p.2 #1 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Thanks for the report Philippe!
The Loxia 50 is quite a bit cheaper than the FE55 here but both are expensive lenses. Looks like its going to be a tough choice to switch (or stay). For the time being it could be a choice between bokeh, separation and 3D (words..). The Loxia no doubt excel in feel, the manual focus-by-wire of the FE55 is terrible. The bokeh of the FE55 is more to my taste. For the others I am not sure I am pretty impressed with the FE55 so far and AF is handy at times.
p.2 #2 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
wfrank wrote:
Thanks for the report Philippe!
The Loxia 50 is quite a bit cheaper than the FE55 here but both are expensive lenses. Looks like its going to be a tough choice to switch (or stay). For the time being it could be a choice between bokeh, separation and 3D (words..). The Loxia no doubt excel in feel, the manual focus-by-wire of the FE55 is terrible. The bokeh of the FE55 is more to my taste. For the others I am not sure I am pretty impressed with the FE55 so far and AF is handy at times.
Maybe in Europe there is a big difference in cost between the two lenses. Only $49 difference between the 2 lenses in the US:
p.2 #3 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
More shots from the Loxia. I didn't take the FE55 with me, though, so no direct comparison.
The first 2 shots are meant to show bokeh both in the foreground, with focus on the right-hand-3rd-row seat, and in the background, with focus on the right-hand-front-row seat.
The next two are wide open. In the scooter shot, focus is on the speedometer. In the second one, on the face. Note how grefully the lens handles extreme contrast.
p.2 #4 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Thank you for the sample images, some of them are very representative of Zeiss in my eyes. It does look like Zeiss managed to migrate the ZM 50 nicely over to the Loxia line.
I like the way it draws, if I hadn't got the 55/1.8 I would grab one. But, for people shots I find the 55 does a really good job and for bokeh I think the 55 has a slight (subjective) edge. All the rest, manual focus, exif data and size/performance I would hand it to the Loxia lens. I will not hesitate to pick up a used copy further down the line. I have a Zeiss 60 macro for manual use and if the Loxia had been a macro 50/2 it would easily have replaced both of my lenses.
It does look promising for things to come. Now, where is that Loxia ultra wide angle...
p.2 #5 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
The miraculous small Distagons seem unfortunately to be a no-go on A7 current generation. But who knows what the future holds with regards to cover glass thickness at al. Time for a coffee on Söder Kosmos?, long time now :-)
p.2 #6 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
I am a bit surprised how jittery the boke is, not terrible, but a little tense. I suppose I should have expected it, given that this is a port of the ZM 50. I think I might stick with my FE55. The right-way aperture/wrong-way focusing also gives me pause. I am not sure how much that would throw me, since I use almost exclusively ZF.2s.
p.2 #7 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
carstenw wrote:
I am a bit surprised how jittery the boke is, not terrible, but a little tense. I suppose I should have expected it, given that this is a port of the ZM 50. I think I might stick with my FE55. The right-way aperture/wrong-way focusing also gives me pause. I am not sure how much that would throw me, since I use almost exclusively ZF.2s.
Carsten,
The direction of the aperture ring operation was one of the things that surprised me and I am disappointed about the new Loxia lenses. But, being a Leica user I look at this as the right way focus and wrong way aperture adjustment. I am not sure why Zeiss would use the focus direction of the Leica M lenses as they do with their MF lenses for the Leica M lenses but would not also follow the same direction of the Leica M lenses (and their own M mount lenses) for the Loxia lenses. This change makes little sense to me and is something that I want to discuss with Zeiss when I stop by their booth at PhotoPlus probably on October 30.
p.2 #8 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Yes, I prefer the Nikon way, but can get along with the Leica way as well. A mix is just weird, and I don't know how it would be in the field. This is a not a lens I will be ordering without testing it first.
p.2 #9 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
carstenw wrote:
Yes, I prefer the Nikon way, but can get along with the Leica way as well. A mix is just weird, and I don't know how it would be in the field. This is a not a lens I will be ordering without testing it first.
Carsten,
I expect to handle both this and also hopefully the 35mm Loxia at PhotoPlus later this month. I will report back on my observations and findings for both lenses.
p.2 #10 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
naturephoto1 wrote:
Carsten,
The direction of the aperture ring operation was one of the things that surprised me and I am disappointed about the new Loxia lenses. But, being a Leica user I look at this as the right way focus and wrong way aperture adjustment. I am not sure why Zeiss would use the focus direction of the Leica M lenses as they do with their MF lenses for the Leica M lenses but would not also follow the same direction of the Leica M lenses (and their own M mount lenses) for the Loxia lenses. This change makes little sense to me and is something that I want to discuss with Zeiss when I stop by their booth at PhotoPlus probably on October 30.
p.2 #11 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
edwardkaraa wrote:
Rich, there's nothing surprising about the direction of the focus/aperture rings. They're both the correct Minolta way
But not the classic, older Minolta (pre AF) manual focus lens way. I guess it only shows up with third party lenses (since Minolta AF lenses do not have manual aperture control rings on the lenses) and, as I was reminded by Derek, on the RX1 (where you have aperture control on the lens and AF or focus by wire MF). It's a very odd setup imo.
As a side note, a bit disappointed to hear the build quality/ smoothness impresson is not up to the Zeiss ZM's.
p.2 #12 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Some people shots please.
Can the "auto" focus assist(zoom) be turned off? I'd rather have it when or if I choose to have it.
Thanks for posting your thoughts and pics.
p.2 #13 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Tariq Gibran wrote:
As a side note, a bit disappointed to hear the build quality/ smoothness impresson is not up to the Zeiss ZM's.
Tariq, there is nothing wrong with the build quality/smoothness of the Loxia at all. It is very well built indeed, and both rings work fine, and smoothly. It is just a matter of feeling. The focusing ring does not have IMHO the classy feel of the ZM, when you feel the quality (as with Leica M). It may be a size thing, because the barrel of the Loxia is quite a bit larger. To be very specific, it feels totally precise and well machined, but just a bit "dead". The aperture ring, on the other hand, is very pleasant indeed, with each "click" precise, and just the right (light) stiffness.
It could just be that it needs some use before it loosens up a bit and feels just right.
p.2 #14 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
edwardkaraa wrote:
Rich, there's nothing surprising about the direction of the focus/aperture rings. They're both the correct Minolta way
Hi Edward,
But at least as in the case of the Minolta CL and CLE lenses, the Minolta M-Rokkor lenses (M-mount) operated both the focus and the aperture rings as did the Leica M lenses that were used for the Leica M, Leica/Minolta CL, and Minolta CLE cameras.
p.2 #15 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
philber wrote:
Tariq, there is nothing wrong with the build quality/smoothness of the Loxia at all. It is very well built indeed, and both rings work fine, and smoothly. It is just a matter of feeling. The focusing ring does not have IMHO the classy feel of the ZM, when you feel the quality (as with Leica M). It may be a size thing, because the barrel of the Loxia is quite a bit larger. To be very specific, it feels totally precise and well machined, but just a bit "dead". The aperture ring, on the other hand, is very pleasant indeed, with each "click" precise, and just the right (light) stiffness.
It could just be that it needs some use before it loosens up a bit and feels just right.
Thanks for that detailed description Philippe. I had misinterpreted your earlier description as not "buttery smooth" as somehow indicating a lack of build quality refinement.
p.2 #17 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Given that Ron Scheffler tested the ZM version of this lens which performed similarly between the A7r and Leica M9 (he says edges slightly better on M9 until F4), I wonder if there is any optical advantage with the Loxia version of this lens? A side by side with the two - ZM vs Loxia Planar 50 - would be interesting.
The MTF's are fairly similar except that the stopped down MTF for the Loxia is at 5.6 and for the ZM at F4. The Loxia at 5.6 appears to show better corner detail (presumably since we don't get MTF at 5.6 with the ZM) but also shows a zone B dip that is not there in the ZM.
p.2 #18 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Thank you for reporting about your findings Philippe!
Oct 04, 2014 at 06:49 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The MTF's are fairly similar except that the stopped down MTF for the Loxia is at 5.6 and for the ZM at F4. The Loxia at 5.6 appears to show better corner detail (presumably since we don't get MTF at 5.6 with the ZM) but also shows a zone B dip that is not there in the ZM.
Yeah, the MTF charts do suggest a Zone B vs. Zone C tradeoff with the ZM being a bit better in Zone B and the Loxia being a bit better in Zone C. We should keep in mind, however, that the Loxia MTF charts take into account the A7 cover glass (I believe somebody reported the put optical glass matching the cover glass in thickness and perhaps type in the path as they take the MTFs), whereas the ZM MTFs don't take the cover glass into account. This means that the Loxia MTFs ought to be quite accurate, but the ZM MTFs might be affected by the cover glass.
p.2 #20 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, the MTF charts do suggest a Zone B vs. Zone C tradeoff with the ZM being a bit better in Zone B and the Loxia being a bit better in Zone C. We should keep in mind, however, that the Loxia MTF charts take into account the A7 cover glass (I believe somebody reported the put optical glass matching the cover glass in thickness and perhaps type in the path as they take the MTFs), whereas the ZM MTFs don't take the cover glass into account. This means that the Loxia MTFs ought to be quite accurate, but the ZM MTFs might be affected by the cover glass....Show more →
True. I must say though that after taking another look at the ZM Planar test of Ron's, I'm extremely impressed even at F4 by that lens when used on the A7r. I don't know that there would be any real world advantage optically to the Loxia, though a comparative test on the A7r would be very interesting. It's striking also in Ron's test just how much more contrast, clarity (and transparency of color?) that the ZM planar has compared to the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8.
