Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              29      
30
       31       32       33       end
  

Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review
  
 
Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #1 · p.30 #1 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
Definitely very personal. I say 'excellent', you say 'horrendous'.
We must be using it for different applications.


Indeed
We do agree about the FE 35/1.4 though... because I also think that's a great lens.




Jul 09, 2017 at 11:24 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #2 · p.30 #2 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Jochenb wrote:
Indeed
We do agree about the FE 35/1.4 though... because I also think that's a great lens.


Good, I'm glad we agree on that one.

Seriously, the 35/2.8 ZA can't compete with lenses like Sonnar 35/2 or 35/1.4 ZA as far as rendering. I don't mind dragging the much bigger 35/1.4 ZA for that.
What impresses me about it is the high resolution/contrast throughout the field from wide-open at infinity distances. It's also well corrected for aberrations which is a plus for many applications. Mid-field resolution is one of the best I've seen and I dare to say it's similar (if not better at many apertures) compared to the Sonnar 35/2 at a distance.

This may sound controversial, but after testing it against the ZM 35/1.4 + front filter, I decided keeping the 35/2.8 ZA and selling the ZM. It's way sharper at mid-field, similar at center and the corners are not too far behind. I agree that vignetting is high but that's the easiest post correction.



Jul 09, 2017 at 11:37 PM
Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #3 · p.30 #3 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


The thing that drove me nuts with the FE 35/2.8 (and what makes me say it's horrendous) was the DOF behavior, not the sharpness of the things that were actually in focus.
Not once I had this issue with other 35mm lenses. You can all easily do the test and see how little DOF goes to the background when stopping down. I missed quite a few shots because of this (when doing fast paced street shooting). I went looking for others that might have noticed it, to check if it was just my copy or the lens design. It turned out that I wasn't the only one.



Jul 09, 2017 at 11:48 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #4 · p.30 #4 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Jochenb wrote:
The thing that drove me nuts with the FE 35/2.8 (and what makes me say it's horrendous) was the DOF behavior, not the sharpness of the things that were actually in focus.
Not once I had this issue with other 35mm lenses. You can all easily do the test and see how little DOF goes to the background when stopping down. I missed quite a few shots because of this (when doing fast paced street shooting). I went looking for others that might have noticed it, to check if it was just my copy or the lens design. It turned
...Show more

I'm not following this one. What do you mean by DOF not going to the background? At infinity it's pretty much flat field.



Jul 10, 2017 at 12:13 AM
Mirror
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #5 · p.30 #5 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Definitely my best lens I ever had, and that with AF. I have the impression that the FL is slightly under 50mm. I also read this somewhere. Anybody here who tested the FL vs. others? It might be only 47-48mm!? Which is great since it doesn't force me to own the 35mm 1.4.


Jul 10, 2017 at 09:54 AM
Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #6 · p.30 #6 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not following this one. What do you mean by DOF not going to the background? At infinity it's pretty much flat field.


It's not about field curvature. It's about it's focusing behavior. You will notice that if you focus on for example a subject at mid distance, you hardly gain DOF behind that subject with stopping down. Almost all the extra DOF goes to the foreground. The only way to get the background more in focus is to actually compensate for this and focus behind the subject when you stop down. At least on the A7 and A7S back then. I believe this was also later documented at Diglloyd (when I still had a subscription).
The FE 35/1.4 and 35/2 Sonnar on my RX1RII don't behave like this.





Jul 10, 2017 at 11:43 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #7 · p.30 #7 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Jochenb wrote:
It's not about field curvature. It's about it's focusing behavior. You will notice that if you focus on for example a subject at mid distance, you hardly gain DOF behind that subject with stopping down. Almost all the extra DOF goes to the foreground. The only way to get the background more in focus is to actually compensate for this and focus behind the subject when you stop down. At least on the A7 and A7S back then. I believe this was also later documented at Diglloyd (when I still had a subscription).
The FE 35/1.4 and 35/2 Sonnar on
...Show more

Thanks for letting me know. I will test this out today.



Jul 10, 2017 at 04:58 PM
Parariss
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #8 · p.30 #8 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for letting me know. I will test this out today.


Not disagreeing, jochenb, just hoping to learn something:
As I understand it, what one gains in DoF from stopping down isn't a function of lens design, it's a function of focal length, focus distance, sensor size, and aperture. I could see how the way one camera's autofocus logic (especially when letting the camera choose AF points from a wide area) might differ from another model's, but it seems like all 35mm lenses should behave the same on a given body. I could also see the AF decisions a camera makes being handled differently with shorter focal lengths because the manufacturer decided to bake-in some guesses about user preferences given how wide lenses more quickly hit hyperfocal, but that wouldn't seem to be lens-specific, either.



Jul 10, 2017 at 06:12 PM
Marve Almar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #9 · p.30 #9 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Fred Miranda wrote:
The 50/1.4 ZA on the A9 (silent shutter) would allow you to shoot at high shutter speeds without worrying about EFCS and therefore harsh bokeh. However that can already be done on the A7RII with stationary subjects.


Thanks, that helps!



Jul 10, 2017 at 09:22 PM
jarek0423
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #10 · p.30 #10 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


I got an A9 right when it was released and have the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 that I use on my A9. The 50/1.4 is quickly becoming my favorite lens (and I'm mostly a 35mm guy). My Noctilux has been sitting on the shelf since I got the 50/1.4... That's the only downside so far of using this lens!


Jul 10, 2017 at 10:50 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #11 · p.30 #11 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Parariss wrote:
Not disagreeing, jochenb, just hoping to learn something:
As I understand it, what one gains in DoF from stopping down isn't a function of lens design, it's a function of focal length, focus distance, sensor size, and aperture.


it is also a function of lens design. DoF charts and such are based on a model of an idealized single element lens, the realities of how actual lenses are designed produce results that vary in from these in their reality to some degree.





Jul 12, 2017 at 11:07 PM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #12 · p.30 #12 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Jochenb wrote:
It's not about field curvature. It's about it's focusing behavior. You will notice that if you focus on for example a subject at mid distance, you hardly gain DOF behind that subject with stopping down. Almost all the extra DOF goes to the foreground. The only way to get the background more in focus is to actually compensate for this and focus behind the subject when you stop down. At least on the A7 and A7S back then. I believe this was also later documented at Diglloyd (when I still had a subscription).
The FE 35/1.4 and 35/2 Sonnar on
...Show more

You mean there's focus shift? But doesn't it focus stopped down? Or do you mean the autofocus has front focus? Is that true on the latest FW?



Jul 13, 2017 at 01:38 AM
Jannik Peters
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #13 · p.30 #13 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


I was excited to try the FE 1.4/50 after the positive opinions here..

Although the qc should have improved, this was not the case with my sample.. My 1.4/35 and now also 1.4/50 decentering orgy continues and I am really pissed off to be honest..

Otherwise the flare performance was way worse than I have expected. I guess this is not only caused by decentering but a general problem. Did you experience similar problems?






















Aug 07, 2017 at 07:37 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #14 · p.30 #14 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


@Jannik Peters,
I didn't think flare was an issue with this lens. It performed similarly to the Loxia 50/2 and FE 55/1.8 when I tested them side-by-side many months ago. There is definitely some variation with the 50/1.4ZA but I think it's similar to the FE 55/1.8.

The Loxia 50/2 wins regarding variation. I've rented and onwed at least 4 of them and they were all perfect.

The 35/1.4 ZA is more problematic from what I heard but I got lucky at first try.



Aug 07, 2017 at 07:46 PM
Jannik Peters
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #15 · p.30 #15 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Thanks for your reply, Fred! The 1.8/55 didn't perform completely flawless either in my worst cast tests. I think my GM 85 beats both of them in that category.

You should never sell your 1.4/35! I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I find a proven good sample.



Aug 07, 2017 at 07:50 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #16 · p.30 #16 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Jannik Peters wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Fred! The 1.8/55 didn't perform completely flawless either in my worst cast tests. I think my GM 85 beats both of them in that category.

You should never sell your 1.4/35! I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I find a proven good sample.


I didn't attempt to get the 35/1.4 ZA when it first came out because of all the variation reports. Then I looked at one at the Buy and Sell board and asked the seller to do a simple test for me. He was able to do it perfectly and I saw it was good copy before pulling the trigger.
Fred



Aug 08, 2017 at 07:24 PM
Jannik Peters
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #17 · p.30 #17 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


I'll do it like that too. I've tried it once and the lens of the seller was decentered.. At least I didn't buy it although I felt a little sorry for his work.


Aug 08, 2017 at 07:30 PM
pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #18 · p.30 #18 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


While I liked many things about the FE 50/1.4 ZA, flare and ghosting were not among them. My guess is that one or both of the aspherical elements touted in the Sony literature is a plastic molded aspherical element. They can do very well for MTF charts, but they show their weakness in bright light. They are also difficult to manufacture precisely. Sony seems to be using a lot of these in their lens designs. In contrast, I think Zeiss is using all glass elements in the Loxia's.

From the Sony website:
A refined double-gauss design incorporating two aspherical elements, including one precision AA (advanced aspherical) element, works with an ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass element to suppress field curvature and distortion while maintaining outstanding image-wide resolution and contrast from the widest aperture at any focusing distance



Aug 09, 2017 at 06:01 AM
bjornthun
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.30 #19 · p.30 #19 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


pdmphoto wrote:
While I liked many things about the FE 50/1.4 ZA, flare and ghosting were not among them. My guess is that one or both of the aspherical elements touted in the Sony literature is a plastic molded aspherical element. They can do very well for MTF charts, but they show their weakness in bright light. They are also difficult to manufacture precisely. Sony seems to be using a lot of these in their lens designs. In contrast, I think Zeiss is using all glass elements in the Loxia's.

From the Sony website:
A refined double-gauss design incorporating two aspherical elements, including
...Show more

Why do the aspherical elements have a waekness in bright light? How is it that they cause the flaring/ghosting?



Aug 09, 2017 at 11:08 AM
ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.30 #20 · p.30 #20 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA Rolling Review


Just took the kids to Austria & Berlin - the 50/1.4 continues to be my favorite lens, as much as i loved and miss both the 35/1.4 & 85GM - this is the one lens to rule them all





















Aug 09, 2017 at 11:29 AM
1       2       3              29      
30
       31       32       33       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              29      
30
       31       32       33       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password