[deus ursus]

Going to f/1.n really limits DOF. I see new bodies {my KP gives good images at 12800 or even higher} as the answer to churches, castles, etc.

I agree. I was just arguing against flash/monopod as an alternative to a wide aperture.

Otherwise, to me edge-to-edge sharpness is more important in binoculars and rifle scopes than in photographic optics.

[normhead]

I'm not surprised.

From what I can recall of your photos there are no flat surfaces where you hang out...

You have very specific requirements which you know but constantly forget in these discussion. Others have different specific requirements. Ours probably only overlap in that we occasionally shoot portraits. Portrait lenses are my longest lenses...

Did you even read my post?
I specifically covered the fact that folks may have different needs and that any lens used to its strengths can be the best lens for the job. I've shot buildings with tilt shift view cameras, with wide angles, with my my Sigma 8-16 rectilinear, with my DA 55 and many other lenses. I've shot nature, I've shot portraits, I've shot commercial studio, I've shot macros with both bellows and tubes, I've done copy and restoration work. I'm not sure what it is you've taken images of I might not have experience with. I don't forget anything.

But feel free to elaborate on the specifics of your shooting style that I may have overlooked.

Id'd specifically be interested in situations where the difference between the 50 1.4 and 55 1.4 will make a difference to you. In professional situations good lenses are insurance, "best chance for the best shot" if it's heavy and large, it doesn't matter, the tripod is heavier and larger. But often, another cheaper lens would have produced the same image. For an amateur, "the best image most of the time with a cheaper more versatile lens " is often the best solution.

Shooting buildings at 1.4 isn't going to do it, because that's not something i can in good conscience recommend. But as always, I'll change my mind if you can show me something desirable in an image. I doubt I could even find an image of a building taken at ƒ1.4, or even ƒ4. Buildings don't move. There's little excuse for not shooting ƒ5.6 on tripod and longer exposure. I usually look at the lens charts and shoot at the sharpest f stop. That has never once on any lens been ƒ 1.4, so shooting for sharpness, edge or centre, my advice would be shoot ƒ2.8, ƒ4 or probably ƒ5.6 or on FF even ƒ8 will do. Absolute sharpness and ƒ1.4 don't usually go in the same sentence, either edge to edge or centre. Shooting ƒ1.4 that boat has already sailed.

The centre of the DFA at ƒ1.4 is 2682 lw/ph measured in PC magazine. The edge at ƒ11 is 2975. The edges at f11 are sharper than the centre at ƒ1.4, so do you want sharpness or don't you?

[reh321]

I'm not surprised.

From what I can recall of your photos there are no flat surfaces where you hang out...

You have very specific requirements which you know but constantly forget in these discussion. Others have different specific requirements. Ours probably only overlap in that we occasionally shoot portraits. Portrait lenses are my longest lenses...

Very few of us photograph flat surfaces;
even someone who does discovers that the end of a flat surface is farther away from the camera than the closest spot is.

[Breakfastographer]

I have two of those

It is not the biggest 50 1.4 That goes to the zeiss milvus:



But although being about the same size as the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art it has twice the weight. (If camerasize.com's numbers are correct). It probably has as much glass in it as the milvus has.

With apologies if this has already been pointed out, but that comparison is apples and bananas. The Milvus is shown with the hood, the others without it. Without the Milvus hood, the Pentax looks to be the joint longest with the Sigma, BUT the flagship lens from Zeiss is the Otus, not the Milvus, so... apples and bananas, like I said.

---

Last edited by Breakfastographer; 01-09-2019 at 08:30 AM. Reason: longest, not largest, to be precise

[normhead]

With apologies if this has already been pointed out, but that comparison is apples and bananas. The Milvus is shown with the hood, the others without it. Without the Milvus hood, the Pentax looks to be the joint longest with the Sigma, BUT the flagship lens from Zeiss is the Otus, not the Milvus, so... apples and bananas, like I said.

There's a 50mm Otus? Please elaborate. What's the weight and size?
Just cause we would never want to compare apples and oranges.

[Kunzite]

There's a 55mm Otus - close enough for all practical purposes

[RonHendriks1966]

There's a 55mm Otus - close enough for all practical purposes

A new dilemma. ....should people crop their images to 50mm or take a step back?

[swanlefitte]

Very few of us photograph flat surfaces;
even someone who does discovers that the end of a flat surface is farther away from the camera than the closest spot is.

But focus planes are flat not curved. And if they were not the difference is in the circle of confusion, at least on apsc. If fov is 14 degrees I will have to step back so far to get a 20m wall in the picture that dof will increase more than the difference between the center and the edge.

This is a cool tool in theory at least because you can curve the focus plane to photograph a globe sharp or a circle of people.
Rokkor MD 24mm f/2.8 VFC (Variable Field Curvature) Lens
Rokkor MD 24mm f/2.8 VFC (Variable Field Curvature) Lens - Dyxum

[normhead]

A new dilemma. ....should people crop their images to 50mm or take a step back?

I'm really curious. How does the Otus stack up with the DFA 50 1.4. Does anyone know off the top of their head or do I have to do some research?
As James Brown would say "Hep me. Hep me, PLEASE."

---------- Post added 01-09-19 at 11:56 AM ----------

There's a 55mm Otus - close enough for all practical purposes

But the MIlvus 50 1.4 apparently isn't close enough for practical purposes, interesting.
I did notice the Otus is a $4000 lens and the DFA is a$1000 lens. I'm really curious to know what $3000 gets you in high end glass, and what kind of work you'd be doing that would actually repay your investment.

[Kunzite]

But the MIlvus 50 1.4 apparently isn't close enough for practical purposes, interesting.

Could you quote me saying that?
Just in case I'm sleep posting.

[normhead]

Could you quote me saying that?
Just in case I'm sleep posting.

NO, part of an earlier conversation my post was referring to. You gotta keep up.

[Kunzite]

It's difficult

[RonHendriks1966]

I did notice the Otus is a $4000 lens and the DFA is a$1000 lens. I'm really curious to know what $3000 gets you in high end glass, and what kind of work you'd be doing that would actually repay your investment.

Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 vs Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 vs Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 – Comparative Lens Review | Verybiglobo photo - Part 2

No idea if you should buy Otus when you don't have that kind of money as pocket change laying around. Batis is also very good, but no 50mm yet.

[swanlefitte]

An Olympic racer who scores 0.01 seconds faster than the next racer gets bragging rights and a gold rather than silver medal. Gold is currently about 82x silver. The otus is only 4x the Pentax.

Dxo scores the otus 50 and milvus 41 and don't do Pentax anymore. Of course they couldn't use the 800e to compare anyway. Dxo has the otus just behind the sigma 85mm at 51.

[beholder3]

I'm really curious. How does the Otus stack up with the DFA 50 1.4. Does anyone know off the top of their head or do I have to do some research?
t.

Overall any lens completely failing the autofocus department always looses against any other lens.
No second thoughts there.

The Otus sucks with regards to vignetting and resulting bokeh even against the Sigma, which is worse than the Pentax.
See digital-picture website.