Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 9

11 … 17 18 end

Archive 2016 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #1 · p.10 #1 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

snapsy wrote:
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.

Well we know from the Lenstental test that the variation is pretty good on this lens by any standard. But we also know from the same data that there are copies that aren't as good as the 55 - that's consistent with low variation. Low variation is not no variation! So if DPR got a less good one that's just luck that tells us nothing about our chances.

Jul 20, 2016 at 04:39 PM

MAubrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #2 · p.10 #2 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

jankap wrote:
The MTF of the questioned lens (Planar T* FE 50/1,4 ZA) is very good, but only in a circle with a radius of say 3 mm.
Perhaps one should average such values from 0 to 10mm (fourthirds).
Jan

The MTF is very good across the frame. It's simply absurdly good within a radius of 3mm.

Jul 20, 2016 at 05:22 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #3 · p.10 #3 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Here is a section I don't quite understand from the dpreview lens review:

They wrote:
"To elaborate, below we show our infinity scene overlaid with red and blue rings representing image heights of 4mm and 16mm, respectively: the two points where the 50 lp/mm MTF traces of the two lenses intersect. Between these rings, Roger's 50/1.4 sagittal 50 lp/mm trace falls below the 55/1.8."

Then they posted a graph showing where the 4mm and 16mm would be located in the 24x36mm full frame sensor:


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/Image_Distance.jpeg

_____________

I believe a more representative region of the image field would place 16mm much further down the edges. It should look like this:


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/corrected.jpg

_____________

Aside from the above illustration error, and only taking the sagittal line in consideration (not sure why), the MTF graph at 50 lp/mm does not show the heights of 4mm and 16mm intercepting for both lenses. Actually, the sagittal line at 50 lp/mm frequency gives the FE 50/1.4 pretty much total control over the entire image field. Only the mid-field is matched by the 55/1.8.

Just to demonstrate what I mean, I plotted the sagittal line (50 lp/mm) showing the FE 50/1.4 (blue line) and FE 55/1.8 (red line)....


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/fixed-plot.jpg

Am I missing something? What I see is a much better center, better extreme edges and similar mid-field as far as high frequency resolution goes for the 50/1.4 ZA. (based on the sagittal line only)

Just for kicks, here is the 50lp/mm sagittal lines comparison between 50/1.4ZA and 50/1.4 Otus. The Otus only has the edge at mid-field but loses by a big margin at center.


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/vs-otus.jpg

Jul 20, 2016 at 06:03 PM

ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #4 · p.10 #4 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

There's been a lot of talk about "sharpness" -
"where" in the frame is "which" lens "sharper".....

my question is this (for those who are interested in analyzing the sharpness to this degree), and i mean this as an honest question:

Both the 55/1.8 and the Otus are considered to be extremely sharp and looking at one setup on DPR and the LR OLAF charts, the new 50/1.4 appears to be (a bit?) sharper in certain areas and less so in others ---

Question: in real life, under what output scenarios (print size) would a viewer notice such a difference?

To my untrained eye, it seems like the 3 of these lenses are in a category i simply call "sharp enough for this and the next generation of sensors" and my interest in the f/1.4 has more to do with other things like aberration control, field curvature, bokeh, rendering, color, etc.

The DPR setup is a 'cute' interface/presentation, but there are so many variables that could sway either lens given it appears to be one setup of one sample from each and we're all just eye-balling things.

My simple-minded take away from Roger's tests were 3 things:
1. reasonably good sample variation can be expected
2. flat field
3. damn sharp

Given the limited number of sample shots available currently, that's about all we can say for sure at this point, or am i missing something?

Jul 20, 2016 at 06:44 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #5 · p.10 #5 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

I'm going with Rogers 3 bullet points. After that it's about rendering . I trust Roger enough to simply go by his test or Freds for that matter. After that it's in my wheel house to decide. Of course I trust some members here as well but I'm a lens whore I know my glass and know what to expect in real world. I got a good feeling about this from Rogers comments so far and private PMs. He has been around this stuff as long as I have. I put faith in that. Hate to say it but others are suspect to me. I trust very few people here. I know one thing as fact if Roger or Fred make a comment it's backed up by knowledge and more important integrity . They are line me and won't steer anyone wrong .

Edited on Jul 20, 2016 at 07:04 PM · View previous versions

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:02 PM

virtualrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #6 · p.10 #6 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

ecarlino wrote:
There's been a lot of talk about "sharpness" -
"where" in the frame is "which" lens "sharper".....

my question is this (for those who are interested in analyzing the sharpness to this degree), and i mean this as an honest question:

Both the 55/1.8 and the Otus are considered to be extremely sharp and looking at one setup on DPR and the LR OLAF charts, the new 50/1.4 appears to be (a bit?) sharper in certain areas and less so in others ---

Question: in real life, under what output scenarios (print size) would a viewer notice such a difference?

To my untrained eye,...Show more →

I think that's accurate, although as Fred has stated a couple of times, the DP Review was insightful for bokeh.

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:04 PM

Nanh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #7 · p.10 #7 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

It appears they mistook the image height to be the diameter of the circle rather than the radius.

Fred Miranda wrote:

Here is a section I don't quite understand from the dpreview lens review:

They wrote:
"To elaborate, below we show our infinity scene overlaid with red and blue rings representing image heights of 4mm and 16mm, respectively: the two points where the 50 lp/mm MTF traces of the two lenses intersect. Between these rings, Roger's 50/1.4 sagittal 50 lp/mm trace falls below the 55/1.8."

Then they posted a graph showing where the 4mm and 16mm would be located in the 24x36mm full frame sensor:


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/Image_Distance.jpg

_____________

I believe a more representative region of the image field would place 16mm much further down the edges. It...Show more →

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:12 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #8 · p.10 #8 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Nanh wrote:
It appears they mistook the image height to be the diameter of the circle rather than the radius.

The problem is that their analysis was based on this mistake.

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:21 PM

ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #9 · p.10 #9 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Nanh wrote:
It appears they mistook the image height to be the diameter of the circle rather than the radius.

Fred Miranda wrote:
The problem is that their analysis was based on this mistake.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/pacificrim/images/0/09/Homer-Simpson-wingnuts-doh.gif

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:28 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #10 · p.10 #10 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

snapsy wrote:
Roger's quote again:

"Also remember that our bench cuts off about half of the 20mm (edge) readings on Sony FE lenses, so take the extreme edge variation with a grain of salt. I’ve put a 50% gray box over the questionable area to help clarify this."

And if you look at the greyed box, it is from 18mm to 20mm. The area does not include the edge, which goes to just 18mm (36mm wide means 18mm to each edge from the centre). Fred's graph that he posted makes it quite clear how 18mm is only in the far corner. In short, Roger's measurement of the FE lenses extends plenty far enough (18mm) to detect decentering. I don't think we need to worry that the positive results for reliability are hiding poor reliability. He was able to detect variability problems with lots of FE lenses.

Jul 20, 2016 at 07:40 PM

virtualrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #11 · p.10 #11 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Fred Miranda wrote:

Here is a section I don't quite understand from the dpreview lens review:

They wrote:
"To elaborate, below we show our infinity scene overlaid with red and blue rings representing image heights of 4mm and 16mm, respectively: the two points where the 50 lp/mm MTF traces of the two lenses intersect. Between these rings, Roger's 50/1.4 sagittal 50 lp/mm trace falls below the 55/1.8."

Then they posted a graph showing where the 4mm and 16mm would be located in the 24x36mm full frame sensor:


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/Image_Distance.jpg

_____________

I believe a more representative region of the image field would place 16mm much further down the edges. It...Show more →

Thank you very much for this!!! These are all incredibly helpful visualizations. It says to me that in real-world shooting, using rule of thirds or even a subject that spans the full frame, all these lenses are going to provide very sharp photos... and if center sharpness is a priority, the new 50 is king.

EDIT: it's posts like this, and really threads like this, that set this membership and forum apart from the rest.

Jul 20, 2016 at 08:14 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #12 · p.10 #12 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Seriously guys and girls the tests are suspect to start with you have to take that with a grain of salt and not a religion. This happens with every lens announcement, way to quick to fully judge. Patience grasshoppers. Lol

Jul 20, 2016 at 08:45 PM

charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #13 · p.10 #13 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

ecarlino wrote:
i'm generally not a fan of his (tends to be a fanboy but claims he isn't), but Jason Lanier got his hands on the 50/1.4 and if you skip the first 11 minutes of this video, he finally gets around to showing some quick shots he took of his sons. Until it is in everyone's hands, i'll take what i can get to eval the rendering:
http://youtu.be/59sDbYYsEPk?t=10m54s

Here is a shot of Jason's of his son. Probably not the best example, but it is one of the first shots.

At f/1.4 I really like what I am seeing. This lens seems similar to my 50L at f/1.2 in the background, yet tack sharp on the eye. My 50L is up for sale on ebay. PM if anyone is interested

Jul 20, 2016 at 09:41 PM

ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #14 · p.10 #14 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Thanks for posting Charles -

you may have seen these already (sorry if you have) but these 3 show rendering that has me interested:

http://i2.wp.com/resourcemagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Zeiss-50mm-f1.4-Review.jpg

http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/xl_1x_/public/images/2016/07/dsc00014.jpg

http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/xl_1x_/public/images/2016/07/dsc00160-2.jpg

taken from these reviews:

http://resourcemagonline.com/2016/07/review-its-time-to-get-excited-for-the-sony-fe-50mm-f1-4-za-prime-lens/68553/

http://www.popphoto.com/first-impressions-new-sony-full-frame-planar-t-fe-50mm-f-14-za-prime-lens#page-3

Jul 20, 2016 at 09:59 PM

MrTMan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #15 · p.10 #15 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

ecarlino wrote:
To my untrained eye, it seems like the 3 of these lenses are in a category i simply call "sharp enough for this and the next generation of sensors" and my interest in the f/1.4 has more to do with other things like aberration control, field curvature, bokeh, rendering, color, etc.

I agree 100% with this. My 55 is plenty sharp, so sharpness isn't a reason for me to buy the 50. It's good to have confirmation that the 50 is indeed sharp, but I really want to know is if it'll give me the "magic" that I feel the 55/1.8 is lacking, and that I see with my 35/1.4.

Some of the sample shots seem very promising, in this regard. I really look forward to seeing some more pictures and reviews.

Jul 20, 2016 at 11:22 PM

charles.K
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #16 · p.10 #16 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Thank you Eric also for the posts. I really like the last shot @ f/2.8 and how the background gently fades.

Jul 20, 2016 at 11:45 PM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #17 · p.10 #17 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Yes, very interesting pictures, Eric! In the first, I detect a behavior similar to the FE 85 GM. The lens seems to have a great amount of blur in the bokeh, and a fast transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. This can lead to some "unpleasantness" (to my eye at leat) when the blurred background is close to the sharp subject, because the transition from very sharp to very blurred appears unnaturally fast. This is the case in the fist picture with the 3 girls.
OTOH, as the learned Charles writes, the third picture is a delight. The very blurred background manages to to retains some structure (rather than go to pure cream), and that works very well indeed (again, to my eye)

Jul 21, 2016 at 12:49 AM

Holger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #18 · p.10 #18 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!


	https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/Image_Distance.jpg

_____________

I believe a more representative region of the image field would place 16mm much further down the edges. It...Show more →

Why do you only use the sagittal lines? They are _much_ better on the Sony 50/1.4 compared to the tangential lines. It looks worse when using the tangential ones. In my opinion this post is misleading, if you don't include both or plot an average, for example.

Jul 21, 2016 at 01:05 AM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.10 #19 · p.10 #19 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Holger wrote:
Why do you only use the sagittal lines? They are _much_ better on the Sony 50/1.4 compared to the tangential lines. It looks worse when using the tangential ones. In my opinion this post is misleading, if you don't include both or plot an average, for example.

Holger,
I'm not here to mislead anyone.

Why only the sagittal line? You should ask this question to dpreview since they based their analysis on it. IMO, as you wrote, both meridional and sagittal measurements should be taken into consideration. My post was only an attempt to correct what they wrote.

Did you read the quote I posted from their review? Not only they based it on the sagittal line at 50 lp/mm but also misinterpreted the MTF graph.

Jul 21, 2016 at 01:14 AM

Holger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.10 #20 · p.10 #20 · LensRentals: Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA is absolutely superb!

Fred Miranda wrote:
Holger,
I'm not here to mislead anyone.

Why only the sagittal line, you asked...You should ask this question to dpreview since they based their analysis on it. Did you read the quote I posted from their review? Not only they based it on the sagittal line at 50 lp/mm but also misinterpreted the MTF graph as I've shown on my post.

Maybe they changed the text: "Roger's 50/1.4 tangential 50 lp/mm trace falls below the 55/1.8. Hence, our visual shootout seems to agree with Roger's results: aside from a very small region in the center, the 55/1.8 does outperform the 50/1.4 wide open (though we don't see the improvement towards the edges of the 50/1.4 that Roger sees: our 55/1.8 remains ahead peripherally). And, again, we may have tested a copy that under-performs relative to the average, which Roger's data is more representative of."

Jul 21, 2016 at 01:27 AM

1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 17 18 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 17 18 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.