|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-22-2013, 07:51 AM
|
| |
I have a 50 1.2 and while I've not used it on a FF (even film), the challenge with 1.2 is that care must be taken to get an interesting or significant part of the image in focus due to shallow dof. So it's a game of distances, dof, and subject contrast and texture to get a nice image. Not impossible, but not for snapshots either.
As you suggest, things at 1.4 and 2.0 are much improved, and at least with my copy images are much crisper and the image is not generally 'soft' like it is at 1.2. Unless I'm doing beauty shots I actually prefer one of my AF 50's.
I managed to pick up that lens attached to an old film body for $35, but had I paid 10x or 20x more, with the intention of getting results like an 85 1.4 on FF, I would have been VERY disappointed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-21-2013, 04:11 PM
|
| |
Those images are fantastic... That's exactly what I mean. Guess I just signed up for a 645D :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-20-2013, 06:57 AM
|
| |
Thx; the raves about the 43 in general pointed me that way. I'm still not sold on the focal length / distortion / working distances / aperture equation (hence my preference for slightly longer fl's), but my only experience is the 16-45 which is a decent lens, but I suspect it has a different feel to the distortion behavior from the 43. The samples I've seen look 'flatter' than the 16-45.... If that makes sense.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-18-2013, 08:47 AM
|
| |
In terms of attraction to FF, I thought originally it would be things like brighter / bigger VF, bigger photosites (less noise), and the usual reasons.
But I'm comparing options based on image qualities, like for example the 645D, and what I'm also finding is that the larger sensors allow for longer focal lengths that give a more pleasing image. For example I tend to like the image properties in the 85-135mm range, but on APS-C I don't like the framing and working distance interactions as much.
Perhaps to convince myself, I ran image comparisons with my 30mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2, and I'm not getting what I want; either the distortion at 30mm is too much for shorter distances, especially for faces, or the fov is too narrow at 50mm and does not allow for as much context in the composition.
Is this why the 40's are popular? That they are the 'best' trade-off in distance, view, and isolation? The only 40-ish lens I have that's any good is the 16-45, but it's crap at isolation.
|
