Frogfish wrote:
Really ? I did not find the CA atrocious, even wide open, and it will take just 5 secs to remove it in LR/PS. EDIT : it does look pretty bad for a modern lens in the fountain shots.
Thanks for the reviews Philip !
If you do any sharpening though, as you mentioned later on, it should be stated up front along with the exact details of the sharpening applied. Did you apply the same sharpening to the shots from both lenses ?
Thats not the kind of CA you can easily remove in post.
Whenever I compared the Loxia and Milvus the LR settings were identical.
I don't really see a reason why I should write about the exact level of sharpening, usually it will be 51/1/25 because that's my default value for most presets.
I don't have easy access to a FE55 and I sold mine because the manual focus sucked. I don't think it is any better when it comes to OOF fringes. The fountain is a pretty extreme test.
One thing I found curious is that the lens extends about 3mm when focused from infinity to 45cm. All my other 50's extend about twice as much. How can this be?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
One thing I found curious is that the lens extends about 3mm when focused from infinity to 45cm. All my other 50's extend about twice as much. How can this be?
floating optical group. all your other 50s focus by moving all the glass the same distance.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Thats not the kind of CA you can easily remove in post.
Whenever I compared the Loxia and Milvus the LR settings were identical.
I don't really see a reason why I should write about the exact level of sharpening, usually it will be 51/1/25 because that's my default value for most presets.
Thanks for the information Philip. Of course people are interested in what level of sharpening has been applied when viewing (especially test) samples. Surprised you would think otherwise !
Jonas B wrote:
The third image, the one of the bird eating grass...
There is something strange I think to the focus plane in that image. Maybe just me getting tricked, maybe a decentered element. What do you think?
the composition makes you think the focus plain should be perpendicular to the path but the camera is actually tilted towards the path this gives the illusion of a slanted focus plane (i believe).
sebboh wrote:
the composition makes you think the focus plain should be perpendicular to the path but the camera is actually tilted towards the path this gives the illusion of a slanted focus plane (i believe).
Maybe you're right. There is no other similar image this far to judge this. But the sharp area is much closer to the bottom of the image to the left than it is to the right, no matter the direction the path takes. To me it looks odd but it may be an illusion.
sebboh wrote:
the composition makes you think the focus plain should be perpendicular to the path but the camera is actually tilted towards the path this gives the illusion of a slanted focus plane (i believe).
Okay, now I'm confused. Isn't the plane of focus aligned (as best it could be without changing position) to the duck? And wouldn't that mean the camera and lens were swung away from the path?
Never mind, I see it now. It was the leaves on the right side that were throwing me off.
davewolfs wrote:
Which lens do you prefer shooting with so far?
I guess the Milvus.
The Loxia is sharp and contrasty but the bokeh is below average for a 50mm lens. The Milvus in contrast is quite nice when I am not shooting fountains with very likeable bokeh and really good sharpness for a f/1.4.
From an ergonomics point of view I think the Loxia is about perfect on the a7, the Milvus is far from it. The weight and size actually doesn't bother me that much, for shorter trips I simply use a bigger camera bag. But focusing is really slow and the aperture ring too sensitive.
If i could get the Milvus' performance from f/2 in the Loxia package I would instantly buy that lens. As it is now I can see that both lenses will find a following but they both come with serious tradeoffs.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Here is an image of a flat subject at f/1.4:
(a building)
I don't think that there is an issue with the focus plane.
Looks good, but the building isn't perpendicular to the sensor plane to my eyes.
Phillip, never mind; everything is probably OK. And if not, the trick is, as always, to get a good copy. I just wonder if a lesser copy could give us worse results than a proper lens would have done. I've had a hard day at work and I'm more tired than I like when writing these posts. I'll check back tomorrow.
The Loxia is sharp and contrasty but the bokeh is below average for a 50mm lens. The Milvus in contrast is quite nice when I am not shooting fountains with very likeable bokeh and really good sharpness for a f/1.4.
From an ergonomics point of view I think the Loxia is about perfect on the a7, the Milvus is far from it. The weight and size actually doesn't bother me that much, for shorter trips I simply use a bigger camera bag. But focusing is really slow and the aperture ring too sensitive.
If i could get the Milvus' performance from f/2 in the Loxia package I would instantly buy that lens. As it is now I can see that both lenses will find a following but they both come with serious tradeoffs....Show more →
Do you ever shoot with a grip? I feel like perhaps it might make the larger lens more comfortable to handle.
davewolfs wrote:
Do you ever shoot with a grip? I feel like perhaps it might make the larger lens more comfortable to handle.
I use a L-bracket and with it handling is okay, much better than without.
Did you ever use the ZE/ZF 50 1.4? I might be in the minority but I thought it was a really nice lens, just didn't like being wide open near MFD. I'd be curious to see how much better the new version is, though the size probably takes it right out of contention for me.
):
