NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Tristin on February 08, 2016, 03:02:58
-
I've recently discovered how much I appreciate a flat field curvature after acquiring my first fast lens that is really, really flat. Now I find myself often irritated with the field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s. While it doesnt always effect my pictures negatively, I often find the curvature removing the option of shooting faster than f/2 because the curvature can induce nauseating results. Ideally no slower than f/1.4 I don't mind spherical abberation as long as fine detail is preserved. A neutral/sterilecolor cast would be nice as well. I would also be open to lenses in the 40-50mm range.
Any tips?
-
macro's are usually flatter but not generally fast :o :o :o
will the TAMRON 60mm f/2 satisfy your need for a fast lens? it's not a 50, but since it is a macro lens I am guessing that it should have a flatter field than usual ::)
-
also, the SIGMA 50mm ART is said to have a flatter field at longer distances to infinity :o :o :o
not sure how it is wide open. I can test for you if you want. i own that lens and that is what i use for paid or important use just because it works and the AF is fast and reliable. ::)
-
The field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s generally irritates me when my subject is at short-mid ranges like 2-4 meters. That is when it generates nauseating results. I have come to just know that in this general range, I have to stop down to get an image that doesn't look barfy.
I am aware of the Makro Planar 50mm f/2, but that wouldn't really fix my issue most of the time. I'm suspecting that I may have no real options faster than f/2 . . . hoping I am incorrect.
If you have a 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s to do a comparison shot with the Sigma 50mm art, that would be highly appreciated. An image with plenty of items at varying distances, shot at f/1.4 and focused at ~3m would be ideal. Thanks either way in advance. ☺
-
The field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s generally irritates me when my subject is at short-mid ranges like 2-4 meters. That is when it generates nauseating results. I have come to just know that in this general range, I have to stop down to get an image that doesn't look barfy.
I am aware of the Makro Planar 50mm f/2, but that wouldn't really fix my issue most of the time. I'm suspecting that I may have no real options faster than f/2 . . . hoping I am incorrect.
If you have a 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s to do a comparison shot with the Sigma 50mm art, that would be highly appreciated. An image with plenty of items at varying distances, shot at f/1.4 and focused at ~3m would be ideal. Thanks either way in advance. ☺
my 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S is back at Nikon's factory (i got mad at them but that's a different story). :o :o :o
reading the 1001 nights story about the 55mm f/1.2, it seems like a challenge to design a fast normal prime with flat field. i did a research after this and zeiss attempted on their 50 1.4 but ended up with a lens that has undulating field wide open (which is worse than having a curved field!). if you can go to a camera shop and test the SIGMA 50 ART, that might be what you are looking for. It still has some field curvature wide open but not as strong in my opinion.
now, if you have the money and will compromise with 55mm then the OTUS is reputed to have almost no field curvature ::)
-
Zeiss FE 1.8/55 <- this might be a cheaper alternative for you :o :o :o
reputed to have less FC than the usual 50 but yeah, its a 55...
-
From all the lenses I currently use the 1.8/50G shows the smallest amount of change in geometrical correction. It is even less that the 2.8/60G, which is small already.
-
I prefer the look from lenses with flat field as well,,, you could shoot a 55 or 60mm Micro-Nikkor but for speed your have no option except the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4
The 58mm 1.4 G has a bit uneven field but not bad.
If your willing to go to 35mm the 1.4 G has a very pleasing rendering wide open.
-
The Zeiss makroplanar 50/2 field is not especially flat (bent to the rear ad mid distances, iIRC), which is surprizing for a macro lens. On the other hand, marco shooter usually stop down.
The Tamron 45/1.8 may be what you are looking for, but I haven't tested it - only used it, to my delight (it has been sharing my Df with the 105/2.5 since I bought it). Its very homogeneous (and good) resolution wide open suggests a very flat field indeed - no "sombrebro" effect with that one.
Otherwise check the 50/1.8G, a very good overall performer, and much cheaper.
-
May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...
Well, using a flat field lens might be cheaper ! :D
-
Erik, I only want faster than f/2 for the shallow depth. I never find myself needing faster than f/2 for the speed itself. I haven't used a 35mm lens, so I am not sure if it would give a shallow enough depth to please me at f/1.4 but would try it. My main concern here is would have to be closer to my subject which isn't always comfortable for either of us. To be honest, 50mm always feels a hair tight for me, so I fear moving to 58mm would introduce as many problems as it could solve. :-\ I also could never see myself being able to prioritize my lenses over other areas of my life to fund an Otus.
Airy, I have indeed been somewhat interested in the Tamron 45mm f/1.8. As I said, 50mm always feels a tad tight for me. VR sure does sound nice, I have not had a lens with it and would love to try it. Again, my concern here is whether it would be shallow enough. Maybe I will find a way to test one out sometime.
-
May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...
Well, using a flat field lens might be cheaper ! :D
-
May be one day, thanks advance technology, camera makers will offer curved interchangeable sensors with different curvature according each lens...
And perhaps they will custome build me my dream lenses as well, let's hold our breaths for it. You first! ;)
-
Erik, I only want faster than f/2 for the shallow depth. I never find myself needing faster than f/2 for the speed itself. I haven't used a 35mm lens, so I am not sure if it would give a shallow enough depth to please me at f/1.4 but would try it. My main concern here is would have to be closer to my subject which isn't always comfortable for either of us. To be honest, 50mm always feels a hair tight for me, so I fear moving to 58mm would introduce as many problems as it could solve. :-\ I also could never see myself being able to prioritize my lenses over other areas of my life to fund an Otus.
Airy, I have indeed been somewhat interested in the Tamron 45mm f/1.8. As I said, 50mm always feels a tad tight for me. VR sure does sound nice, I have not had a lens with it and would love to try it. Again, my concern here is whether it would be shallow enough. Maybe I will find a way to test one out sometime.
i cannot comment on the field curvature of the TAMRON 45mm but i can vouch for the image quality. the close focus feature is also very helpful it almost works as a macro lens :o :o :o
this might be the lens for you! i also like this lens unfortunately, this is not a manual focus lens, however the manual focusing feels sexy and smooth. try it, you will probably like it
-
Tristin, I hesitated between the Sigma and Tamron for a while. The Tamron is 2/3 stop slower, but its imaging qualities at 1.8 are such that I'd use it without hesitation (this also applies to the bokeh).
Since you aim at flat subjects, the bokeh may be less relevant. Splashproofness and VC may not be the deciding factors in your case, but they come in handy.
If you tell me your intended use, I can set up a quick comparison with the 50/1.2 AIS or AI (not with the Sigma though), and then a few others (Zeiss MP, 45/2.8 PC-E...).
-
the otus is expensive for a reason :o :o :o
-
Airy, it is not that I shoot flat subjects. It's that I find curved focus fields at wide aperatures quite nauseating in appearance. You do not need flat subjects to see this, it makes the bokeh induce a look of smeary distortion to the scene that I label "barfy". When doing close portraits it is not noticeable or an issue. At other ranges though, it is extremely noticeable.
-
I have both the Zeiss Makro and Otus. Even as well corrected as the Otus is, it still has a bit of curvature wide open. ACR lens correction will take care of it.
-
Software can correct for image distortion, but no software will ever be able to correct bokeh distorted by field curvature. That is my issue with field curvature.
It can be used to fantastic effect, Wilheim posted a wedding picture of a couple he took with the 58mm f/1.4g where the exact effect I tend to dislike caused lights behind the couple to warp and give a snowglobe effect to the picture. Quite beautiful. I fend it offensive often though.
John, how is the curvature of the Makro at moderately close ranges, say 4 meters?
-
Tristin, I have the ZF 50/2. It has some coma showing in the outer third of the image area when wide open, but as with many Zeiss lenses, the blurring is a made a touch less objectionable by maintaining contrast if not resolution. I don't remember if it shows what Bjørn calls the 'cateye' effect.
I think Leica specializes in lenses(the M series) that appear not to show optical aberrations when used wide open. They actually do have all the usual aberrations, but they design the optics to minimize the effects you are observing.
-
I have no objections with coma wide open, as I shoot nightscapes on a tripod stopped down. Nor do I have objections with spherical aberrations, which I find very endearing for portraits. It's the curved focus field that warps bokeh that I would love to get rid of.
I'm beginning to accept that I am right in thinking that there are no ~50s faster than /2 that solve this issue. :'(
-
while waiting for the 50mm f/1.2 from nikon, i will try and test all the 50's that i have just for heck of it. :o :o :o
anyway, for the mean time this is what i get from the 50 ART wide open. i mosaic'd my wife and baby for their privacy ::)
-
I very much appreciate the efforts Richard, I would not have expected someone to go to such lengths for me deliberately. Though I will say that the image you posted is too close to judge what I am speaking of. I will shoot an image soon that shows what I speak of, as replies are making it clear that there is a good amount of confusion on the issue itself. Which I am sure has much to do with my explanation not being sufficient.
On a side note, the image you posted of your wife, and child (whom I cannot make out through the mosaic), is quite interesting. The bokeh'd city and digitalized, and de-personalized, individuals feels like a strong commentary on our modern international community. A chance treasure happened upon a thread of the musings of lens nerds. Thank you, and great image! 😃
-
I very much appreciate the efforts Richard, I would not have expected someone to go to such lengths for me deliberately. Though I will say that the image you posted is too close to judge what I am speaking of. I will shoot an image soon that shows what I speak of, as replies are making it clear that there is a good amount of confusion on the issue itself. Which I am sure has much to do with my explanation not being sufficient.
On a side note, the image you posted of your wife, and child (whom I cannot make out through the mosaic), is quite interesting. The bokeh'd city and digitalized, and de-personalized, individuals feels like a strong commentary on our modern international community. A chance treasure happened upon a thread of the musings of lens nerds. Thank you, and great image! 😃
that's OK. I am just curious. I do understand what you want it's just that this is the only thing that I have at the moment :o :o :o
some videographers that i had worked with hate that field curvature by the way.
-
I can't blame them! Obviously.
-
it is trippy. it is OK for certain things but it can get really dizzy for a long time. :o :o :o
-
Now I find myself often irritated with the field curvature of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s. While it doesnt always effect my pictures negatively, I often find the curvature removing the option of shooting faster than f/2 because the curvature can induce nauseating results.
Can you post any images showing the effects you dislike? Might help with the discussion...
-
Here is a portrait done with a 50 f1,2 Ais, full opening. In my opinion it renders the background ok and curvature of the lens actually helps to keep things in focus thas is not perfecly alligned with the lens. But I am not a feinshmecker when it comes to lenses and their behaviour.
-
Give the latest 50/1.4 Nikkor a try. It is pretty flat field compared to other fast normal Nikkors.
-
Give the latest 50/1.4 Nikkor a try. It is pretty flat field compared to other fast normal Nikkors.
I had the 1.4/50G before I bought the 1.8/50G. The 1.8 is much better in EVERY respect esp. all geometrical aspects.
-
I mentioned the AIS 50/1.4. It is a manual-focus lens ...
-
What about the early or mid AF 50/1.8 Nikkors made in Japan? These are both non-D type AF lenses. If those aren't flat field enough what about a 50/1.8 AI or early AIS?
Dave
-
Most of the slower f/1.8 models have flatter field than their f/1.4 siblings.
However, if perfect flatness of field is a primary concern, get a Micro-Nikkor.
-
I wonder if the mentioning of field curvature and effects in out of focus areas early in this thread is confused with cropping of the blur circles by the front aperture of the lens causing "cat-eyes" as shown in Børge's the last posted image from the 50/1.2? These are typically be oriented in a circular pattern that can be used to provide focus to the center of the image ("circular bokeh"), but can of course be unwanted. Would you perhaps post an image Tristin?
I am however quite familiar with the field curvature effect in my Nikon 12-24mm. Focusing on a subject 50-10 m away with slightly blurred background will cause center to be sharp almost to infinity, but edges more blurred - not nice (perhaps tendency for front focus has been part of the equation too). It is then better to set the lens to the known infinity position and use depth of field together with field curvature to provide focus on close subjects.
-
I mentioned the AIS 50/1.4. It is a manual-focus lens ...
yes the latest 1.4AIS is better than the 1.4G, yet the current 1.8G is very near to the classical 2.0AI. I was really
surprised using both of them side by side on the D600.
-
I will shoot an image soon that shows what I speak of, as replies are making it clear that there is a good amount of confusion on the issue itself.
Please do. In your initial post, you mentioned shooting wide apertures, but then later mentioned night time exposures with the lens stopped down. Please show both if both have the annoying curvature artifacts.
-
I mentioned stopping down as I don't care about coma because I shoot nightscapes at f/8+. I have no field curvature issues at narrow aperatures.
Will provide a pic tomorrow.
-
Airy, it is not that I shoot flat subjects. It's that I find curved focus fields at wide aperatures quite nauseating in appearance. You do not need flat subjects to see this, it makes the bokeh induce a look of smeary distortion to the scene that I label "barfy". When doing close portraits it is not noticeable or an issue. At other ranges though, it is extremely noticeable.
Is the "barfy" bokeh you mention similar to those "swirly" ones for which the old Petzval lenses, Zeiss Biotar or some CCTV/cine lenses are famous?
-
Well in that case it would have exactly nothing to do with field curvature,,, ::)
-
The tell-tale signs of field curvature are loss of sharpness at the out parts of the frame (when shooting a flat subject), and peripheral veiling due to spherical aberration.
-
Thanks all, to be honest I felt that this thread was a pipe dream from the get go. It seems I would have to go to a f/1.8 or f/2 at minimum to get a flatter field, this is something I will just have to accept. Was hoping there was some fast 50 that I had yet to hear of somehow.
-
It would help everybody if you could illustrate what you call field curvature and its nauseating effects. Just to remove the misunderstanding.
-
Yes, I think so. I see the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 was not mentioned but I never 'tested' it's 'flat field'.
-
It would help everybody if you could illustrate what you call field curvature and its nauseating effects. Just to remove the misunderstanding.
I have none to show currently as the offenders were all promptly deleted. When I happen across a scene that can portray it I will take a picture.
Akira, no it is not the petzval look. Though I do find that look to be a bit nauseating as well haha!
-
It seems I would have to go to a f/1.8 or f/2 at minimum to get a flatter field, this is something I will just have to accept. Was hoping there was some fast 50 that I had yet to hear of somehow.
As others have suggested, the problem may be mechanical vignetting, not field curvature. In extreme cases, such as with the Nikkor 50/1.2 and 55/1.2 wide open, the result is "swirly bokeh", which I generally don't find pleasant.
If this is the case, it may be worth looking at the Sigma 50/1.4. Due to the oversize front element it has lower vignetting than other 50/1.4 lenses, so is likely to have less of a swirly look.
But until you can post some images which show the effect, I'm just guessing.