the big fuss about the shit auto focus that plagues every camera to date, but like I said I believe photography is for people who can actually SEE and FOCUS on this world, not for old guys running around with $10,000 cameras to blast it point and shoot style locked in auto focus...

sharp from f4 is not why people would buy it though is it. people want it for dof and the 1.1 aperture, if it glows below f4 then it loses it's purpose to many though it may be cool to use gfor other purposes
As for the old guys shouldn't be using taking photos blather you are a complete twat and just managed to insult what has to be at least 25% of the forum members many of whom have shot since before you were born. so you have good eyesight well bully for you. I've got news for you it probably won't last unless you are incredibly lucky. I had amazing eyesight when i was younger but since 45 it's been slowly deteriorating (not half as bad as some here) to the point that i now need a +3.0 diopter on my camera plus some of the built in diopter to focus properly. at some point I'll be relegated to glasses full time, but i'm not likely to give up on something that has been a passion for almost 40 years
looking at some of your posts you really are a rude little prick
guess that is what the ignore list is for

[wanderography]

sharp from f4 is not why people would buy it though is it. people want it for dof and the 1.1 aperture, if it glows below f4 then it loses it's purpose to many though it may be cool to use gfor other purposes
As for the old guys shouldn't be using taking photos blather you are a complete twat and just managed to insult what has to be at least 25% of the forum members many of whom have shot since before you were born. so you have good eyesight well bully for you. I've got news for you it probably won't last unless you are incredibly lucky. I had amazing eyesight when i was younger but since 45 it's been slowly deteriorating (not half as bad as some here) to the point that i now need a +3.0 diopter on my camera plus some of the built in diopter to focus properly. at some point I'll be relegated to glasses full time, but i'm not likely to give up on something that has been a passion for almost 40 years
looking at some of your posts you really are a rude little prick
guess that is what the ignore list is for

Na, I just keep it real man, I'm going on 30 in 3 years, served in the US air force, taught martial arts, was an accomplished skater, I've done a lot in this life and I see a lot of people bitch over the little things in life mainly old disgruntled shits like yourself, I quit skating cause my knees got bad, I left the military because I became allergic to the chemicals I worked with, if your sight sucks give up cause auto focus is shit, thats what I'm saying pretty much... Good luck with the health issues...

[Kirill_est]

Any half-decent lens is sharp at 4.0 But from the lens of this maximum aperture and price AND TARGET SENSOR SIZE I would expect it to be very sharp at around 1.8-2.0 already. I doubt that the Q kit prime lens is much more sophisticated optically or made from better glass? I also doubt it would be priced as high if sold separately, although if it did and was unavailable in the kit, I'd be prepared to buy it because it is worth it.

[Clicker]

Okay guys stop arguing, it's useless arguing online and i should know but slowly taking my own advice. I'm just trying to find some good shots with this lens while sharing it's qualities for those who may or may not be thinking about getting it. I'm not trying to win any awards here, the thread is about the Sonnetar everyone's opinions are welcomed. I have major renovations going on in this house as you see my dad is in his jacket because the heating contract hasn't put in our furnace...lol SO i haven't really taken the time to shoot within some people's expectations, probably never will but i'm after memories, if some people can understand that?
I'm trying to keep things "impersonal"
Criticism good or bad is not my strong point (my spelling fails me sometimes too...lol)

I just got back from the cinema, watched "SafeHouse"...i swear they were using this Sonnetar to film the quality was similar if not the same as my first pic of my dad...lol

Anyhow could we please kiss and make up and move on, let's just keep shooting and posting

[wanderography]

Okay guys stop arguing, it's useless arguing online and i should know but slowly taking my own advice. I'm just trying to find some good shots with this lens while sharing it's qualities for those who may or may not be thinking about getting it. I'm not trying to win any awards here, the thread is about the Sonnetar everyone's opinions are welcomed. I have major renovations going on in this house as you see my dad is in his jacket because the heating contract hasn't put in our furnace...lol SO i haven't really taken the time to shoot within some people's expectations, probably never will but i'm after memories, if some people can understand that?
I'm trying to keep things "impersonal"
Criticism good or bad is not my strong point (my spelling fails me sometimes too...lol)

I just got back from the cinema, watched "SafeHouse"...i swear they were using this Sonnetar to film the quality was similar if not the same as my first pic of my dad...lol

Anyhow could we please kiss and make up and move on, let's just keep shooting and posting

And before I got into that arguing match I was going to say that last image I liked a lot, it has the what I now call "sonnetar glow" that I really like... a tad bit sharper focus to sharpen the center of the face and it'd be perfect... I seem to only really get the glow at like f2 and below, I mentioned earlier f4 but I was stating the instructions it came with...