I like that comparsion. I just have a question regarding EXIF.
The top one was shot at 1.2 for a full second and the bottom one was 1/3 sec and 1.4, is that correct?
I’m wondering why the exposure is similar, maybe even lighter on the 58.
I am still learning and have practically zero post production skills. Lovely images both
SoFoFo wrote:
I like that comparsion. I just have a question regarding EXIF.
The top one was shot at 1.2 for a full second and the bottom one was 1/3 sec and 1.4, is that correct?
I’m wondering why the exposure is similar, maybe even lighter on the 58.
I am still learning and have practically zero post production skills. Lovely images both
Thank you for the comment. The biggest factor is probably the time it took for me between the two shots. I use FTZ 1 adapter for 58, which has a bulge at bottom serving also as extra tripod mount. ( I usually don't use this, I have L-plate on my 6 ) This kind of get in the way when using tripod and changing the lens. What I mean, is that, I can not keep the camera on tripod and mount / dismount the 58 with FTZ. So, I needed to take the camera off the tripod to change the lens. Also the difference of 50 mm to 58 mm was big enough that I needed to adjust location. In addition, it was a drizzling morning, so light condition was changing. By the time I shot the 58, light level was probably different enough to cause the difference. Exposure was set manually by looking at the display, So all of this affected the shutter speed / aperture relation. I can’t say at 1.4, which lens actually let more light through, as I never tested it in a controlled environment. I hope this explained the difference you noticed in the EXIF.
akul wrote:
comparing 58/1.4G and Z 50/1.2S. 50/1.2S is definitely sharper if you zoom in, but I find overall rendering is very similar in this shot.
Interesting comp, and of course relevant! However, in the images posted above, I don’t see any sharpness difference looking in the fern and leaves at the base of the tree; and actually if anything, the 58 appears a teeny bit crisper, at least to me. Also, the tree looks smaller, like you were further back with the 58? I know it’s tough to do these comparisons, really need same distance, same image size, same aperture and max apertures to keep everyone happy 😊. Obviously crops from the native files at 100% would tell more. Thank you for sharing!
Of course, I am not making this as a 'technical' comparison, I meant to say it was an acceidental comparison but forgot to say it on the original post. Also,if you set the exact same distance, it will be a very different size images. Makes it even harder to compare. Sharpness also, is not at all the interest, as we all know 50/1.2 is much sharper. It is really,to me was about the overall rendering, which to me is very similar. 58 though, to me still is a bit more painterly, and be artful. Both are very good, and I like them both and I was surprised to see the similarity between the two than the difference.
Also,if you set the exact same distance, it will be a very different size images. Makes it even harder to compare. Sharpness also, is not at all the interest, as we all know 50/1.2 is much sharper. It is really,to me was about the overall rendering, which to me is very similar. 58 though, to me still is a bit more painterly, and be artful. Both are very good, and I like them both and I was surprised to see the similarity between the two than the difference. 
