There is something about the Super Takumar That I keep getting drawn to. It renders portraits dreamy and just King Arthur-esque, I think I prefer the compression on it too! The Zeiss is beautiful and definitely has more of the contemporary feel to it. Sharp and lovely contrast but the character of the Takumar is the secret sauce for me. That being said, I'd happily have both.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +7
Thanks for this video. Learning and laughing are fully compatible ! Nice samples, with a bit of humour. Great work ! I own the super takumar 8 elements and i really love it :-)
Wonderfully scripted video !! The combination of the monologue, the goofy grumpy model, and your cheesy one liners made for a creative lens review !! Subscribed
A good laugh, smart review and very informative. You are really outstanding! You made my morning coffee moment a dufferent one, and informative (again)
I have a Zeiss Lens and a gh5. I was contemplating on getting a speedbooster and neeed some reviews. This has helped me a lot. Currently using a voigtlander 42.5 nokton. Yuo have great humor and your content is certainly entertaining and straight to the point! Looking forward to more content!
Your good taste is appreciated. And I definitely would recommend a speedbooster when it comes to using full frame lenses. It unlocks 50% of the remaining potential of the Full Frame Lens. ...Literally with almost twice the light and field of view. If its in the budget, I would recommend the XL version from metabone since other users reviews have noticed minimal - none resolution loss on their camera. With x.64 your F2 zeiss would be a F2.56 / F1.28 M4/3. Or your F1.4 zeiss would be a F1.79 / F0.89 M4/3 . It definitely opens up cheaper alternatives to M4/3 voigtlanders that are equal or higher in performance.
Hi BG, I've got a GH5 and have just been considering the Nokton 42.5mm as well as this Zeiss lens. I guess by now you've had experience with both. Which did you like best?
I also have the 8-element Takumar and I love its vintage style. One thing to point out though, is that the Takumar was released in 1964, while the Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 was produced from '68 to '71 so no way Pentax created this lens to compete with the Ultron, and in hindsight the Ultron (w/ convex first element) was not in its class either, being way more expensive but rendering much sharper IQ with unbelievably low CA for its time.
Lol the humour in this is great. Had me laughing out loud the whole way thru. So, this question ain’t so much about lenses but here it is. I’m a TH-camr that does podcast type content. If one had about $1200 to spend on a new camera, or camera/lens combo, what would you recommend? Loving the content man. Very helpful and entertaining!
Good Sir, it is a good sign that you are entertained by a sharp wit. As for the camera option, if $1200 CAD is all you would be able to spend, I would probably recommend 2 options. 1. The Lumix G95, which comes with a kit zoom lens for $1000 CAD pre tax currently. When you buy this, that's basically it funds wise. 2. The Lumix G7. Its $800 pre tax, and comes with a kit zoom. I recommend you use that zoom to find out your most used focal distance, and then you buy additionally a used Olympus f1.8 Prime lens in that particular focal on ebay. For a podcast, it might be the 17mm f1.8.
Great video man! Quick preference question for you. If both in excellent condition, would you rather have the Helios 44M or a Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 if you could only have one? Let's assume you have an adapter as well as a speed-booster to an APS-C camera. Thank you.
Your good taste is appreciated! If you can only have one, I would suggest the Takumar over the Helios. Super Takumar is overall higher build quality, brighter aperture and more versatile. Having the option of an artsy f1.4 and a sharp f2 in the same lens just makes a huge difference. All the the 44M has is some swirl.
How are you using a Metabones speedbooster to convert M42 to Micro Four Thirds? I haven't been able to find any Metabones speedboosters that fit that description, only Pixco and Zhongyi focal reducers. Would love to know your solution, looking to get some of that vintage soviet goodness onto my GH5!
Addendum: Those focal reduces have a magnification of x0.72 - would you say the increased field of view is less important than the clarity of going for a Metabones speedbooster?
Yes, not many mention it on TH-cam. I simply use the m42-eos EF adapter on the metabones. Any standard m42-ef adapter will fit on metabones adapters. Clarity would be more important than a crop, however the metabones has the cleanest focal reducer image. If you have the xl version, you have minimal crop and clean image.
Your request shall be granted, Sir. From the images I have seen, the Canon is sharper, more contrast and has more flare control being a modern lens. But its rendering isn't anything special among 50s, being a standard modern lens. Its like Beige wall paper , elevator music or Vancouver. Rendering image Is much more unique and interesting on the the Takumar. Build quality would be Takumar, just by default with the metal body and watch like feel aperture wheel. Also if you use Manual focus a lot, it will have to be Takumar without flinching.
@That Weird FILMAKER 2:10 so you used Metabones XL ??? mount +M42 to M43 adapter on the GH5s ??? DId you used the same set up on the G9 ?? I have the G9 and going to buy the Takumar 50mm F1.4 lense, so if you could please help me with the set up for the adapters???
Good Sir, your question shall be rewarded by my experience. Yes, I use the EOS Metabones XL version. You attach the XL to your M4/3 camera, and then attach the m42-eos adapter to the EOS side of the Speedbooster. I do the same with my G9. Only difference is that the G9 + XL has a 1.28x crop, compared to the GH5s 1.15x crop when used with the XL. I also would highly recommend buying a Takumar copy that is optically in very good condition with no haze or scratches in the rear element.
Do you think the Planar 50mm 1.4 ZE, (Canon EF mount) used, worth 150usd? A guy sells one in good condition and i can use it in my Canon, if i'm right the focus is manual but the aperture is automatic. At least it have electrical contacts and gives you exif data. What do you think? May i pull the trigger for 150usd?
Your question shall be answered. I would say $150us is a bargain for that lens. Prices right now are low on these in general due to economies spiraling into a recession, and most users buying bland lenses with autofocus. Why shouldn't you reap the benefits of these strange times?
i love these old Zeiss planar lenses because they seem so SHARP and DETAILED. i want to buy one but both camera bodys i have are a Lumix GH3 and Lumix G7. is it worth getting C/Y to M43 adaptors, speedbosters and all that? or am i better off saving my money and getting the compatible body for Zeiss lenses? do you lose quality when using Zeiss lens and adapters?
Your question that is vital shall be answered. I think for your next step, you want a camera body that will have at least V-Log or some kind of log. It will give you more options of what you can do with the lens image in editing. If you will be using manual lenses mainly, I might would recommend a S5 which doesn't break the bank (relatively speaking). Or a used S1 with the new firmware upgrade. And then you don't have to bother with focal reducers, since a CY-L adapter is around 50 bucks. With the main base camera body now out of the way, with solid fundamentals for years to come, you can then buy the awesome lenses. Which are a much better investment financially and artistically than buying camera bodies every couple of years.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Great answer, I really agree with this. I used the GH4 for five years until I upgraded to a secondhand G9. Finances became better a year after and I've had a S5 for a year now, and what a difference full frame v-log makes. The colours are just so much better, as well as high ISO and dynamic range. I still use the G9 for a B cam, but the S5 just dominates in comparison. A camera like the S5 or S1 with v-log upgrade will suit most people for years to come. Weddings, events and corporate video work won't need more than this, and even lower budget narrative work is fine. For commercial work that needs Alexa quality, rent the Alexa. As for lenses, there is an abundance of high quality vintage lenses that can be had for little money, like Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and Canon FD. For higher lens budgets, secondhand old generation Canon EF L or Zeiss classic lenses are future proof.
Well, with a contax version it's a CY-EF adapter, with the Nikon ZF version it's the F-EF adapter, and with the Canon ZE version it the nothing-adapter since its already in EF mount. As you probably already know, since the Pocket 6k pro has a super 35 sensor, the 50mm f1.4 will be effectively a 77mm at f2.17.
Hilarious story telling! Subbed. But I didn't catch the "issue" vs M42 And EF flange distance? M42 has a flange focal distance at 45,46mm, while EF is 44mm. The M42 to EF adapter only correct this, so technically the length/distance is the same. (Otherwise you couldn't focus). What did I miss?
Your subscription shows your wisdom. As for the M42 flange distance I only have 2 main Theories, after I tested a Milvus 35mm nikon mount with a Classic Zeiss 35mm. The nikon mount lens was a tad wider in Field of View as well. Theory 1, when attached to the focal reducer, the 1-2mm thick metal M42 and F mount adapter ,adds another 1-2mm distance to the censor compared to the native EF lens. Theory 2, more lens elements create slightly wider field of view since the takumar has more elements than the planar, and the Milvus has more elements than the classic distagon. (Although the takumar 7 element lens has same FOV as the 8 version) Theory 3, some unknown manufacturing process makes those lenses 1-2mm off, and there is no universal standard what the mm should be within each line.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Ahh, the answer lays in the Nikon F adapter. The flange focal distance if the Nikon F is 46,5mm. So you need an adapter with a lens to correct this. I'm on thin ice here, but since you need a longer distance between the flange and the sensor than the lens is made for, you actually increase the focal length of the lens. So if the theory stands, your 35mm M42 lens actually becomes a 36,04mm lens?🤔 You experience different field of view between your EF , and your M42 lens of same focal lenght, right? It would bee cool to test the M42 lens with both a M42 to EF , and a EF to Nikon F adapter on. In theory this would give you exact the same field of view as the canon lens with just the EF to Nikon F adapter?
@@sidekickbob7227 That is what makes this data a harsh mistress. The Nikon mount 35mm acts more like a 34mm, once adapted to the EF focal reducer. Same with the 50mm M42, which acts like a 49mm compared to the EF Planar 50mm. The only common denominator they have, is the secondary metal adapter, that attaches to the EF-Micro Four Thirds adapter. Which is why I theorize its the secondary metal adapter making it 1-2mm wider. I guess the only way for me too know for sure, is to buy a Ef milvus 35 to compare it to the ZF version, but none are currently available to me. But for all we know, it might be the EF design element that is the odd man out, with its electronic aperture perhaps making things 1-2mm tighter compared to the manual aperture design. But its purely as speculative as Bitcoin's future.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Well, for a short second, I though I understood the math of this. Now I'm sure I don't 🤔. Lucky for me, I still stick to the good old 5Dmk2, so knowing my intellectual limitation causes no problem for me in this case.😀
Adapting lenses can sometimes be a harsh mistress... the kind of mistress that black-mails ,threatening releasing info to the ol' ball in chain with the kids that aren't really mine. Which lens and focal reducer brand did you use?
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 I had the Metabones 0.64 XL and the 8 element Takumar 50mm. While shooting I remember thinking “this looks a bit odd.” When I brought the footage into my computer I was surprised by how “soft” it looked. I knew that the Tak was soft at f1.4, but the Metabones added and additional layer of soft 😆. I was unaware of this phenomenon until then.
@@musicelect That is where things can get very tricky with all the different variables (haze on lens, haze on adapter, iso settings.). With my XL copy, its usually the lens primarily that determines the softness. Looking at other reviewer's 50mm + 85mm f1.4 Planar reviews, their full frame results aren't really sharper. Meanwhile the Otus 55mm on my XL can be too sharp for the actor's skin textures, depending on the scene.
Its takes a very sharp mind with good taste to mention that. The secret for the ultimate lens review is toharnesssfjfs';kf[wpgis'pdk g;lsdgjkosdjgsgjs d;jgs[ogvs
The Zeiss is the best for me, I've been watching alot of tests lately but something about the Zeiss wins for me everytime, great review!
Informative and bloody hilarious. How the hell you only have 104 subs is beyond me. Well 105 now :-)
You sir are a Giant among men. And as for the low subs, this channel goes for quality subscribers over quantity.
Yes, it pains me to see such great content not yet rewarded by the algorithm. Keep it up, TWF. This is a great video.
There is something about the Super Takumar That I keep getting drawn to. It renders portraits dreamy and just King Arthur-esque, I think I prefer the compression on it too! The Zeiss is beautiful and definitely has more of the contemporary feel to it. Sharp and lovely contrast but the character of the Takumar is the secret sauce for me. That being said, I'd happily have both.
Thanks for this video. Learning and laughing are fully compatible ! Nice samples, with a bit of humour. Great work ! I own the super takumar 8 elements and i really love it :-)
Your good taste in Art and keen intellect is the reason why you are the owner of a Takumar 8 element lens.
You had me at “tampon commercial” Subscribed!
i had so much fun watching this, instant sub, thanks for the content!
Thank you, Sir. Your good taste and style separates you from the common online riff raff. 👍
Wonderfully scripted video !! The combination of the monologue, the goofy grumpy model, and your cheesy one liners made for a creative lens review !! Subscribed
Thank you, your excellent taste should be admired and envied by the masses.
A good laugh, smart review and very informative. You are really outstanding! You made my morning coffee moment a dufferent one, and informative (again)
Thank you very much, good Sir.
Over the top presentation. Never dull.
I have a Zeiss Lens and a gh5. I was contemplating on getting a speedbooster and neeed some reviews. This has helped me a lot. Currently using a voigtlander 42.5 nokton. Yuo have great humor and your content is certainly entertaining and straight to the point! Looking forward to more content!
Your good taste is appreciated. And I definitely would recommend a speedbooster when it comes to using full frame lenses. It unlocks 50% of the remaining potential of the Full Frame Lens. ...Literally with almost twice the light and field of view. If its in the budget, I would recommend the XL version from metabone since other users reviews have noticed minimal - none resolution loss on their camera. With x.64 your F2 zeiss would be a F2.56 / F1.28 M4/3. Or your F1.4 zeiss would be a F1.79 / F0.89 M4/3 . It definitely opens up cheaper alternatives to M4/3 voigtlanders that are equal or higher in performance.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 I made the purchase for the x.71
Hi BG, I've got a GH5 and have just been considering the Nokton 42.5mm as well as this Zeiss lens. I guess by now you've had experience with both. Which did you like best?
Awesome video as well as your other content. Keep up the work, hopefully you will grow your audience. 🇨🇦
Your perception Good Sir, is why men on every continent envy you.
I also have the 8-element Takumar and I love its vintage style. One thing to point out though, is that the Takumar was released in 1964, while the Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 was produced from '68 to '71 so no way Pentax created this lens to compete with the Ultron, and in hindsight the Ultron (w/ convex first element) was not in its class either, being way more expensive but rendering much sharper IQ with unbelievably low CA for its time.
That is correct. This comparison is more for us current lens users who look at eBay and see both lenses.
Someone has to get this guy to a LA Comedy Club!!! He’ll own SNL by next Friday!!!
If only people would listen to your superior wisdom, then Oggie could finally stop running behind garbage trucks with his grocery list.
Lol the humour in this is great. Had me laughing out loud the whole way thru. So, this question ain’t so much about lenses but here it is. I’m a TH-camr that does podcast type content. If one had about $1200 to spend on a new camera, or camera/lens combo, what would you recommend? Loving the content man. Very helpful and entertaining!
Good Sir, it is a good sign that you are entertained by a sharp wit.
As for the camera option, if $1200 CAD is all you would be able to spend, I would probably recommend 2 options.
1. The Lumix G95, which comes with a kit zoom lens for $1000 CAD pre tax currently. When you buy this, that's basically it funds wise.
2. The Lumix G7. Its $800 pre tax, and comes with a kit zoom. I recommend you use that zoom to find out your most used focal distance, and then you buy additionally a used Olympus f1.8 Prime lens in that particular focal on ebay. For a podcast, it might be the 17mm f1.8.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 extremely helpful, thx a million.
You deserve thousands and thousands of subs and views. Hope ur channel will grow and keep on making videos
The world appreciates your wisdom.
This channel is now one of my favourite finds on TH-cam!
Most people should be envious of your refined taste. 👍
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 oh they are!
That was actually really fun, and informative.
Thank you, its clear you know quality when you see it.
Great video man! Quick preference question for you. If both in excellent condition, would you rather have the Helios 44M or a Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 if you could only have one? Let's assume you have an adapter as well as a speed-booster to an APS-C camera. Thank you.
Your good taste is appreciated!
If you can only have one, I would suggest the Takumar over the Helios. Super Takumar is overall higher build quality, brighter aperture and more versatile. Having the option of an artsy f1.4 and a sharp f2 in the same lens just makes a huge difference. All the the 44M has is some swirl.
This is a great video. Did you use a lens hood on the takumar?
No problem, good Sir.
I didn't use a lens hood since I already screwed the ND filter on the lens.
The zeiss is a little bit warmer, I'd like to see the test with the white balance on the takumar test bumped up a notch or two.
The Takumar has been unfortunately already sold. At the time, if I remember right, I did try to expose and color grade them fairly consistent.
Brilliant comedic videos
Thank you, Sir. You have a good head on your shoulders.
How are you using a Metabones speedbooster to convert M42 to Micro Four Thirds? I haven't been able to find any Metabones speedboosters that fit that description, only Pixco and Zhongyi focal reducers. Would love to know your solution, looking to get some of that vintage soviet goodness onto my GH5!
Addendum: Those focal reduces have a magnification of x0.72 - would you say the increased field of view is less important than the clarity of going for a Metabones speedbooster?
Yes, not many mention it on TH-cam. I simply use the m42-eos EF adapter on the metabones. Any standard m42-ef adapter will fit on metabones adapters.
Clarity would be more important than a crop, however the metabones has the cleanest focal reducer image. If you have the xl version, you have minimal crop and clean image.
Hello, I want to buy the super takumar 50mm 1.4 and I want to compare it with the canon 50mm 1.4 lens, which do you think is of better quality.
Your request shall be granted, Sir.
From the images I have seen, the Canon is sharper, more contrast and has more flare control being a modern lens. But its rendering isn't anything special among 50s, being a standard modern lens. Its like Beige wall paper , elevator music or Vancouver.
Rendering image Is much more unique and interesting on the the Takumar. Build quality would be Takumar, just by default with the metal body and watch like feel aperture wheel. Also if you use Manual focus a lot, it will have to be Takumar without flinching.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521
z,
Two thumbs up yer... Oh, never mind.
Subscribed!
@That Weird FILMAKER 2:10 so you used Metabones XL ??? mount +M42 to M43 adapter on the GH5s ???
DId you used the same set up on the G9 ??
I have the G9 and going to buy the Takumar 50mm F1.4 lense, so if you could please help me with the set up for the adapters???
Good Sir, your question shall be rewarded by my experience. Yes, I use the EOS Metabones XL version. You attach the XL to your M4/3 camera, and then attach the m42-eos adapter to the EOS side of the Speedbooster. I do the same with my G9. Only difference is that the G9 + XL has a 1.28x crop, compared to the GH5s 1.15x crop when used with the XL. I also would highly recommend buying a Takumar copy that is optically in very good condition with no haze or scratches in the rear element.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Ohh... Thank you very much dear Sir. And may your kindness be rewarded with a substantial number of subscribers and likes. :)
Excellent channel! Use Takumar for BW and Zeiss for color
Those are wise options.
Do you think the Planar 50mm 1.4 ZE, (Canon EF mount) used, worth 150usd?
A guy sells one in good condition and i can use it in my Canon, if i'm right the focus is manual but the aperture is automatic. At least it have electrical contacts and gives you exif data.
What do you think? May i pull the trigger for 150usd?
Your question shall be answered. I would say $150us is a bargain for that lens. Prices right now are low on these in general due to economies spiraling into a recession, and most users buying bland lenses with autofocus. Why shouldn't you reap the benefits of these strange times?
This is awesome.
Good Sir, no sane person would disagree with you.
Subed dude
you are THE man
And it takes a REAL man to point that out. People should envy your upstanding character.
i love these old Zeiss planar lenses because they seem so SHARP and DETAILED. i want to buy one but both camera bodys i have are a Lumix GH3 and Lumix G7. is it worth getting C/Y to M43 adaptors, speedbosters and all that? or am i better off saving my money and getting the compatible body for Zeiss lenses? do you lose quality when using Zeiss lens and adapters?
Your question that is vital shall be answered.
I think for your next step, you want a camera body that will have at least V-Log or some kind of log. It will give you more options of what you can do with the lens image in editing.
If you will be using manual lenses mainly, I might would recommend a S5 which doesn't break the bank (relatively speaking). Or a used S1 with the new firmware upgrade. And then you don't have to bother with focal reducers, since a CY-L adapter is around 50 bucks.
With the main base camera body now out of the way, with solid fundamentals for years to come, you can then buy the awesome lenses. Which are a much better investment financially and artistically than buying camera bodies every couple of years.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Great answer, I really agree with this. I used the GH4 for five years until I upgraded to a secondhand G9. Finances became better a year after and I've had a S5 for a year now, and what a difference full frame v-log makes. The colours are just so much better, as well as high ISO and dynamic range. I still use the G9 for a B cam, but the S5 just dominates in comparison.
A camera like the S5 or S1 with v-log upgrade will suit most people for years to come. Weddings, events and corporate video work won't need more than this, and even lower budget narrative work is fine. For commercial work that needs Alexa quality, rent the Alexa.
As for lenses, there is an abundance of high quality vintage lenses that can be had for little money, like Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and Canon FD. For higher lens budgets, secondhand old generation Canon EF L or Zeiss classic lenses are future proof.
How can i adapt the Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 to EF mount so as to use with my P6k pro?
Well, with a contax version it's a CY-EF adapter, with the Nikon ZF version it's the F-EF adapter, and with the Canon ZE version it the nothing-adapter since its already in EF mount.
As you probably already know, since the Pocket 6k pro has a super 35 sensor, the 50mm f1.4 will be effectively a 77mm at f2.17.
Well done 👍 ... With the story telling 😂 .... The sole reason to subscribe you.
Yes, the story about Oggie is stranger than fiction.
Had super tak and konica hexanon. The hexanon rendering is like monet/renoir
118 subscribers now. :D
Your high intelligence and manliness is the reason why you belong to the cool crowed.
Hilarious story telling! Subbed. But I didn't catch the "issue" vs M42 And EF flange distance? M42 has a flange focal distance at 45,46mm, while EF is 44mm. The M42 to EF adapter only correct this, so technically the length/distance is the same. (Otherwise you couldn't focus). What did I miss?
Your subscription shows your wisdom. As for the M42 flange distance I only have 2 main Theories, after I tested a Milvus 35mm nikon mount with a Classic Zeiss 35mm. The nikon mount lens was a tad wider in Field of View as well.
Theory 1, when attached to the focal reducer, the 1-2mm thick metal M42 and F mount adapter ,adds another 1-2mm distance to the censor compared to the native EF lens.
Theory 2, more lens elements create slightly wider field of view since the takumar has more elements than the planar, and the Milvus has more elements than the classic distagon.
(Although the takumar 7 element lens has same FOV as the 8 version)
Theory 3, some unknown manufacturing process makes those lenses 1-2mm off, and there is no universal standard what the mm should be within each line.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Ahh, the answer lays in the Nikon F adapter. The flange focal distance if the Nikon F is 46,5mm. So you need an adapter with a lens to correct this. I'm on thin ice here, but since you need a longer distance between the flange and the sensor than the lens is made for, you actually increase the focal length of the lens. So if the theory stands, your 35mm M42 lens actually becomes a 36,04mm lens?🤔 You experience different field of view between your EF , and your M42 lens of same focal lenght, right? It would bee cool to test the M42 lens with both a M42 to EF , and a EF to Nikon F adapter on. In theory this would give you exact the same field of view as the canon lens with just the EF to Nikon F adapter?
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 BTW, my wisdom is very limited, but I know for sure my curiosity is unlimited.
@@sidekickbob7227 That is what makes this data a harsh mistress. The Nikon mount 35mm acts more like a 34mm, once adapted to the EF focal reducer. Same with the 50mm M42, which acts like a 49mm compared to the EF Planar 50mm. The only common denominator they have, is the secondary metal adapter, that attaches to the EF-Micro Four Thirds adapter. Which is why I theorize its the secondary metal adapter making it 1-2mm wider. I guess the only way for me too know for sure, is to buy a Ef milvus 35 to compare it to the ZF version, but none are currently available to me.
But for all we know, it might be the EF design element that is the odd man out, with its electronic aperture perhaps making things 1-2mm tighter compared to the manual aperture design. But its purely as speculative as Bitcoin's future.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 Well, for a short second, I though I understood the math of this. Now I'm sure I don't 🤔. Lucky for me, I still stick to the good old 5Dmk2, so knowing my intellectual limitation causes no problem for me in this case.😀
super
A bit weird indeed, yet a nice lens showdown :)
Thanks, Its the best type of showdown. 😎👍
I learned that shooting below f2 with a Metabones produces sh!t results. It gives “soft focus” new meaning.
Adapting lenses can sometimes be a harsh mistress... the kind of mistress that black-mails ,threatening releasing info to the ol' ball in chain with the kids that aren't really mine. Which lens and focal reducer brand did you use?
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 I had the Metabones 0.64 XL and the 8 element Takumar 50mm. While shooting I remember thinking “this looks a bit odd.” When I brought the footage into my computer I was surprised by how “soft” it looked. I knew that the Tak was soft at f1.4, but the Metabones added and additional layer of soft 😆. I was unaware of this phenomenon until then.
@@musicelect That is where things can get very tricky with all the different variables (haze on lens, haze on adapter, iso settings.). With my XL copy, its usually the lens primarily that determines the softness. Looking at other reviewer's 50mm + 85mm f1.4 Planar reviews, their full frame results aren't really sharper. Meanwhile the Otus 55mm on my XL can be too sharp for the actor's skin textures, depending on the scene.
your tak ist still radioactive tho, just a little :)
3D Pop brought me here.
Excellent! 3d pop is the guiding light in the dark vast sea of flat rendering lenses.
Hah, best lens review on TH-cam. And yes, we would notice if you gesryugbegler gegbgbekrgberyuksgsberg... ;)
Its takes a very sharp mind with good taste to mention that. The secret for the ultimate lens review is toharnesssfjfs';kf[wpgis'pdk g;lsdgjkosdjgsgjs d;jgs[ogvs
LOOOOOOL… I subbed so I must be cool!… ps. Super Tak all the way! Gwaaanmyoooooot!… 😆
Good Sir, the rules were clear, so welcome to the exclusive club. 👍
Great video.
Lolol..good one
That guy looks a bit like Adriano Celentano 😁😂👍👍
Adriano was a man's man. Oggie is what would happen if you order Adriano from wish for 1 cent.
hahahha thanks!
OK, hit me with what you have! I got both lenses mouhahahahaha 😊😉👌