p.7 #1 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Fred Miranda wrote:
The bokeh disks look much cleaner and free of onion ring patterns on the 50/1.4 even with all the aspherical elements. Another hint that the new glass-molding tech is part of this lens.
Coma is very well controlled. Great test!
Agree. Even though they seem to subjectively prefer the oof rendering of the 1.8, I think I prefer the 1.4.
p.7 #3 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
chrisgibbs wrote:
The second page on the DPR test for Bokeh is very encouraging. What I see in my FE 1.8/55 that I don't like is edgy/harsh OOF rendering, the new 50 looks to be worlds better on the DPR test. ~Chris
You see world's better in those crops? They are very, very close to my eye. In some circumstances, you can see some onion ring bokeh on the 55, but There's also some harsh edges near the periphery on the 50. Overall, it's pretty close to a wash to my eye.
Because of the longer focal length, the blurring capability is really close to a 1/3 stop difference, so the look is fairly similar between the two as well. I'll keep my 55.
p.7 #5 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
That's what I said. The 55 has some onion rings, the 50 shows some harsh edges. It's not too bad, but it's a slight edge to the 50 in one case and an edge to the 55 in another...combined I think the bokeh is pretty much a wash.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'd say that aside from the onion ring patterns, the 55/1.8 bokeh looks great. I don't think it's harsh at all. There is actually more edge-lining on the 50/1.4 lens in many areas of that image. Here is an example: (FE 50/1.4 on the Left)
p.7 #6 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
The plot thickens!
I spent about 10 minutes on the DPR Bokeh samples, and convinced myself the 50/1.4 looked better to my eye (in certain areas) but simply could be seeing what I want to see, we're at that point, most these new optics are that close.
p.7 #7 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
GMPhotography wrote:
Could be very true. I have the Loxia 50 so I'm hoping this will replace it. I'm also thinking of a change buy this 50 sell the Loxia 50 and my 85 GM and pick up the new 70-200 2.8 . So have my RX2 , 50 1.4, ZM 85 f4 and the 70-200. I usually rent these 70-200 lenses but I could see actually owning it. I'm noodling this one and if the 50 and 85 are very similar I may do it. Will see I'm in no hurry to sell my GM 85 as I love it. Besides I want to test this 50 first but I will sell the Loxia 50 to help finance it. I'm also in the midst of trying to test the 70-200 2.8 for this shoot here in NY before release to the public.
Don't sell your 85 GM. You will miss the look is produces for intimate portraits. I just took this picture of my daughter Julia. This is straight from the camera and as simple as it can be with only a window as light source. Love the sharpness wide-open combined with the blur transition. This lens is special.
p.7 #8 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Jman13 wrote:
You see world's better in those crops? They are very, very close to my eye. In some circumstances, you can see some onion ring bokeh on the 55, but There's also some harsh edges near the periphery on the 50. Overall, it's pretty close to a wash to my eye.
Because of the longer focal length, the blurring capability is really close to a 1/3 stop difference, so the look is fairly similar between the two as well. I'll keep my 55.
Look around the area where DPR parked the puck, compare that that are to the outer edges, that's a big change, it looks way better away from the center IMO.
IMO it's a bit pointless to worry about precise sharpness comparisons with the the 55/1.8 - both of these lenses are going to be tack sharp. And even if the 55 edges out the 50 in sharpness, that was never the criticism (at least for me) of the 55, rather the 55 never had the "magic" for me (i found it clinical) and this is what i'm waiting to see about the 50. It's up for everyone to decide for themselves, at each focal length, what the priority is.
But the fact that the 55 may be slightly sharper at certain/all apertures at certain/all distances from center is hardly a concern of mine - the 50 is more than sharp enough.
p.7 #10 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Keep the 85 GM!!!
I have owned many 85's including the Otus. My new GM is an absolute keeper and one of the most stunning lenses I have owned. Renders beautifully and it is insanely sharp! So much so i have a brand new in the box milvus 85 I am trying to sell.
I have had the new 50 1.4 on order and should have it soon. I
IMO it's a bit pointless to worry about precise sharpness comparisons with the the 55/1.8 - both of these lenses are going to be tack sharp. And even if the 55 edges out the 50 in sharpness, that was never the criticism (at least for me) of the 55, rather the 55 never had the "magic" for me (i found it clinical) and this is what i'm waiting to see about the 50. It's up for everyone to decide for themselves, at each focal length, what the priority is.
But the fact that the 55 may be slightly sharper at certain/all apertures at certain/all distances from center is hardly a concern of mine - the 50 is more than sharp enough....Show more →
Very well written article, thanks for the heads-up. Great examples too!!!
IMO it's a bit pointless to worry about precise sharpness comparisons with the the 55/1.8 - both of these lenses are going to be tack sharp. And even if the 55 edges out the 50 in sharpness, that was never the criticism (at least for me) of the 55, rather the 55 never had the "magic" for me (i found it clinical) and this is what i'm waiting to see about the 50. It's up for everyone to decide for themselves, at each focal length, what the priority is.
But the fact that the 55 may be slightly sharper at certain/all apertures at certain/all distances from center is hardly a concern of mine - the 50 is more than sharp enough....Show more →
Excellent piece! Could not agree more. I would also add that the "magic" lenses depend on the camera sensor/body that are being matched to. Recently some of my all time favorites/magic lenses, M 50 Nocti f/1.0, 75 Lux, 50 Cron DR changed in personality/magic when I put them on the A7rII to the point where I was very disappointed and moved these lenses on.
This is no doubt why the RX1rII is so successful having a lens matched to the sensor.
p.7 #15 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
virtualrain wrote:
Seems like a good unbiased assessment. Although the superior center sharpness doesn't materialize.....
I wonder if the central sharpness of the 50 is beyond what current sensors can discern/resolve? It's possibly a case of future proofing in anticipation of 70-100+MP sensors a year or few down the road.
p.7 #16 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
^^^ Ron, there are few old(er) lenses that easily out resolve A7RM2 42MP sensor. Some of them even at f/2.8-f/4 (ZM35D)
I suspect current Loxia/GM series and FE 50/1.4 ZA are 'good' for double of that resolution.
p.7 #17 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Supposedly Zeiss's more recent lenses are good for at least 100MP.
I find it interesting that the Loxia 50 gets such raves. I have the ZM50/2 and when I did my RF lens shootout on the a7R, it was not as sharp as the 50 Lux ASPH or FE55/1.8.... Maybe whatever minor tweaks Zeiss made to the design for the FE mount also increased sharpness?
I just read the DPR review... interesting about the problem of AF performance dropping off due to the lens being stopped down at working aperture. I was recently at a Sony media event where this exact problem occurred to one of the others at the outing... they were shooting higher than f/8 and the camera (a7RII) couldn't lock focus with the 85GM.... I shot a bunch of lenses stopped down more than f/8 and the camera focused OK, but the subjects were generally static.
p.7 #18 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
virtualrain wrote:
I haven't noticed any CA issues with my FE 55 - not sure if that's because of what I shoot, C1 auto correcting it, or what.
I follow a few people on Flikr that use the 55/1.8 extensively, and the LoCA reminds me of my 50/1.4 USM. Sharp as all get out to be sure and contrasty, unlike that old Canon design, but that CA correction at wider apertures could easily be worth it; add in smoother OOF highlights and the FE 50/1.4 screams professional tool.
(personally, I'd probably go for the 55/1.8 too- if I need to shoot wide-open, I could care less about CA, and stopped down where I prefer to live the lens shines- but I'm no pro )
IMO it's a bit pointless to worry about precise sharpness comparisons with the the 55/1.8 - both of these lenses are going to be tack sharp. And even if the 55 edges out the 50 in sharpness, that was never the criticism (at least for me) of the 55, rather the 55 never had the "magic" for me (i found it clinical) and this is what i'm waiting to see about the 50. It's up for everyone to decide for themselves, at each focal length, what the priority is.
But the fact that the 55 may be slightly sharper at certain/all apertures at certain/all distances from center is hardly a concern of mine - the 50 is more than sharp enough....Show more →
Thanks for sharing. It's interesting that some don't feel the FE 55 is magical, but I suppose not everyone defines magical the same. In my eyes, the FE 55 has a vibrancy and sharpness that make images pop in my opinion. I remember one of the first shots I took with some blue sky in the frame and wondered if a C-Pol filter was somehow integrated into the lens. And the way it captures people is also very impressive (IMHO). I guess one man's clinical is another man's magic.
p.7 #20 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Jman13 wrote:
That's what I said. The 55 has some onion rings, the 50 shows some harsh edges. It's not too bad, but it's a slight edge to the 50 in one case and an edge to the 55 in another...combined I think the bokeh is pretty much a wash.
I agree here. The 55 really holds up well. I like the lens and its rendering very much, don't see any clinical rendering (whatever that is).
)