I found this interview quite interesting: Here are just a few points. If you want to dismiss them as stupid marketing talk feel free to do so, but some may find those comments interesting:
The interviewer asked the same question that has been asked by many here, namely why isn't the FE 50 1.4 a GM lens? The vague answer was that the GM lenses were all about "ultimate resolution and ultimate bokeh". The 50 1.4 was the result of a "fusion of Sony's technology and the traditional CZ lens design philosophy". In addition, they said Zeiss' rigorous production standards applied to CZ lenses (which is pretty much what the blurb on the Zeiss website explains). The Sony staff said the FE 50 1.4 was co-developed with Zeiss, but when pressed about the details of this collaboration, they said they couldn't elaborate on details.
The interviewer also asked about the lens road map up till now (unfortunately, nothing on the lens road map going forward): Basically, the slower, smaller lenses like the 55 1.8 came first, then with the introduction of a higher spec body (read a7rii) came demands for f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes and Sony obliged.
Asked about the size and pricing, the answer was there was no free lunch, i.e. they had to make it this big to perform the way it does from wide open. And besides, if people wanted smaller, they should just pick the 55 1.8.
They employed 11 aperture blades to get close to round bokeh balls by around f2.8. When pressed what Sony considered best bokeh, they referred to the a-mount 135 STF. With the 50 1.4, the design goal was to prevent the double edged bokeh rings, but they admitted that shooting for great bokeh and great resolution at the same time was always a challenge.
They wouldn't say how many lens production facilities Sony has right now (even though one probably could look that up in an investors' report), but stated that high quality aspherical glass (like the AA elements) was made in a Sony facility in Aichi prefecture in central Japan.
One last interesting note is that the interviewer in his impressions at the end said, the FE 50 1.4 concept of high contrast and sharpness from wide open reminded him of what Zeiss did with the Otus series.
Thanks. All I was able to gleen was that Google Translate is horrible with Japanese-English. It looks interesting though as the interview asks some questions about this lens relative to the FE55 which I'd love to understand better.
Chris_88 wrote:
I found this interview quite interesting: Here are just a few points. If you want to dismiss them as stupid marketing talk feel free to do so, but some may find those comments interesting:
The interviewer asked the same question that has been asked by many here, namely why isn't the FE 50 1.4 a GM lens? The vague answer was that the GM lenses were all about "ultimate resolution and ultimate bokeh". The 50 1.4 was the result of a "fusion of Sony's technology and the traditional CZ lens design philosophy". In addition, they said Zeiss' rigorous production standards applied to CZ lenses (which is pretty much what the blurb on the Zeiss website explains). The Sony staff said the FE 50 1.4 was co-developed with Zeiss, but when pressed about the details of this collaboration, they said they couldn't elaborate on details.
The interviewer also asked about the lens road map up till now (unfortunately, nothing on the lens road map going forward): Basically, the slower, smaller lenses like the 55 1.8 came first, then with the introduction of a higher spec body (read a7rii) came demands for f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes and Sony obliged.
Asked about the size and pricing, the answer was there was no free lunch, i.e. they had to make it this big to perform the way it does from wide open. And besides, if people wanted smaller, they should just pick the 55 1.8.
They employed 11 aperture blades to get close to round bokeh balls by around f2.8. When pressed what Sony considered best bokeh, they referred to the a-mount 135 STF. With the 50 1.4, the design goal was to prevent the double edged bokeh rings, but they admitted that shooting for great bokeh and great resolution at the same time was always a challenge.
They wouldn't say how many lens production facilities Sony has right now (even though one probably could look that up in an investors' report), but stated that high quality aspherical glass (like the AA elements) was made in a Sony facility in Aichi prefecture in central Japan.
One last interesting note is that the interviewer in his impressions at the end said, the FE 50 1.4 concept of high contrast and sharpness from wide open reminded him of what Zeiss did with the Otus series. ...Show more →
Thanks. What do they say about differentiating this from the FE55? And what was said in comparing the MTF charts?
Hi everyone, I just got a copy of this great lens a few days ago, but I've noticed the AF speed is a bit slower than both of my Batis, and relatively much louder (both Batis are silent). Does it present as a general behavior for this lens? I saw some reviews stated its AF is "quite and fast" but some videos I found online suggested similar noise. Thanks!
Has anyone else run into a problem with EXIF from their a7rII after using the FE 50? Someone on flickr pointed out that all of my recent shots I posted, mostly from adapted lenses, now have the 50 in the EXIF.
isuperfish wrote:
Hi everyone, I just got a copy of this great lens a few days ago, but I've noticed the AF speed is a bit slower than both of my Batis, and relatively much louder (both Batis are silent). Does it present as a general behavior for this lens? I saw some reviews stated its AF is "quite and fast" but some videos I found online suggested similar noise. Thanks!
The AF is a touch slower on mine than my Batis lenses, and there is a hint of noise. But I don't find the AF to be slow, per se, nor do I find it to be loud.
I had the same observation with the one that I rented. I found it to be quite a bit slower than my batis 85 and it felt relatively noisy. I'm curious to try a few other ones to see if it's the same. I have to admit the image quality was excellent though. I was also shooting indoors for a wedding, never got to see what the af speed was like out in the sun.
isuperfish wrote:
Hi everyone, I just got a copy of this great lens a few days ago, but I've noticed the AF speed is a bit slower than both of my Batis, and relatively much louder (both Batis are silent). Does it present as a general behavior for this lens? I saw some reviews stated its AF is "quite and fast" but some videos I found online suggested similar noise. Thanks!
Thanks for replying. I think based on my research online it's normal, I feel the focus could be fixed since in AF-C mode it focuses faster and also doesn't present the wobbling behavior.
freaklikeme wrote:
Has anyone else run into a problem with EXIF from their a7rII after using the FE 50? Someone on flickr pointed out that all of my recent shots I posted, mostly from adapted lenses, now have the 50 in the EXIF.
Well, it was either outdated firmware (I thought I had upgraded it at the same time I did the 7II I was putting up for sale, but I only downloaded it) or a LR update, but the problem's gone now.
isuperfish wrote:
Hi everyone, I just got a copy of this great lens a few days ago, but I've noticed the AF speed is a bit slower than both of my Batis, and relatively much louder (both Batis are silent). Does it present as a general behavior for this lens? I saw some reviews stated its AF is "quite and fast" but some videos I found online suggested similar noise. Thanks!
It's definitely slower when compared to the 55/1.8 ZA and just as noisy as my FE 85/1.4GM. It's also easier to focus with the 55/1.8 ZA in low light since the aperture opens to f/2 to achieve focus whereas with the 50/1.4 ZA focuses at or very close to shooting aperture.
I just received my 50/1.4 ZA today. I'm a recentish convert to A7RII from Canon (7 months now and haven't touched my Canons once). I've been slowly building a native lens collection over this time and had a 50mm gap to fill in my autofocus prime lineup. I have an Otus 55 (on Metabones IV) which is a fantastic piece of glass, best I've ever owned, but I sometimes struggled using it in fast moving event and wedding type shoots. So an autofocus equivalent was needed. Research showed the ZA looked best and this thread tipped me into actually buying it yesterday.
Initial tests show a larger quality (sharpness) jump between f/1.4 and f/1.7 than I expected, but the lens is pixel sharp from f/1.7 on, and f/1.4 is perfectly fine "as is". Lovely flat frame and colour rendition too. Very pleased with the lens. In fact, I was a bit worried that it may have made my Otus 1.4/55 redundant, but I'm relieved to report the Otus does still "edge" the ZA - in wide-open image quality at least. A little close for comfort tho - phew
Anyway, I just joined to say "great thread and thanks to everyone for taking the time to share the info".
