According to them, transmission is close to the 55/1.8. (T1.8 vs T1.6)
All other metrics are also very similar like: Little advantage for the 50/1.4 in sharpness (41 vs 40) and CA (8µm vs 9µm). (However, we know for a fact that the 55/1.8 has way more LoCA)
Vignetting is better for the 55/1.8 (-1.6EV vc -2.5EV) and the 50/1.4 does better regarding distortion. (0.1% vs 0.4%)
Here is a comparison to the FE 55/1.8 ZA and Loxia 50/2:
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not sure if this got posted here already.
DXOMark has the results for the FE 50/1.4 ZA.
According to them, transmission is close to the 55/1.8. (T1.8 vs T1.6)
All other metrics are also very similar like: Little advantage for the 50/1.4 in sharpness (41 vs 40) and CA (8µm vs 9µm). (However, we know for a fact that the 55/1.8 has way more LoCA)
Vignetting is better for the 55/1.8 (-1.6EV vc -2.5EV) and the 50/1.4 does better regarding distortion. (0.1% vs 0.4%)
Here is a comparison to the FE 55/1.8 ZA and Loxia 50/2:
I think the DXO results can give us some insights, and discussion points:
1. The 55mm is amazing for its size, and (particularly on the used/grey market) costs.
2. The 50mm f/1.4 is a lot more about look than pure resolution. It's about bokeh, and lack of LoCa, and about rendering intent. (The same can be said of the Loxia, actually.)
3. We really need Lightroom (and the others) to implement a LoCa removal tool. A combination of lens profiles, a little computer image analysis (look for focus gradient and signature color shifts), and a full-manual option (draw gradient, adjust LoCa correction amplitude)-- would eliminate this bane of my existence effectively.
"When pressed what Sony considered best bokeh, they referred to the a-mount 135 STF."
Well, at least they are upfront about it, can't ask much more. Smoother=better to Sony.
"Roger Cicala over at LensRentals found the Sony 50mm F1.4 lens to be the sharpest centrally of any 50mm prime, outperforming the 55mm F1.8 ZA. However, peripherally, the 50/1.4 takes a plunge in terms of resolution, and the 55mm F1.8 pulls ahead. In fact, just 4mm out from center in the image circle, tangential resolution (which we assess by considering the highest frequency MTF trace: 50 lp/mm) drops below that of the 55/1.8 (solid purple line). Source: LensRentals Blog"
It's flattish curves are what drives the FE55 images, very different lenses with different main uses.
I was surprised that DXO ranks the 55/1.8 above the 50/1.4 and Loxia 50. Personally I would rank it third of the three.
I guess this shows the limitations of a DXO score -- I don't particularly need a flat field at f/1.8, I'd much rather have the better color/contrast and lower LoCA of the the other two lenses.
MrTMan wrote:
I was surprised that DXO ranks the 55/1.8 above the 50/1.4 and Loxia 50. Personally I would rank it third of the three.
I guess this shows the limitations of a DXO score -- I don't particularly need a flat field at f/1.8, I'd much rather have the better color/contrast and lower LoCA of the the other two lenses.
I think that's because you are referring to micro-contrast and color which DXOMark does not test. They also do not test for LoCA. (Only LaCA)
Like you, I would rate the 55/1.8 ZA third in term in contrast and aberration.
The 50/1.4ZA and 55/1.8ZA are very similar in terms of resolution when both are compared wide-open. The 50/1.4 really shows its strength starting at f/1.7.
The 55/1.8 ZA is smaller but needs more post-processing help. I have a LR preset which pretty much mimics the contrast/colors from the 50/1.4 but what's hard to fix is onion ring patterns and LoCA which the 50/1.4 is pretty much immune to.
Bubble wrote:
how is this lens compare to Sigma 50ART?
According to the same tester (DXOMark), it has pretty bad transmission for a f/1.4 lens (T1.8), the same transmission as the 55/1.8ZA.
The Sigma has pretty much the same sharpness as both Sony lenses but less vignetting when compared to the 50/1.4 ZA. However, the Sony lenses would get a bump in sharpness (resolution) if tested on a 50MP sensor instead of 42MP.
I mentioned it previously when discussing the 50/1.4 ZA (perhaps even on this thread),
"sharpness" is really not the deciding factor between the 1.4, 55/1.8 (or even the Sigma 50/1.4). They are ALL really damn sharp (that's a technical term).
I may be the only one to think this way, but i had the 35/1.4 ZA, 50/1.4 ZA, 55/1.8 ZA and 85/GM and sold the 35, 55 & 85. I really just loved the rendering of the 50/1.4 (and really hated the rendering of the 55/1.8). ymwLv (Your mileage will LIKELY vary).
ecarlino wrote:
I mentioned it previously when discussing the 50/1.4 ZA (perhaps even on this thread),
"sharpness" is really not the deciding factor between the 1.4, 55/1.8 (or even the Sigma 50/1.4). They are ALL really damn sharp (that's a technical term).
I may be the only one to think this way, but i had the 35/1.4 ZA, 50/1.4 ZA, 55/1.8 ZA and 85/GM and sold the 35, 55 & 85. I really just loved the rendering of the 50/1.4 (and really hated the rendering of the 55/1.8). ymwLv (Your mileage will LIKELY vary).
I can understand replacing the 55mm but you actually sold your 35mm and 85mm in exchange for a 50mm? You must really love that rendering!
For portrait primes, I've had 35/1.4 ZA, 50/1.4 ZA, 55/1.8 ZA, Batis 85, Canon FD 85/1.2L, Leica Sumicron 90AA and 135/1.8 ZA. Of these, 50/1.4 is my favorite, with the 135 close second. The 50 is laser sharp with bold colors and contrast, and somehow looks organic and not sterile. I do NOT like the weight and bulk, but oh well...
Fred Miranda wrote:
According to the same tester (DXOMark), it has pretty bad transmission for a f/1.4 lens (T1.8), the same transmission as the 55/1.8ZA.
The Sigma has pretty much the same sharpness as both Sony lenses but less vignetting when compared to the 50/1.4 ZA. However, the Sony lenses would get a bump in sharpness (resolution) if tested on a 50MP sensor instead of 42MP.
The reason i asked is because i have the 50ART with the MC-11. I'm happy with the Art with my A7r ii. Am i missing out something if i don't get the 50/1.4 ZA? Disregard cost/weight issue.
Bubble wrote:
The reason i asked is because i have the 50ART with the MC-11. I'm happy with the Art with my A7r ii. Am i missing out something if i don't get the 50/1.4 ZA? Disregard cost/weight issue.
I agree with @ecarlino that the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZA has a very special rendering. The focus transition zone is smooth and the lens draws bold colors and very high micro-contrast. It's is also very well corrected for aberrations.. IMO, from the native lenses, it's the one with the most pop.
Like the 55/1.8 it's sharp across the field even at wider apertures.
I'm sure the Sigma is great as well but I have not test it on the A7RII.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with @ecarlino@ that the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZA has a very special rendering. The focus transition zone is smooth and the lens draws bold colors and very high micro-contrast. It's is also very well corrected for aberrations.. IMO, from the native lenses, it's the one with the most pop.
Like the 55/1.8 it's sharp across the field even at wider apertures.
the reason is (re)posted was to remind myself, and maybe the 1 other person who may care :-) that despite all the talk about the sharpness of this lens (or the others), it actually can be quite 'graceful' as well. the 55/1.8 just seemed harsh in the OOF areas, etc.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I decided to give the FE 50/1.4 ZA another try.
...mainly because of the great LoCA control and superb micro-contrast.
Alright, Fred and please let us know what you think later on. Personally, I love the rendition of this lens. The size and weight less so but I put up with those physical factors because of its IQ.
