Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
Update me on this!! I can't seem to find where it would say.
adamdewilde wrote:
Update me on this!! I can't seem to find where it would say.
I am travelling right now and don't have Lightroom on my laptop, but when I get home tomorrow I will see what I can find. Perhaps someone else knows, but I seem to remember seeing it in the metadata somewhere.
adamdewilde wrote:
What are the issues the 35/1.4 ZA FE have? (Sorry to derail)
There will be more compromises when designing a 35mm lenses in order to control aberrations, reduce SA, etc. The 35/1.4 ZA is another superb lens but it's not as well corrected for aberrations, especially axial CA when compared to the 50/1.4. It has a slight different look with noticeably less micro-contrast wide open and more onion ring patterns on bokeh specular highlights.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am travelling right now and don't have Lightroom on my laptop, but when I get home tomorrow I will see what I can find. Perhaps someone else knows, but I seem to remember seeing it in the metadata somewhere.
I looked at the EXIF data and could not find any field related to EFCS. I would re-do the test using 100% electronic shutter for both A7RII and A9. (Or at least turning EFCS for the A7RII)
In the case of the A7II, there is no electronic shutter so turning EFCS off will do.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There will be more compromises when designing a 35mm lenses in order to control aberrations, reduce SA, etc. The 35/1.4 ZA is another superb lens but it's not as well corrected for aberrations, especially axial CA when compared to the 50/1.4. It has a slight different look with noticeably less micro-contrast wide open and more onion ring patterns on bokeh specular highlights.
The 35 also has more field curvature and quality control problems (seems to be very hard to get a symmetrical copy).
But I'm inclined to say that the bokeh on the 35 is actually smoother than on the 50/1.4. While it's not as technically perfect as the 50, I quite like the rendering.
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 →
Well, you see, the problem you describe is a mutually exclusive condition. You're mixing opticaly performance with "personal experience."
Optically, we already know the 50/1.4 ZA lens is pretty incredible and a step up compared to the 55/1.8. However, it's how the lens made "you" feel and how it makes the people around "you" feel that made you ultimately give up the lens.
I'd say, the people around me (including kids) aren't necessarly photophobic. With that said, I get incredible images. My experience is amazing.
Adam, Try this test on your A9 with some foliage in the background:
1) @ f/1.4 and 1/4000th with EFCS ON
2) @ f/1.4 and 1/4000th with EFCS OFF, use mechanical shutter (You should notice a smoother bokeh compared to #1)
3) @ f/1.4 and 1/4000th electronic shutter ON
Compare all three images and see which one has the smoothest bokeh.
As Fred said, shooting at a wide aperture coupled with a fast shutter speed above 1/1000th sec results in bokeh being wacky, distracting and not smooth. I can confirm this as well.
dumplinknet wrote
Well, you see, the problem you describe is a mutually exclusive condition. You're mixing opticaly performance with "personal experience."
Optically, we already know the 50/1.4 ZA lens is pretty incredible and a step up compared to the 55/1.8. However, it's how the lens made "you" feel and how it makes the people around "you" feel that made you ultimately give up the lens.
I'd say, the people around me (including kids) aren't necessarly photophobic. With that said, I get incredible images. My experience is amazing.
Not sure where I am mixing the optical performance of the lens with my opinion. I think I stated it pretty clear with this sentence.
"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."
I went on the elaborate why, for reasons other than the IQ, I have sold the lens. The consensus here seems that the lens is so good, that there is no sensible reason why I or others would sell it. I just wished to provide a counterpoint.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There will be more compromises when designing a 35mm lenses in order to control aberrations, reduce SA, etc. The 35/1.4 ZA is another superb lens but it's not as well corrected for aberrations, especially axial CA when compared to the 50/1.4. It has a slight different look with noticeably less micro-contrast wide open and more onion ring patterns on bokeh specular highlights.
Oh haha... Sorry I didn't understand what he meant. I thought he meant that the lens has issues like QC or like it falls apart or de-centered lenses or something.
Yeah, I've owned pretty much ever worthwhile 35mm ever made, and pretty much every worthwhile 50mm ever made. I was just under the impression something was bad about the 35 ZA FE construction. But yeah I get the tradeoffs involved..
adamdewilde wrote:
Oh haha... Sorry I didn't understand what he meant. I thought he meant that the lens has issues like QC or like it falls apart or de-centered lenses or something.
Yeah, I've owned pretty much ever worthwhile 35mm ever made, and pretty much every worthwhile 50mm ever made. I was just under the impression something was bad about the 35 ZA FE construction. But yeah I get the tradeoffs involved..
Seemed like the early reports were that the 35za was one of the hardest lenses to find a decent copy of. Not sure how true that was or to what extent it's still true. I'm sure others here have the full scoop.
Parariss wrote:
Seemed like the early reports were that the 35za was one of the hardest lenses to find a decent copy of. Not sure how true that was or to what extent it's still true. I'm sure others here have the full scoop.
I bought one on launch day, no problems with it. Sold it off though as I wasn't serious about Sony at the time. Bought one a few months back when I started to get more serious about Sony, also no problems. So either I'm missing something, or I got lucky twice.
I've had a 35za from when it was released. Still shoots like gold, sharp wide open. Never disappoints. Just size and weight that gets in the way for me
nana kofi wrote:
I've had a 35za from when it was released. Still shoots like gold, sharp wide open. Never disappoints. Just size and weight that gets in the way for me
I too got a good 1.4/35 first off, soon after it was first released.
But I don't doubt the many reports of people who got multiple bad ones, some were from known reliable folk. And Lensrentals variation data shows that your odds of getting a good one aren't high. It's a lovely thing when it's good so I think we should just count ourselves lucky....
My copy is perfectly centered and I bought it used from the Buy and Sell board. However, I've read a lot of complaints about copy variability with FE 35/1.4 ZA.
I think I got lucky for once.
I've been on the horns of a dilemma between the 35 and 50 for months now. Would love to have both, but can only have one. I prefer the 35mm fov, but think the 50 is likely the better lens and @ 50mm likely has better bokeh, although the 35 has a lovely bokeh too (minus the onion rings).
darbo wrote:
I've been on the horns of a dilemma between the 35 and 50 for months now. Would love to have both, but can only have one. I prefer the 35mm fov, but think the 50 is likely the better lens and @ 50mm likely has better bokeh, although the 35 has a lovely bokeh too (minus the onion rings).
I agree the 50 is a bit better technically than the 35, but then 50s always are. The 35 is however wonderful.
But FOV meeting your preferences should (IMHO) always trump technical differences, especially when all the candidates are technically great. If you get either lens you are getting one of the very best lenses of that focal length and speed ever made. So get the lens you need, not the lens that scores highest.
DavidBM wrote:
I agree the 50 is a bit better technically than the 35, but then 50s always are. The 35 is however wonderful.
But FOV meeting your preferences should (IMHO) always trump technical differences, especially when all the candidates are technically great. If you get either lens you are getting one of the very best lenses of that focal length and speed ever made. So get the lens you need, not the lens that scores highest.
I don't "need" either lens. The choice will be for pleasure and is not a work requirement, so I can make either work for me as a street lens. That's why I wrote in terms of preference, not need, and I am battling my divergent preferences. That said, I am certainly leaning 35 due to my preference for the FOV.
darbo wrote:
I don't "need" either lens. The choice will be for pleasure and is not a work requirement, so I can make either work for me as a street lens. That's why I wrote in terms of preference, not need, and I am battling my divergent preferences. That said, I am certainly leaning 35 due to my preference for the FOV.
I see. I think I'd be prepared to strengthen my claim above to go with the lens whose FOV you prefer, rather the lens whose IQ you prefer (when the IQ of both is already much more than acceptable!)
But sure, sometimes the gear is the hobby as much as the photography, (I'm like that sometimes) and is a certain pleasure in playing with a lens whose IQ is state of the art.
I am in the same situation. I ordered the 50mm 1.4 Planar and preordered the 16-35mm 2.8 GM. Also got the 85mm 1.4 GM and the little 35mm 2.8 Sony Zeiss. The question is if it makes really sense to get the 35mm 1.4 Distagon? The zoom and the little Sony cover already 35mm. The 2.8 is optically not thrilling lets say it this way, the pop is simply missing. On the other hand it is so portable and lightweight. I wonder if I should I sell it for the 1.4? On the other hand when shooting full frame with wonderful cameras like the A7RII why making compromises with glass where you are not happy only because of it's size and weight? I could go for a RX100 also then that is even smaller. So anybody who sold the 35mm 2.8 for the 1.4 and regretted it at the end?
