yossi
Well-known
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
Yes, there are onion rings within the two "flying saucers", but have to view at 100% to see them. Not obvious nor disturbing.
Freakscene
Obscure member
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: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
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
Erik van Straten
Mentor
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?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.
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:
Freakscene
Obscure member
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Ew that is gross. I don't think I've ever noticed something like this before.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
Out to Lunch
Menteur
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.Ew that is gross.
Shab
Well-known
I have this lens also (I bought it some years ago) and I haven't seen "it" in my pictures...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.
Freakscene
Obscure member
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.
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.
raid
Dad Photographer
I will dig out my CV 50mm 1.1 and its brother, the 50mm 1.
Just curious how they differ:
Just curious how they differ:
Duofold RF
Well-known
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 LeicaI will dig out my CV 50mm 1.1 and its brother, the 50mm 1.
Just curious how they differ:
raid
Dad Photographer
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
Established
Fitzgerald by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Mona by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
All: Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Mona by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
All: Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
Slumgullion
Established
Dad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
No Clos Radio by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Barrels by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
All: Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
No Clos Radio by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Barrels by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
All: Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
The combination of the bokeh and the field curvature seem to leave a pleasing thumbprintDad by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
No Clos Radio by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Barrels by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
All: Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Look how straight the line of the fluorescent light fixture is at the top. Almost no distortion!Mom, Gorcery Shopping by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M5, LLL 50mm f/1.2 '1966,' Fomapan 400 @ 200, Xtol 1:1
Slumgullion
Established
Thanks! I like the rendering.The combination of the bokeh and the field curvature seem to leave a pleasing thumbprint
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.
Slumgullion
Established
Don't tell anyone, but I corrected the distortion in that image.Look how straight the line of the fluorescent light fixture is at the top. Almost no distortion!
In truth, the barrel distortion is true to the original Leica...and quite strong.
Freakscene
Obscure member
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.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.
Freakscene
Obscure member
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.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.
Last edited:
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.