LLL 50mm f/1.2 ASPH "1966"

dexdog said:
The two "flying saucers" near the left edge of the frame in the first two photos show onion rings, but I do not find them to be objectionable. I think that this lens has lovely rendering of out of focus areas
Click to expand...

Yes, there are onion rings within the two "flying saucers", but have to view at 100% to see them. Not obvious nor disturbing.
 
dexdog said:
The two "flying saucers" near the left edge of the frame in the first two photos show onion rings, but I do not find them to be objectionable. I think that this lens has lovely rendering of out of focus areas
Click to expand...
They are from flare from the light over the subject’s right shoulder. Where I really dislike the texture particularly is in photos like this with a lot of direct specular components:

Recurring issue with the 56mm f1.2: harsh rings inside bokeh: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
Freakscene said:
There are no specular highlights in these photos; they won’t show onion rings. I like these photos very much too. The frequent subject of photos by @Slumgullion, I think her name is Jenny, is an extremely photogenic subject.
Click to expand...
On the extreme left of the pictures I see two specular highlights - a blue one and a yellow one - both totally unsharp. In those spots I see onion rings, but they are hardly visible. From what you write I understand that you want to say that in other shots the onion rings in specular highlights will be much more visible and much more disturbing. Am I correct here?

I understand too that you say that there will be much clearer spots within the specular highlights in other shots. But many lenses produce boheh-balls with clear spots in them, such as the early 35mm f1.4 lenses by Leitz (the steelrims) and the Heliar 50mm f2 by Cosina. I've never heard of people finding them disturbing, but the bokeh balls in pictures made with those lenses are much smaller anyway.
 
Last edited:
Erik van Straten said:
On the extreme left of the pictures I see two specular highlights - a blue one and a yellow one - both totally unsharp. In those spots I see onion rings, but they are hardly visible.
Click to expand...

If the LLL 50/1.2 behaves like my Leica one, my interpretation is that they are more likely to be internal reflections, but yes, I see them. My take on them is that they are less obvious than I have often seen onion rings - if they are specular highlights they are from a large enough source, close enough to the edge of the field, and subject to enough aberrations (the f1.2 Noctilux has a reasonable amount of residual coma) that the onion rings are also blurred. For a really bad example, look at the photo at the link I posted.

Erik van Straten said:
From what you write I understand that you want to say that in other shots the onion rings in specular highlights will be much more visible and much more disturbing. Am I correct here?
Click to expand...

Yes. Among others, I need to use Fuji X cameras at work for a number of reasons, including that there are a few places where we have third party equipment that was designed to work with them. Their lenses often have horrible rendition in out of focus specular highlights.

Erik van Straten said:
I understand too that you say that there will be much clearer spots within the specular highlights in other shots. But many lenses produce boheh-balls with clear spots in them, such as the early 35mm f1.4 lenses by Leitz (the steelrims) and the Heliar 50mm f2 by Cosina. I've never heard of people finding them disturbing, but the bokeh balls in pictures made with those lenses are much smaller anyway.
Click to expand...

No, I don’t mean clear balls. I mean concentric circles that texturise the spot. Take a look at the link.

My Leica aspherical lenses do this, but much less than Fuji lenses do. It’s one reason I usually have my 50 f1 Noctilux with me - the lens is exceptional, but it is also all spherical and doesn’t texturise the specular highlights.
 
Freakscene said:
They are from flare from the light over the subject’s right shoulder. Where I really dislike the texture particularly is in photos like this with a lot of direct specular components:

Recurring issue with the 56mm f1.2: harsh rings inside bokeh: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
Ew that is gross. I don't think I've ever noticed something like this before.
 
Out to Lunch said:
The poster clarifies that he bought his XF 1.2/56 R lens second-hand at a low price. Perhaps it's just damaged. Many moons ago, I bought mine new and it does not have this problem.
Click to expand...
I have this lens also (I bought it some years ago) and I haven't seen "it" in my pictures...
 
Out to Lunch said:
The poster clarifies that he bought his XF 1.2/56 R lens second-hand at a low price. Perhaps it's just damaged. Many moons ago, I bought mine new and it does not have this problem.
Click to expand...

The onion rings in the specular highlights are from the moulded aspherical element; if there is something optically wrong with the lens, in general it will make this less obvious, not more. There are scenes that emphasize it, particularly if you have specular highlights against a dark background. But several of my Fuji lenses at work do this. It doesn’t matter for my work photos, but my personal ones I want them to look how I want, not to just look good enough for the communications people.
 
I will dig out my CV 50mm 1.1 and its brother, the 50mm 1.
Just curious how they differ:
 
raid said:
I will dig out my CV 50mm 1.1 and its brother, the 50mm 1.
Just curious how they differ:
Click to expand...
excellent, please post the result. For BW, the 50mm f1.1 is an excellent lens, even the old 50mm f1.5 can have pleasant bokeh. The color reproduction is less desirable than Zeiss or Leica
 
I am very satisfied with several "Brian Sonnar" lenses that I have. I really don't need or want any other lenses except for my curiosity on how good the new CV lenses may have become.
 
Slumgullion said:
Don't tell anyone, but I corrected the distortion in that image.

In truth, the barrel distortion is true to the original Leica...and quite strong.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying that. I am not in the market for this lens, but it shows the LLL people have done a good job copying the original.
 
Slumgullion said:
Thanks! I like the rendering.

The field curvature and resolution drop-off away from center make it very difficult to use on a rangefinder. Makes me wish I had a digital Leica...almost.
Click to expand...
In a digital monochrome file you can more easily select a luminance range, apply a mask and blend to eliminate the onion rings. You can do it from scans, but it works less well on, just from experience. Of course with 400 or higher speed film you don’t usually have the resolution to show them. Just pandering to my own personal peculiarity, but the option is there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top