This comparison is correct only for conditions and equipment used for tests. Test results can be differ if any element is changed.

Tested lenses reviews:

FDN5012_Avatar.png

FDN5014_avatar

Long distance – sharpness:

Test description: Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. Targets (buildings) were fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters. All shots were made with apertures from fully opened and up to F16. ISO-100. Shutter Speed – depends on light (camera A-mode). SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot to exclude focus-shift.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cut into 300×200 px elements (100% crops), combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.

Notes:
  • I am just a man, I do not pretend that in all cases my focus settings were absolutely accurate. But I aspired to it.
  • Bad weather is better for this test – low-light is required for wide-opened apertures to slow down shutter speed.

Scene preview:

FDN5012_FDN5014_MD5012_e_far_preview

Test results:

FDN5012_FDN5014_long_battle.jpg


Short distance – sharpness:

Test description: target is a 10×15 cm picture (printed, glossy photo paper), fixed on the wall by scotch. Distance – 1.7m. Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. All groups of shots were repeated 3 times for every target position on all apertures from fully opened up to F16, ISO-100, WB – same for all shots. SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot. After all needed shots have been taken for one target position – I moved the target to the next place. Main idea – to exclude the field curvature affect on so close distance. Of course, I can’t be absolutely accurate, but test results looks correct.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (Some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cropped for 300×200 px elements, combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.

Original target image (printed in horizontal orientation on 10cm X 15cm glossy photo paper) – Rinko Ogasawara portrait

Rinko Ogasawara 8 print

Scene preview:

FDN5012_b_res_close_previewNEW

Test results:

FDN5012_FDN5014_close_battle.jpg

‘What does it mean?’ – my conclusion:

It’s easy to select the winner between these two lenses from the sharpness point of view.

Long distance:

  • Center – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, and became the same at F2.8
  • Middle – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, but (!) became better after F4
  • Corner – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, and became the same at F5.6

Close distance:

  • Center – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, and became the same at F2.8
  • Middle – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, but (!) became better after F4
  • Corner – 50/1.2 not so good as 50/1.4 if wide opened, and became the same at F5.6

As result: behavior of these both lenses doesn’t depend on distances. Canon New FD 50mm F1.4 is much better up to F2.8-F4. On closed apertures Canon New FD 50mm F1.2 has a very slight advantage in the middle, but it can’t compensate the loosing on wide opened apertures. Canon FDn 50/1.4 – won.

FDN5012_FDN5014_Battle__Avatar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s