Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon

[Ruined]

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

Only as a compliment to, not as a replacement for, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L. I have an entire bag of sharp lenses (many sharper than both the Sigma and the Zeiss), but the only lens that has a similar special look when shooting people with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. That special look is unique, and elevates my work greatly. The 50 can be used in a lot of situations that the 85 cannot, thus it is good to have both if you shoot people!

 

[sagittariansrock]

However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).

This makes sense, except Canon has really handicapped the 50 1.4 for some reason. The sharpness isn't great and nor is the bokeh (and I am not even talking of 50L levels here), and clearly no adjustment was done there intentionally. It doesn't even have a ring USM.
Indeed a allrounder standard lens has its place, and I am sure an updated 50mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.8 IS is a matter of time (although I know I'd prefer a 1.4, the majority of people might not, and that is what matters).

Thanks for the explanation, jrista! It did seem to me the issue might be focus shift but then I felt Eldar has probably seen all the AFMA drift at f/1.4.

 

[sanj]

I guess I was wrong:

Canon should not make a 50mm which is sharp at wide aperture.

It is ok that Canon does not update its lenses for >20 years.

It is ok that other companies are making sharp 50mm lenses that are priced and not the company whose equipment I use.

 

[sanj]

@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?

 

[jrista]

@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. I think everyone else got the joke.

 

[jrista]

@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

How many of Canon's lenses have spherical aberration specifically designed into them?

Again, I direct you to Neuro's answers.

And perhaps a better question to ask, if Sigma (and Zeiss?) can design sharp lenses that produce pleasing bokeh without spherical aberration then why can't Canon?

Neither Sigma nor Zeiss have a lens that produces the same image aesthetic that the 50L and 85L do. It's a pretty specific look, one you actively seek out in the lenses you buy if it's what you want, not something that is going to be a trait of every lens. Not all boke is equal, not everyone wants a Sigma or an Otus.

If you don't know the difference, then you'r probably going to be quite happy with a Sigma or a Zeiss lens. If the day arises when you finally see what the difference is, maybe then you will understand why Canon designed the 50L and 85L the way they did. It's also the same reason why Nikon has the 135 f/2 w/ Defocus Control. Same deal, only it gives the photographer direct control over how much spherical aberration exists and in what direction (intrafocal or extrafocal).

If Canon releases new 50's, I suspect the 50/1.4 II will get a competitive boost to sharpness, making it directly competitive with Sigmas Art 50. I would sincerely hope that a 50/1.2 II will keep the spherical aberration component, because it's one of the best traits of the lens, and I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who holds that opinion. (Some of the largest groups on Flickr are dedicated to the 50L and 85L...just to name a few fans...and an excellent resource if you want to learn why spherical aberration can be an important and beneficial trait of a portrait and street photography lens. )

 

[jrista]

Well I asked a collection of questions (to you) in this post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20498.msg387881#msg387881
but you have not answered. Should I take from this that you do not wish to enlighten me with information and thus leave me in a place where I can only but make assumptions?

Well, I thought Neuro answered them well enough. But if you want me to answer, sure.

I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

Actually, spherical aberration is an effect in three dimensional space.

If spherical aberration is so important and necessary to photographers then why do lens manufacturers go to such great lengths to eliminate it?

I think saying it's necessary "to photographers" is overly broad. I think the proper phrasing would be that spherical aberration is desirable to a certain class of photographers who understand what it is, how it affects their images, and love the aesthetic result. Again, check out the flickr groups for the 50L and 85L...they are packed with incredible photography that has a very specific look. Even the corner softness and CA is a part of the overall aesthetic that people WANT in those two lenses (and, actually, the 135/2.8 Soft Focus lens, which offered the same features as the Nikon 135 f/2 Defocus Control lens, albeit in a cheaper package.)

There is sometimes more to a lens than technological perfection. I think you may be missing that, and along the way missing out on the beauty of a LOT of photography created by avid fans of Canon's short portrait primes.

It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.

Of course. Nobody else is interested in lens that produce sharp images, have excellent colour rendition and contrast. Especially not a standard length zoom at 50mm.

I'm not saying every lens should have spherical aberration. I'm actually saying that not every lens should be a Zeiss Otus. The Otus also has a unique aesthetic, its beautiful, for sure. But it's different than the Canon 50L and 85L. A diverse set of options for lenses is a good thing. I think it's important that photographers have a choice...all those people who share their work on the Flickr 50L and 85L groups? What's going to happen to them if Canon just creates another Otus in the 50/1.2 L II? Or another Sigma Art 50?

If I recall correctly you like long telephoto lenses for birds, etc. Would you prefer a long lens that had the characteristics of the 50L or the Sigma 50/1.4 Art?

Long telephoto lenses serve a different purpose than a 50. I honestly do not think making such a comparison is relevant. As for the 50's themselves, I'd actually prefer to own both a 50L and an Otus. I love the aesthetics from both, and I see the differences between them as well.

 

[jrista]

Here are some sample photos taken with the Nikon 135/2 Defocus lens that shows the difference between normal boke and boke in a lens with spherical aberration:

No Defocus

Flat blur circles, sharp subject, clearly defined focal plane. Looks great, nothing wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of boke as you get from a lens with spherical aberration:

With Defocus (spherical aberration)

Spherical blur circles, highlighted outer ring, radial gradient to the center. Soft and dreamy highlights on subject at the focal plane. Focal plane itself is less defined, softer, smoother.

This is what you get with a lens that has spherical aberration. The blur circles cannot be replicated in post if you start out with solid ones. The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory. If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

If you still can't tell the difference, well, then all I can say is those two lenses are definitely not for you.

 

[philmoz]

If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

 

[jrista]

If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?

 

[jrista]

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?

You guys are thinking of soft focus. There are lots of ways of achieving soft focus. Vaseline was one of them (mostly for cinema stuff as far as I know, although I'm sure people did it for stills as well)...people don't usually do that anymore as it means putting oily gunk on your lens on purpose. There are also plenty of various soft focus filters that use some kind of net design. Some use particle dispersion as well. The net or particles diffracts light, softening it much like diffraction from stopping down a lens (but at all apertures). One of the side effects of net-type soft focus filters is they mess with your boke...you can see it in a lot of tv shows and movies...look at the OOF backgrounds. You can often easily see the design of the net or the particle distribution in OOF highlight blur circles.

A lot of high quality cinema lenses are purpose-built with spherical aberration these days though (soft focus as well as spherical OOF highlights are very desirable in TV/Movies...any time you see a real cinematic tv show or movie, look closely at the background highlights...you'll see very frequently that they are clearly spherical.) So the use of filters or, god forbid, Vaseline, is usually unnecessary.

 

[sanj]

If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

All the time! Hair nets work wonders but the look is bit dated now.

 

[barracuda]

Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...

+1

 

[sanj]

@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. I think everyone else got the joke.

Oh!

 

[Loswr]

The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory.

Maybe an analogy to another set of effects – use of a polarizing filter – that can be partially but never fully replicated in post-processing, and that require optics to achieve, would help?

No, probably not. :

 

[candc]

Here are some sample photos taken with the Nikon 135/2 Defocus lens that shows the difference between normal boke and boke in a lens with spherical aberration:

No Defocus

Flat blur circles, sharp subject, clearly defined focal plane. Looks great, nothing wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of boke as you get from a lens with spherical aberration:

With Defocus (spherical aberration)

Spherical blur circles, highlighted outer ring, radial gradient to the center. Soft and dreamy highlights on subject at the focal plane. Focal plane itself is less defined, softer, smoother.

This is what you get with a lens that has spherical aberration. The blur circles cannot be replicated in post if you start out with solid ones. The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory. If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

If you still can't tell the difference, well, then all I can say is those two lenses are definitely not for you.

i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.

 

[ahab1372]

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[bluenoser1993]

Excellent examples from the Nikon lens. Does it's adjustable range take it further in regards to the affect than the 50 1.2?

I am disappointed that there wasn't a rebuttal to the $46,000 lens, it had the potential to be very entertaining.

 

[Ruined]

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism. 50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.