eapfoto
Newbie
Hi All,
For those trying to decide between these two fast Canon lenses adapted to a Sony E mount A7 body, these comparisons may be helpful. I shot this scene to show relative DOF, bokeh rendition (mostly in the lower right foliage), sharpness and CA (mostly on the light bulb on the tree).
Here is the link to Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHsktMFrvA
A few observations:
The 0.95 cleans up A LOT by stopping down a stop or two... low contrast haze almost disappears, sharpness improves dramatically, CA gets better, vignetting goes away, and yet the magic dust remains.
The 1.2 (use here with the latest Metabones adapter) has the obvious advantage of AF for moving targets. It has none of the veiling haze wide open found on the 0.95, and is sharper and contrastier throughout (as expected of a modern L series lens). Oddly, it does seem to suffer from much stronger CA. Overall though, when shooting wide open, its bokeh is still VERY nice, some might say better, I would say smoother.
Personally, I wanted the 0.95 for the crazy OOF bokeh rendering, and now that I've done this test, will probably shoot everything at 1.4 or 2.0, since the magic remains, and the technical qualities improve.
Hope this helps anyone else deciding between these lenses.
For those trying to decide between these two fast Canon lenses adapted to a Sony E mount A7 body, these comparisons may be helpful. I shot this scene to show relative DOF, bokeh rendition (mostly in the lower right foliage), sharpness and CA (mostly on the light bulb on the tree).
Here is the link to Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHsktMFrvA
A few observations:
The 0.95 cleans up A LOT by stopping down a stop or two... low contrast haze almost disappears, sharpness improves dramatically, CA gets better, vignetting goes away, and yet the magic dust remains.
The 1.2 (use here with the latest Metabones adapter) has the obvious advantage of AF for moving targets. It has none of the veiling haze wide open found on the 0.95, and is sharper and contrastier throughout (as expected of a modern L series lens). Oddly, it does seem to suffer from much stronger CA. Overall though, when shooting wide open, its bokeh is still VERY nice, some might say better, I would say smoother.
Personally, I wanted the 0.95 for the crazy OOF bokeh rendering, and now that I've done this test, will probably shoot everything at 1.4 or 2.0, since the magic remains, and the technical qualities improve.
Hope this helps anyone else deciding between these lenses.
leemik
Newbie
Apples and oranges here.. both these lenses will give you such a different look. I have both and the Canon 50/1.2 ltm as well..
The Canon EF 50/1.2 L gives you a "modern look." decent sharpness wide open, excellent contrast and vibrant Canon colors.. good creamy bokeh.
The Canon 50/0.95 is not sharp wide open at all and looks "dreamy" with glowing edges. Contrast is low and color saturation as well. bokeh is unique and that dreamy look is the reason why a lot of people pay big bucks for this lens.
The Canon 50/1.2 ltm will give you mostly the same look as the 50/0.95 for much less money if you are going to stop down the 50/0.95 anyways.
--mike
The Canon EF 50/1.2 L gives you a "modern look." decent sharpness wide open, excellent contrast and vibrant Canon colors.. good creamy bokeh.
The Canon 50/0.95 is not sharp wide open at all and looks "dreamy" with glowing edges. Contrast is low and color saturation as well. bokeh is unique and that dreamy look is the reason why a lot of people pay big bucks for this lens.
The Canon 50/1.2 ltm will give you mostly the same look as the 50/0.95 for much less money if you are going to stop down the 50/0.95 anyways.
--mike
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
A fair comparison would have been that Canon f.95 dream lens and the Canon 58mm f 1.2 in FL mount.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
This x 100. And the 1.2 ltm doesn't require much stop down to clean up either. I found it outperforms the FD mount 50/1.2 in most uses. I would not compare it with the EF L version - size, age, technology, etc... too many differences.