p.7 #1 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
philber wrote:
Peaking, to me, is only an indication. Not enough to guarantee a sharp shot at wider apertures IMHO. Others, however, claim otherwise and and content to use peaking as their means of focusing.
Just a question. Did you previsouly use a FF DSLR that you were used to?
Peaking with magnification is fantastically helpful.
Without magnification it *can* be super accurate, but you need to learn how to use it. You can't just blindly set it to where there is the most peaking, though that sometimes works. Rather you need to get a feel for what those markings mean, and focus back and forwards and watch how the plane of focus changes, and learn what the 'false' indicators are likely to be. With practice, it becomes more accurate than slip image rangefinders or anything like that.
p.7 #2 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Don't forget that there are three settings for peaking. The higher the level, the more inaccurate, in my experience. I use the middle setting. Helps a bunch.
p.7 #3 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
I was quite dissapointed to find the Loxias have manual diaphragm, so you have to open up to full aperture for focussing and stop down afterwards manually so in spite of the automatic magnification its not much quicker than using my manual focus leica lenses.
If I use my nikon mount lenses with a cheap nikon g to sony adapter I can use the aperture control on the adapter as a basic 'pre-set' aperture which is quicker especially as I can do it without taking the camera away from my eye.
p.7 #4 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
TheEmrys wrote:
Don't forget that there are three settings for peaking. The higher the level, the more inaccurate, in my experience. I use the middle setting. Helps a bunch.
In my experience, the correct peaking setting depends on the light. Use low peaking in outdoor high contrast light, high peaking in darker lower contrast light and medium for in between lighting. You can dial in the right amount of peaking for the situation. For example, when shooting portraits, I try to dial in the peaking level so I just barely get a peaking glint in the pupil of the eye when that eye is in focus. Like everything else, nothing beats experience and practice.
p.7 #5 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
gyoung143 wrote:
I was quite dissapointed to find the Loxias have manual diaphragm, so you have to open up to full aperture for focussing and stop down afterwards manually so in spite of the automatic magnification its not much quicker than using my manual focus leica lenses.
If I use my nikon mount lenses with a cheap nikon g to sony adapter I can use the aperture control on the adapter as a basic 'pre-set' aperture which is quicker especially as I can do it without taking the camera away from my eye.
Gerry
What scenarios would you need to focus at wide open? I almost always focus at shooting aperture.
p.7 #6 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
I focus at full aperture almost all the time, its been 'traditional' with slrs for very good reason, minimum depth of field and focus means you get the most accurate focus.
Only exception would be with lenses that have significant focus shift, but I don't own any of those
p.7 #7 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
gyoung143 wrote:
I was quite dissapointed to find the Loxias have manual diaphragm, so you have to open up to full aperture for focussing and stop down afterwards manually so in spite of the automatic magnification its not much quicker than using my manual focus leica lenses.
This very reason killed my interest on Loxias. I shoot a lot of low light and "wide open focus regardless of chosen aperture" I have with lenses with electronic aperture gives much higher quality EVF (way less noise, better refresh rate...) and focus peaking is more accurate. If the lens has significant focus shift this may cause issues, but I shoot mostly Zeiss (Batis / ZE) and Sony Zeiss primes that mostly have negligible focus shift. Adapted ZE glass on Metabones manually focus wide open by default and native glass when Live View Setting is in "Setting Effect off"
For handheld low light shooting (specially when using flash + significant stopping down) I consider electronic aperture mandatory so I've gotten rid of all lenses that do not provide that.
Sep 29, 2015 at 05:47 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #8 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
tn1krr wrote:
This very reason killed my interest on Loxias. I shoot a lot of low light and "wide open focus regardless of chosen aperture" I have with lenses with electronic aperture gives much higher quality EVF (way less noise, better refresh rate...) and focus peaking is more accurate. If the lens has significant focus shift this may cause issues, but I shoot mostly Zeiss (Batis / ZE) and Sony Zeiss primes that mostly have negligible focus shift. Adapted ZE glass on Metabones manually focus wide open by default and native glass when Live View Setting is in "Setting Effect off"
For handheld low light shooting (specially when using flash + significant stopping down) I consider electronic aperture mandatory so I've gotten rid of all lenses that do not provide that.
This is a good point. I prefer auto aperture as well, but for the clickless aperture which is quite useful for video I think they had to make it manual. For video I would prefer the clickless manual aperture, but for stills I would prefer auto aperture and I think it has to be one or the other.
p.7 #9 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
This is a good point. I prefer auto aperture as well, but for the clickless aperture which is quite useful for video I think they had to make it manual. For video I would prefer the clickless manual aperture, but for stills I would prefer auto aperture and I think it has to be one or the other.
True, the option of clickless is propably the reason for manual aperture; while the FE 35/1.4 ZA can do clickless & electronic aperture it is way bigger lens so it has volume to hide all the different gizmos. Personally I do not do practically any video so I have no use for clickless ==> electronic aperture is a no-brainer to me.
p.7 #10 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
gyoung143 wrote:
I focus at full aperture almost all the time, its been 'traditional' with slrs for very good reason, minimum depth of field and focus means you get the most accurate focus.
Only exception would be with lenses that have significant focus shift, but I don't own any of those
Gerry
I shoot some fast lenses fairly wide open (ZM 35 f:1.4, Otus 55 f:1.4, 135 f: 2.0 APO). Only rarely do I stop down, because viewing my actual DOF is important to me. Let me show you a shot, wide open (SOOC) with the Otus, where I think I misjudged the DOF, and the picture doesn't work for me because of it. Thus, going wide open for best focus only works for me as a last resort when the subject is low contrast and I can't be sure of good focus despite magnification.
p.7 #11 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
That sounds good, and of course its only now with the Sony full frame evf cameras that you can do that. I must try it!
I have been using Leica M film cameras for my own amusement for nearly 50 years, and you can't do that on them, but use the dof scales.
Gerry
In short I would say that the Loxia feels quite a bit more solid and manual focus is much more enjoyable with it. The FE55 has noticeably smoother bokeh and is a bit sharper in the corners wide open, the only advantage I see for the Loxia is that it never shows onion rings in oof highlights.
I had bought the FE55 but I sold it after a few weeks because I found that the sluggish manual focusing experience kept me from enjoying the lens. If you are fine with using AF I see little argument for the Loxia.
The Loxia 2/50 was a loaner from Zeiss and I enjoyed using it quite a bit. Not that much though that I would spent my limited resources on my own copy. Unlike the FE55 it doesn't offer that much more than my other normal lenses optically.
If I could get the FE55's optics in the body of the Loxia I would really be tempted. If you offered me to buy the FE55 or Loxia 50 for 400€ I would probably choose the Loxia.
I really look forward to the Loxia 2.8/21 and future lenses, the concept is great but in the case of the 50 and 35 the older ZM optics aren't that competetive with the newer Sony designs (as long as my taste is concerned).
p.7 #13 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Thanks for the fine review Phillip! It is helpful because I am still trying to decide which way to go even though I have older lenses like the Contax CY 50 1.4, CY 35-70 3.4.
Perhaps you could clarify a point.
You say above that the Loxia 50 "doesn't offer that much more than my other normal lenses optically". And you say that the "the older ZM optics aren't that competetive with the newer Sony designs".
But in the review you say that "The Loxia is sharper than any older manual lens". So in saying that the Loxia is sharper than any older manual lens, are you commenting more on the coatings than the optics, since this would imply better than older Zeiss, Leica, and Minolta lenses?
p.7 #14 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
inglis wrote:
Thanks for the fine review Phillip! It is helpful because I am still trying to decide which way to go even though I have older lenses like the Contax CY 50 1.4, CY 35-70 3.4.
Perhaps you could clarify a point.
You say above that the Loxia 50 "doesn't offer that much more than my other normal lenses optically". And you say that the "the older ZM optics aren't that competetive with the newer Sony designs".
But in the review you say that "The Loxia is sharper than any older manual lens". So in saying that the Loxia is sharper than any older manual lens, are you commenting more on the coatings than the optics, since this would imply better than older Zeiss, Leica, and Minolta lenses?
At f/2 the Loxia is a bit sharper than my nFD 1.4/50 or C/Y 1.4/50 in the center and it holds the sharpness much further towards the corners.
Stopped down many 50mm lenses, among them the C/Y 1.4/50 and Milvus 1.4/50 are great across most of the frame but you can see a very notable drop in the corners. You don't see that with the Loxia. Instead you see a small dip about 15mm from the center but you need to pixel peep to actually see it. So yeah, the Loxia is sharper than normal lenses from the 70's and 80's but it probably won't matter too much.
The ZM 2/35 and 2/50 lenses were very good in their time but today's more expensive lenses have better bokeh (as as I am concerned at least) and they are sharper in the corners wide open.
p.7 #16 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
I currently decide between the Loxia 50mm and 55mm Sony ZEISS. I already shoot with the 21mm Loxia f2.8, 35mm Sony ZEISS f1.4 and 85mm GM f1.4 so I am looking for a small lightweight glass solution in the 50mm area to go also out light with only the 21mm and a 50ish. I basically love the ZEISS 3D pop and colors and a more organic look. Is the Loxia or the 55mm the better choice here? In other words, I had the 50mm Planar f1.4 but the handling was too large at the end for my taste. Would the Loxia come closer to the Planar? Any problems to use the Loxia wide open?
p.7 #17 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
I recently picked up a Loxia 50 and am really enjoying it, largely because of the similar rendering to my Loxia 35 - I assume you'd find the look similar to your Loxia 21. I stayed away from the Zony 55mm because many said that, while very sharp, it had more of a clinical rendering. Of the other 50s I understand the Sony 50 1.4 has the closest contrast / color to the Loxia 50.
If you don't need AF and like to manual focus, I'd definitely go for the Loxia 50. It sounds like you've got AF well covered with your 35 and 85.
p.7 #18 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Mirror wrote:
I currently decide between the Loxia 50mm and 55mm Sony ZEISS. I already shoot with the 21mm Loxia f2.8, 35mm Sony ZEISS f1.4 and 85mm GM f1.4 so I am looking for a small lightweight glass solution in the 50mm area to go also out light with only the 21mm and a 50ish. I basically love the ZEISS 3D pop and colors and a more organic look. Is the Loxia or the 55mm the better choice here? In other words, I had the 50mm Planar f1.4 but the handling was too large at the end for my taste. Would the Loxia come closer to the Planar? Any problems to use the Loxia wide open? ...Show more →
The Loxia 50/2 Planar renders like the ZM 50/2 and has high contrast, deep colors. (same level as the 50/1.4 ZA that many love)
Rendering at mid-distance can be a bit harsh for some backgrounds though.
p.7 #19 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Mirror wrote:
I basically love the ZEISS 3D pop and colors and a more organic look. Is the Loxia or the 55mm the better choice here?
As long as manual focus works for you, Loxia 50mm all the way. I just rebought this lens again, after owning two in the past. (and a couple of the 55s as well). When I look through my favorite images from the past few years, a disproportionate number of them are from the Loxia, in spite of the fact that I don't shoot 50mm that much.
p.7 #20 · Zeiss Loxia 50mm f:2.0 Vs Sony-Zeiss FE 55 f:1.8
Own a Zeiss Loxia 21 F2.8 and really loving the MF and the rendering of the lens. It is my first MF only lens and so far I am having no troubles getting keepers out of it.
I've own the FE 55 F1.8 before but did not like the rendering out of it.
I currently lack a FL 50mm lens and considering the Loxia 50, Voigtlander 50 F1.2 (to be released) and or Sony Zeiss 50 F1.4
