Great lens, will switch from the little 55mm to this candidate in the next weeks. 3D Pop and mojo is obviously much more present than with the 55mm that I always categorized as a steril lens, I don't know why. Based on other threads this Planar leads the ranking concerning Pop compared to all other native candidates. Anybody here who owns the 85mm GM, the 50mm Planar 1.4 ZA and has the 16-35mm f2.8 GM on preorder? I think this package will work really great.
IMO, the 50/1.4 ZA is the best Sony lens to date. I agree with the incredible lack of CA (including LoCA) and impressive subject "pop" wide open. The designers succeeded combining very high micro-contrast and smooth rendering in a planar design. I own the 35/1.4 ZA, 50/1.4 ZA and 85/1.4 GM and the 50/1.4 is imo the best of the three because it combines the qualities of the other two without any drawbacks.
It does not have the LoCA and onion ring bokeh balls from the 35/1.4 ZA while sharing similar rendering and colors. The 35/1.4 ZA and 85/1.4 GM are both sharp wide open but not as sharp as the 50/1.4 ZA. Although the 85/1.4 GM OOF rendering is very smooth, the 50/1.4 is not far behind. The three lenses provide a similar look but the 50/1.4 ZA is without a doubt, technically better.
If I were to use this lens for landscapes, it's already stunning starting at f/2.8 at infinity distance (although still good even wide open) from center to the very edges. Stopping down from f/2.8 would be for DOF needs only.
I usually carry the 35/1.4 ZA + 85/1.4 GM but when only carrying one lens, it's the 50/1.4 ZA.
The only negative is size and weight but it still managed to be ~ 200 grams lighter than the Sigma 50/1.4 Art + adapter. It's 150 grams heavier than the 35/1.4 ZA and 50 grams lighter than he 85/1.4 GM. All three have pretty much the same length.
I also have the 55/1.8 ZA which needs lots of post-processing to be great but can't sell it because it's a great copy and great for travel or packing light.
This planar 50/1.4 flat-out spoils me. It never stops to amaze me. I think my favorite thing about this lens is the way it eliminates chromatic aberration. It is almost as if it does not exist in this lens at all.
Regardless of the size, its my walk around lens. I find no issues with it whatsoever. Its just me.
Waiting for the 50mm 1.4 ZA to be delivered... Based on the EFCS bokeh issue when shooting high shutter speeds wide open I basically shoot EFCS off with the 85GM and plan it also with this new baby. Any disadvantages with EFCS off in general when shooting also lower shutter speeds beside a louder noise and a possible higher wear of the shutter mechanism?
Fred Miranda wrote:
IMO, the 50/1.4 ZA is the best Sony lens to date. I agree with the incredible lack of CA (including LoCA) and impressive subject "pop" wide open. The designers succeeded combining very high micro-contrast and smooth rendering in a planar design. I own the 35/1.4 ZA, 50/1.4 ZA and 85/1.4 GM and the 50/1.4 is imo the best of the three because it combines the qualities of the other two without any drawbacks.
It does not have the LoCA and onion ring bokeh balls from the 35/1.4 ZA while sharing similar rendering and colors. The 35/1.4 ZA and 85/1.4 GM are both sharp wide open but not as sharp as the 50/1.4 ZA. Although the 85/1.4 GM OOF rendering is very smooth, the 50/1.4 is not far behind. The three lenses provide a similar look but the 50/1.4 ZA is without a doubt, technically better.
If I were to use this lens for landscapes, it's already stunning starting at f/2.8 at infinity distance (although still good even wide open) from center to the very edges. Stopping down from f/2.8 would be for DOF needs only.
I usually carry the 35/1.4 ZA + 85/1.4 GM but when only carrying one lens, it's the 50/1.4 ZA.
The only negative is size and weight but it still managed to be ~ 200 grams lighter than the Sigma 50/1.4 Art + adapter. It's 150 grams heavier than the 35/1.4 ZA and 50 grams lighter than he 85/1.4 GM. All three have pretty much the same length.
I also have the 55/1.8 ZA which needs lots of post-processing to be great but can't sell it because it's a great copy and great for travel or packing light....Show more →
Yeah, I have a hard time finding IQ advantages from the 50mm Summilux-SL lens. They're definitely there, but I'm left asking myself is the slower AF and bigger size/weight worth the quality increase? And then of course the question of if it's worth the extra $4,000 price tag
Basically without spoiling my review, which now will be delayed due to me wanting to reshoot with the A9 and ES. The 50SL has what looks like 10-20% blur added to all bokeh in almost all subject distances. And other things, but gotta save something for the long overdue write up.
adamdewilde wrote:
Yeah, I have a hard time finding IQ advantages from the 50mm Summilux-SL lens. They're definitely there, but I'm left asking myself is the slower AF and bigger size/weight worth the quality increase? And then of course the question of if it's worth the extra $4,000 price tag
Basically without spoiling my review, which now will be delayed due to me wanting to reshoot with the A9 and ES. The 50SL has what looks like 10-20% blur added to all bokeh in almost all subject distances. And other things, but gotta save something for the long overdue write up.
Not to count that mint 50/1.4 ZA lenses are currently selling for less than $1,100 at the Buy and Sell board. It's a steal for what you get.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not to count that mint 50/1.4 ZA lenses are currently selling for less than $1,100 at the Buy and Sell board. It's a steal for what you get.
YEP, I'd recommend anyone who's willing to carry around a 50mm of that size to BUY BUY BUY.
Basically without spoiling my review, which now will be delayed due to me wanting to reshoot with the A9 and ES. The 50SL has what looks like 10-20% blur added to all bokeh in almost all subject distances. And other things, but gotta save something for the long overdue write up.
Are you saying that the bokeh of the 50SL is more "blurry" than the 50ZA?
As if it haas a larger aperture than f/1.4?
Curious.
dumplinknet wrote:
Are you saying that the bokeh of the 50SL is more "blurry" than the 50ZA?
As if it haas a larger aperture than f/1.4?
Curious.
Ummm yeah by a very noticeable amount. It's nothing to do with the aperture and more to do with the design of the lens (but if you want to say "as if it has" then yes, not Noctilux like, but more like a f/1.2 lens though with a different fall off of course, and a damn sharp point of focus).
::::::::I wrote another few paragraphs on this topic, but seeing how it's off topic I better just stop with the above response, I would rather not derail this forum post::::::
adamdewilde wrote:
Ummm yeah by a very noticeable amount. It's nothing to do with the aperture and more to do with the design of the lens (but if you want to say "as if it has" then yes, not Noctilux like, but more like a f/1.2 lens though with a different fall off of course, and a damn sharp point of focus).
::::::::I wrote another few paragraphs on this topic, but seeing how it's off topic I better just stop with the above response, I would rather not derail this forum post::::::
Interesting. Looking forward to your review!
dumplinknet wrote:
Interesting. Looking forward to your review!
Thanks, will be a while now because of the A9 and the smoother bokeh that Fred pointed out from the E-shutter. Seems only fair that I give each lens their best chance. So I'll have to reshoot all my side by sides
Going to take a negative, unpopular view of this lens in my use case, because it's not been all smiles and rainbows--people sell them used in significant numbers for a reason, and mine is below.
I had this lens too, no optical complaints at all, but the IQ advantage over the 55mm f1.8 in my view did not offset the significantly higher mass and volume.
Some of it had to do with carrying around such a lens for snapshots & street photography (overkill), some had to do with the mass (more than my 135mm f2.8). But the biggest part for me was the higher profile of the 50mm f1.4 which makes people around me more on guard, especially the subjects I try to capture on a moment's notice. The type of photos I was getting wasn't as candid, and losing that quality made me realize I didn't gain enough from the 50mm f1.4 to offset that loss. I didn't like the pictures I was getting out of it.
I'll be blunt, the volume of the 50mm f1.4, especially with the hood attached is hard to ignore, and gets way more attention that I'm comfortable with. I prefer to be a bit more stealth, and look more like a clueless tourist than a hobbyist. This aspect isn't really talked about much, whereas I keep seeing praise heaped upon it for the image quality, regardless of how it fits into a real use case outside of stress testing on inanimate objects.
Maybe if I shot in a studio, where a generated persona is what is desired, I'd prefer it more often to keep it. For now, it's been sold for funds to do other things.
Also the gimbal I tested it on hates the high mass the 50mm f1.4, so I haven't found it as good for stabilized video--something that hybrid shooters will want to take note of.
adamdewilde wrote:
Thanks, will be a while now because of the A9 and the smoother bokeh that Fred pointed out from the E-shutter. Seems only fair that I give each lens their best chance. So I'll have to reshoot all my side by sides
Yes, it's important to test the FE 50/1.4 ZA with EFCS "off" when shooting at very fast shutter speeds. Rendering will be way smoother.
ediblestarfish wrote:
Going to take a negative, unpopular view of this lens in my use case, because it's not been all smiles and rainbows--people sell them used in significant numbers for a reason, and mine is below.
I had this lens too, no optical complaints at all, but the IQ advantage over the 55mm f1.8 in my view did not offset the significantly higher mass and volume.
Some of it had to do with carrying around such a lens for snapshots & street photography (overkill), some had to do with the mass (more than my 135mm f2.8). But the biggest part for me was the higher profile of the 50mm f1.4 which makes people around me more on guard, especially the subjects I try to capture on a moment's notice. The type of photos I was getting wasn't as candid, and losing that quality made me realize I didn't gain enough from the 50mm f1.4 to offset that loss. I didn't like the pictures I was getting out of it.
I'll be blunt, the volume of the 50mm f1.4, especially with the hood attached is hard to ignore, and gets way more attention that I'm comfortable with. I prefer to be a bit more stealth, and look more like a clueless tourist than a hobbyist. This aspect isn't really talked about much, whereas I keep seeing praise heaped upon it for the image quality, regardless of how it fits into a real use case outside of stress testing on inanimate objects.
Maybe if I shot in a studio, where a generated persona is what is desired, I'd prefer it more often to keep it. For now, it's been sold for funds to do other things.
Also the gimbal I tested it on hates the high mass the 50mm f1.4, so I haven't found it as good for stabilized video--something that hybrid shooters will want to take note of....Show more →
It's superior to the 55/1.8 ZA regarding aberration control, micro-contrast and I'd say rendering but yes, the 55/1.8 is great and a much more compact lens. However, as good as it is, the 55/1.8 needs a lot of help from post-processing and some negatives can't be entirely fixed (onion ring patterns, LoCA correction residual, etc)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's superior to the 55/1.8 ZA regarding aberration control, micro-contrast and I'd say rendering but yes, the 55/1.8 is great and a much more compact lens. However, as good as it is, the 55/1.8 needs a lot of help from post-processing and some negatives can't be entirely fixed (onion ring patterns, LoCA correction residual, etc)
Hey Fred, did you say you had a lens profile for the 55 that helped you correct some of its standard faults, or did I just dream that? I just picked one up. Thx!
Hey Fred, did you say you had a lens profile for the 55 that helped you correct some of its standard faults, or did I just dream that? I just picked one up. Thx!
Yes, I will make it available soon. (Final tweaks)
I will have correction templates for the 55/1.8 and 35/1.4 ZA initially.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's important to test the FE 50/1.4 ZA with EFCS "off" when shooting at very fast shutter speeds. Rendering will be way smoother.
WAIT WAIT WAIT... So I got confused with your statement above, so I just read a bunch of info about EFCS and realised now what you're saying. The A9 doesn't have this problem with it's E-shutter, because it's not using EFCS it's just using straight up E-shutter. So if I took new shots using the A9, it would have it's best chance to shine.
HOWEVER, the shots I took using the A7II would still have yielded the better bokeh because I'm fairly certain at the time of shooting I did not have EFCS turned on. But since there is no way of knowing (nothing embedded in the raw files will say?) Then to be safe I should run the tests again?
May 31, 2017 at 01:18 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
adamdewilde wrote:
WAIT WAIT WAIT... So I got confused with your statement above, so I just read a bunch of info about EFCS and realised now what you're saying. The A9 doesn't have this problem with it's E-shutter, because it's not using EFCS it's just using straight up E-shutter. So if I took new shots using the A9, it would have it's best chance to shine.
HOWEVER, the shots I took using the A7II would still have yielded the better bokeh because I'm fairly certain at the time of shooting I did not have EFCS turned on. But since there is no way of knowing (nothing embedded in the raw files will say?) Then to be safe I should run the tests again? ...Show more →
Adam, check the EXIF, I think it might tell you whether EFCS was on, or at least I think there is some sort of metadata that you can see in lightroom with this information. I am not home right now so I can't check, however, and I may be wrong.
