p.8 #1 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
virtualrain wrote:
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.
Agree here. When looking at the Dear Susan's post's images, I have a hard time seeing anything magic. In my opinion, it is mainly the photographers ability to make an image look interesting, to play with light etc. The rendering of lenses helps achieving it, but not knowing how to use a lens won't help even with the most magic obtained from this lens.
p.8 #2 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Fred Miranda wrote:
...... Great test!
I don't think that this is a great test.. They know that their 1.8/55 is decentered and think that the 1.4/50 is decentered too. The stupid thing is that they didn't test it, they just guess. So they probably compare a stinker with another stinker.. Doesn't make sense in my opinion.
Coma performance suffers from decentering, I don't think that the 1.8/55 samples are representative here.
They showed a sample of the 1.4/50 LoCA-performance and say that it is much better than the 1.8/55. I am really curious about that but don't see a comparable image of the 1.8/55. It is the achilles heel of the 1.8/55 and the one thing that I really dislike about this lens.
p.8 #3 · 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.
Yes, let's just say they have different personalities when it comes to bokeh.
However, according to the test in question, the new 50/1.4 is better corrected for LoCA and coma and there aren't really fixes for these aberrations except for stopping the lens down.
Good point on the 55 vs 50mm giving a blur edge to the longer lens.
p.8 #4 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Jannik Peters wrote:
I don't think that this is a great test.. They know that their 1.8/55 is decentered and think that the 1.4/50 is decentered too. The stupid thing is that they didn't test it, they just guess. So they probably compare a stinker with another stinker.. Doesn't make sense in my opinion.
Good point!
What I meant was that is was a good test for us to see the differences in bokeh quality. Posting results from decentered lenses is never a good idea. As you wrote, there shouldn't be any guessing on this. It's a 5-minute test.
Aside from that, I trust LensRentals results more than any other test or review. Not only because Roger is a nice guy , but because I believe in his methodology. Like you, I test my lenses for decentering and Roger's optical bench tests at infinity show very similar results to what I see in real pictures.
p.8 #5 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
The LoCA on the 55 is really the only thing holding me back, to be honest. The 50 f/1.4 is still too big/costly for my needs at that focal length-- but I can see the reduction in LoCA being worth it for many folks, and that's not even considering the light gathering and IQ performance otherwise.
Why don't we have a LoCA reduction tool in post? Seems like it shouldn't be horribly difficult: software looks for gradient of two colors, identifies peak sharpness plane. The user could even have a manual mode with a tool to select the hue(s) in question and adjust strength/width of correction.
p.8 #6 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Yes, it is obvious that the 1.4/50 performs better in terms of onion rings.
I think all of us (and also Sony itself) can be grateful for Roger's work. The recent improvements of sample variation in the newest FE lenses are probably mostly his merit. Although these MTF curves only show one aspect of lens performance, it is probably the most important one. At least for us landscapers.
I personally have a one year gear acquisition stop (a bet with my wife :P ), but the 1.4/50 is a very attractive partner for my Loxia 2/50 and could replace my 1.8/55 if it performs much better in terms of LoCA and drops a little in price or gets available used.
p.8 #7 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
justruss wrote:
The LoCA on the 55 is really the only thing holding me back, to be honest. The 50 f/1.4 is still too big/costly for my needs at that focal length-- but I can see the reduction in LoCA being worth it for many folks, and that's not even considering the light gathering and IQ performance otherwise.
Why don't we have a LoCA reduction tool in post? Seems like it shouldn't be horribly difficult: software looks for gradient of two colors, identifies peak sharpness plane. The user could even have a manual mode with a tool to select the hue(s) in question and adjust strength/width of correction. ...Show more →
Russ,
Lightroom offers "Defringe" since version 4.1
It's basically designed to reduce/remove LoCA (longitudinal or axial chromatic aberration)
In "Lens Correction", select "Manual" and the "Defringe" tool will be there. In same cases, LoCa can't be entirely removed though.
p.8 #8 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Fred Miranda wrote:
In "Lens Correction", select "Manual" and the "Defringe" tool will be there. In same cases, LoCa can't be entirely removed though.
I use it often when I work with the 1.8/55 an it works most of the time. Unfortunately, the LoCA are sometimes just too large, I get visible grey borders around the subjects.
p.8 #9 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Russ,
Lightroom offers "Defringe" since version 4.1
It's basically designed to reduce/remove LoCA (longitudinal or axial chromatic aberration)
In "Lens Correction", select "Manual" and the "Defringe" tool will be there.
I find that it works really well 90% of the time-- and then the other 10% of the time it's impossible to quash the fringing without seriously damaging the image, even going into manual mode and adjusting the width and strength and hue of the correction. It feels like a dumb tool in that given a tiny bit more control-- maybe even the ability to paint in fringe correction only in parts of the image + intelligence to blend colors on either side of the fringing in order to bridge large fringes without producing a grey halo-- it would be pretty easy to get the super-easy success rate up to 99.9%.
p.8 #10 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
justruss wrote:
I find that it works really well 90% of the time-- and then the other 10% of the time it's impossible to quash the fringing without seriously damaging the image, even going into manual mode and adjusting the width and strength and hue of the correction. It feels like a dumb tool in that given a tiny bit more control-- maybe even the ability to paint in fringe correction only in parts of the image + intelligence to blend colors on either side of the fringing in order to bridge large fringes without producing a grey halo-- it would be pretty easy to get the super-easy success rate up to 99.9%. ...Show more →
What I do is aggressively defringe one image, leave another uncorrected, and then export them as layers to photoshop and blend in the defringed image where necessary...
Jul 20, 2016 at 03:54 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #11 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
charles.K wrote:
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.
Very true Charles. Very fast film lenses like the Nocti you had really need to be used on film if shot wide open. I don't know if you have seen this post on the lens rentals blog:
But, if you look at the first chart at f/1 even a 1mm piece of glass (like in a Kolari modified Sony A7 series or the Leica SL) is going to cripple the micro contrast in the *centre*. You really can't make the cover glass thin enough to allow shooting this lens wide open (and why get it if you don't use it wide open), so this lens really needs film.
Even your 75 Lux suffered a bit in the centre from the cover glass of an unmodified Sony A7--but just a bit and it probably won't be all that bad, but then you look at the second graph and see how the cover glass effects the edges and corners with even f/2 lenses by introducing extra astigmatism. These lenses have exit pupils closer to 50mm than 100mm. That is affecting you 75 Lux too and even your cron DR. It will be much less of a problem on those with a Kolari modification, but again there will still be a bit of diminished performance.
The bottom line is that although I love the Leica M lenses some real care has to be exercised in selecting them for the Sony camera. Lenses made for digital Leica have less of a problem as they are designed for a 1mm or so cover glass, so that can help. Others are slow and have longer exit pupils and are fine, but unfortunately some of these beautiful lenses (like those you had) can lose their magic.
p.8 #12 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Very true Charles. Very fast film lenses like the Nocti you had really need to used on film if shot wide open. I don't know if you have seen this post on the lens rentals blog:
But, if you look at the first chart at f/1 even a 1mm piece of glass (like in a Kolari modified Sony A7 series or the Leica SL) is going to cripple the micro contrast in the *centre*. You really can't make the cover glass thin enough to allow shooting this lens wide open (and why get it if you don't use it wide open), so this lens really needs film.
Even your 75 Lux suffered a bit in the centre from the cover glass of an unmodified Sony A7--but just a bit and it probably won't be all that bad, but then you look at the second graph and see how the cover glass effects the edges and corners with even f/2 lenses by introducing extra astigmatism. These lenses have exit pupils closer to 50mm than 100mm. That is affecting you 75 Lux too and even your cron DR. It will be much less of a problem on those with a Kolari modification, but again there will still be a bit of diminished performance.
The bottom line is that although I love the Leica M lenses some real care has to be exercised in selecting them for the Sony camera. Lenses made for digital Leica have less of a problem as they are designed for a 1mm or so cover glass, so that can help. Others are slow and have longer exit pupils and are fine, but unfortunately some of these beautiful lenses (like those you had) can lose their magic....Show more →
Steve, thank you for the link to the article! Excellent read
With my A7r I did have it Kolari modified v1 and I still noticed a difference from my M9/M240 with 50 Nocti f/1.0, 75 Lux and 50 Cron DR. The one lens that appears to be fine, is the M 50 Cron IV and is now one of my favorites on the A7rII.
The camera body that I have had the least issues is the A7s adapting the M 50 Nocti f/1.0 and 75 Lux.
Some shots from the streets of Tainan with A7s and M 50 Nocti f/1.0 @ f/1.0 with Phigment adapter. (No longer available now)
p.8 #13 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Why I blew off the test to begin with. Going in flawed comes out flawed. There is a old saying garbage in means garbage out. I'll wait for more tests. Truth be told I am not a fan of DPR testing never have been. But that's me so take that with a grain of salt. Just give us the damn lens in our hands. Lol
Jannik Peters wrote:
I don't think that this is a great test.. They know that their 1.8/55 is decentered and think that the 1.4/50 is decentered too. The stupid thing is that they didn't test it, they just guess. So they probably compare a stinker with another stinker.. Doesn't make sense in my opinion.
Coma performance suffers from decentering, I don't think that the 1.8/55 samples are representative here.
They showed a sample of the 1.4/50 LoCA-performance and say that it is much better than the 1.8/55. I am really curious about that but don't see a comparable image of the 1.8/55. It is the achilles heel of the 1.8/55 and the one thing that I really dislike about this lens. ...Show more →
p.8 #14 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
In agreement here.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good point!
What I meant was that is was a good test for us to see the differences in bokeh quality. Posting results from decentered lenses is never a good idea. As you wrote, there shouldn't be any guessing on this. It's a 5-minute test.
Aside from that, I trust LensRentals results more than any other test or review. Not only because Roger is a nice guy , but because I believe in his methodology. Like you, I test my lenses for decentering and Roger's optical bench tests at infinity show very similar results to what I see in real pictures....Show more →
p.8 #15 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
GMPhotography wrote:
Why I blew off the test to begin with. Going in flawed comes out flawed. There is a old saying garbage in means garbage out. I'll wait for more tests. Truth be told I am not a fan of DPR testing never have been. But that's me so take that with a grain of salt. Just give us the damn lens in our hands. Lol
I'd think that if you or I can be bothered to go through 4 copies each of a 35/1.4 looking for a good one, the folks at DPR could be troubled to find good copies before going through the effort of testing and publishing results. And admitting to readers that they're using a faulty copy only makes it worse. It's almost the pure embodiment of the millennial disease - "well, i did something, so look at me, can i have my reward now". I prefer learning from photographers who look at photography as art, but if you're selling a technical test, then at least have the ambition to go about it with a certain amount of rigor.
p.8 #16 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
ecarlino wrote:
I'd think that if you or I can be bothered to go through 4 copies each of a 35/1.4 looking for a good one, the folks at DPR could be troubled to find good copies before going through the effort of testing and publishing results. And admitting to readers that they're using a faulty copy only makes it worse. It's almost the pure embodiment of the millennial disease - "well, i did something, so look at me, can i have my reward now". I prefer learning from photographers who look at photography as art, but if you're selling a technical test, then at least have the ambition to go about it with a certain amount of rigor....Show more →
Could not agree more. Honestly why waste the time when you know you have a issue. Fix the issue and get rid of all the variables you possibly can. Thats how you run tests is get the variables to a absolute minimum. When the question comes up on the 35mm 1.4 I am usually the first one to give that warning out to them both privately and publicly , you simply have to care about other folks money and give them all the data you can to help them. I love that 35 1.4 but you are challenged to find to a good copy. People need to know this stuff. This 50 looks really nice but If i find a issue your going to know about it.
p.8 #18 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
Jman13 wrote:
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.
Mathematically it's actually 0.45 stops. However 1 decimal place is not really enough to specify large apertures, i.e. there's a big difference between f/1.75 and f/1.85, and then there's the fact that the focal length is a) nominal (it's never exactly 50mm) and b) also varies with focus distance (it's specified for infinity only).
If you want an accurate figure you would have to shoot a test image with both lenses at a representative subject distance!
p.8 #19 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!
ecarlino wrote:
I'd think that if you or I can be bothered to go through 4 copies each of a 35/1.4 looking for a good one, the folks at DPR could be troubled to find good copies before going through the effort of testing and publishing results. And admitting to readers that they're using a faulty copy only makes it worse. It's almost the pure embodiment of the millennial disease - "well, i did something, so look at me, can i have my reward now". I prefer learning from photographers who look at photography as art, but if you're selling a technical test, then at least have the ambition to go about it with a certain amount of rigor....Show more →
Playing devil's advocate, if Sony can't supply the largest camera gear review site with a good copy what hope does the average consumer have? A good copy may exhibit great performance but that doesn't help very much if the probability of obtaining a good copy is low.
