2/25/2023 0 Comments Fuji 35mm 1.4The OP wanted to know if DoF is shallower for the 50/2 vs. The baseline math, though, is consistently accurate for making these kinds of DoF comparisons. the old print tables they are based on are no longer valid for our revised expectations in the digital era. Greg, I agree with you to the extent that the DoF for big screens vs. But I think they were more accurate back in the film and slide days when we didn't have the tools to see how off they were (or are for sure now).īut they are good for academic discussions about DOF and they point you made is a good one and true. With MF, the tables are so misleading that it makes me just shake my head in wonderment every time a peek my shots on a great big juicy 4K IPS pro monitor at 1:1.Īnd to think my Dad was quizzing me on those tables 50 years ago when I was 13. They are way wrong, and yes, even with the CoC entered correctly (no CoC lectures please - talk to the hand. It is harder to see with APSC, but trust me … they are not just wrong. The DOF tables are all wrong and I have proven it time and time again on the MF Board. By the way, the quality of bokeh is superb at f/2 (the 35mm is no slouch from what I've seen, as well).Īs a fellow owner of the 23/2 and 27/2.8, the 50mm is a major step up - capable at all the expected tasks regarding AF speed and accuracy, ability to be more than adequately sharp wide open, build, and color saturation. You wouldn't want to move much closer than six feet because facial distortion (large nose, small ears) is not a pleasing way to take a portrait.Īlthough many here feel that the 56mm and 60mm are the only viable "portrait" lens lengths for Fuji, I find the 50mm pleasingly more flexible. So, the 32% shallower DoF on the longer lens is fairly significant. The DoF calculators can answer this precisely.Īt six feet, the 50 f/2 yields DoF of 0.34 feet, the 35 f/1.4 yields DoF of 0.5 feet wide open. Both these lenses have very good IQ(especially the 135/2) and are capable of a very shallow depth of field and the bokeh looks very nice on both of them as well. If you don't need AF there are other nice options like for example Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4 and 135/2. Don't know which of the three lenses I would deem to have the nicest bokeh, though.Īnd on that subject, shouldn't you also be concerned about the appearance of the bokeh rather than just the depth of field? With the Viltrox 85 you should be able to get a slightly shallower depth of field than either of the Fuji lenses. The 35/1.4 and 50/2 will probably be quite similiar in terms of depth of field. Seems more like you're actually talking about depth of field rather than bokeh. Would you guys grab this lens or go for something longer like the Viltrox 85 or Fuji f2? Im wondering if anyone has input on how much bokeh I would get with the 35 f1.4 at f1.4 vs 50f2 at f2 Was thinking about adding in a 50mm f2 to round it out and have something for portraits. Im working on filling in my prime lineup, currently have 18f2, 23 f2, 27 2.8, 35 1.4
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |