Blakehfreeman wrote:
To me it came down to size, I wanted something I’d always have on me... If my decision we’re for paid gigs I’d still be waffling like yourself.
I went for the 55mm!
Hell, I have the 55 1.8 and I'm still waffeling if I should "upgrade" to the 50 1.4.
That's what I feel too, having the FE55mm, and the Loxia 50mm, the 50mm f1.4 is to big and havy to walk around to my taste. Hope Sony will come one day with a GM 55mm, in the way as the new 24, Small and Not Heavy but top quality.
Chaliel wrote:
That's what I feel too, having the FE55mm, and the Loxia 50mm, the 50mm f1.4 is to big and havy to walk around to my taste. Hope Sony will come one day with a GM 55mm, in the way as the new 24, Small and Not Heavy but top quality.
If you mean an f1.4 type I wouldn't hold out hope for it being any smaller than the ZA; the 1.4/24 is as small as it is because of it's focal length (short flange lenses continue to get smaller the smaller the focal length, whereas DSLR lenses stop getting smaller around 35mm. Our expectations for the size of 24 mm lenses have been set by DSLR lenses. But the 1.4/24 is actually a little more than half the length/diameter of the ZA 50 (which tells you it's a bit retro focus for ray angle reasons, even if not as much as a DLSR lens).
Anyway, it also tells you that absent big changes in tech, you won't get a 1.4/50 in a package noticeably smaller than the ZA.
But we might one day get a new 1.8/55 or so which fixes the quibbles with that lens (LoCA, contrast, onion rings) and with the same high resolution, in a package the same size, and I'd be very tempted by that...
But we might one day get a new 1.8/55 or so which fixes the quibbles with that lens (LoCA, contrast, onion rings) and with the same high resolution, in a package the same size, and I'd be very tempted by that...
That's what I mean. I do not need a f1.4 big one, f1.8 is fine for me!
Chaliel wrote:
That's what I mean. I do not need a f1.4 big one, f1.8 is fine for me!
Fair enough! I'm guessing that if we get one of those they'll brand it G rather than GM, keeping GM for either fast zooms, super fast primes or else "specialist" primes (like STF and maybe in the future TSE)
What are peoples opinions in long-term use/ownership of this lens? Still the best AF 50/1.4 lens for the Sony A7xxx systems?
And let's add some more images
I prefer the Sigma Art (native mount) for its smoother bokeh -imo.
The Sigma isn't as high resolution at the very edges wide open, but I don't need absolute edge res at 1.4, I'd stop any lens down to 5.6 anyway and the Sigma matches the Sony there.
They both focus the same on 7R & A9.
So yeah, apart from edge resolution at 1.4, the Sigma is every bit as good, with slightly nicer bokeh, for A LOT less money.
I think the Sony 50 1.4 is about the best 50 AF lens in the market. I had it when it came out and I bought it again for the the last two months. Really like this lens. It’s a little slow to focus but optically and technically it’s one of the best corrected lenses around. Yea big, heavy and expensive. Not for everyone but if you love great image quality it’s hard to beat.
The Sigma isn't as high resolution at the very edges wide open, but I don't need absolute edge res at 1.4, I'd stop any lens down to 5.6 anyway and the Sigma matches the Sony there.
I'm sorry...the Sigma, as nice as it may be, is not as sharp at f5.6 as the ZA. And, the ZA is almost as sharp across the board wide open as the sigma is stopped down. You can check the MTF's...I've used the ZA since it came out and love it. Ive shot landscapes @f1.4 just for the hell of it and they look phenomenal! And the bokeh is subjective, as well...and I find it totally bokehliscious.
Melindra wrote:
I prefer the Sigma Art (native mount) for its smoother bokeh -imo.
The Sigma isn't as high resolution at the very edges wide open, but I don't need absolute edge res at 1.4, I'd stop any lens down to 5.6 anyway and the Sigma matches the Sony there.
They both focus the same on 7R & A9.
So yeah, apart from edge resolution at 1.4, the Sigma is every bit as good, with slightly nicer bokeh, for A LOT less money.
My 2c
Apologies if you have posted this before but it would be great to see the better bokeh from the Sigma. If you have some side-by-side comparison, I think it would be very valuable to those considering both lenses.
What does 'slightly nicer' mean? smoother?
The only time I've seen harsh bokeh from the Zony was when shooting wide open at high shutter speeds with EFCS turned on.
Melindra wrote:
I prefer the Sigma Art (native mount) for its smoother bokeh -imo.
The Sigma isn't as high resolution at the very edges wide open, but I don't need absolute edge res at 1.4, I'd stop any lens down to 5.6 anyway and the Sigma matches the Sony there.
They both focus the same on 7R & A9.
So yeah, apart from edge resolution at 1.4, the Sigma is every bit as good, with slightly nicer bokeh, for A LOT less money.
My 2c
I owned both these lenses at the same time (for a few days) and found the Sigma's IQ wasn't quite up to the Sony wide open, but was still excellent.
I also didn't find that the Sigma's AF speed was significantly slower than the Sony (I don't shoot much action) so opted for the Sigma Art 50 at the time.
Eventually, I picked up a CV 65 APO, and the Sigma mostly sat on the shelf so I ended up selling it.
Recently, I wanted a 50mm AF lens, and opted for the Sony ZA because it's lighter than the Sigma is, and I tend to shoot wide open more often than not.
I'm super happy with the Sony.
Still, the Sigma is a really good value for the performance, especially second hand, IMO.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think the Sony 50 1.4 is about the best 50 AF lens in the market. I had it when it came out and I bought it again for the the last two months. Really like this lens. It’s a little slow to focus but optically and technically it’s one of the best corrected lenses around. Yea big, heavy and expensive. Not for everyone but if you love great image quality it’s hard to beat.
I love using a 50 prime on FF body (all the way back when I used to shoot 50'cron or lux on my Leica M6TTL and M3, or the Nikkor 50/1.4 on my F100).
I want to find a fast 50 mm lens I can fall in love with on the A7R3. I tried the Planar T* and found it to be really big and heavy, but the output surely is impressive. I've tried Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH but it doesn't really sing on a Sony system. I personally don't like the 55/1.8 (sure is sharp enough) but it doesn't feel very special. Has anyone tried the Canon 50/1.2L or the Nikon 58/1.4? Maybe time to start a which-is-your-favorite-50-thread? ;-)
Meanwhile, it might be worth giving the Planar T* another try...
patotts wrote:
I love using a 50 prime on FF body (all the way back when I used to shoot 50'cron or lux on my Leica M6TTL and M3, or the Nikkor 50/1.4 on my F100).
I want to find a fast 50 mm lens I can fall in love with on the A7R3. I tried the Planar T* and found it to be really big and heavy, but the output surely is impressive. I've tried Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH but it doesn't really sing on a Sony system. I personally don't like the 55/1.8 (sure is sharp enough) but it doesn't feel very special. Has anyone tried the Canon 50/1.2L or the Nikon 58/1.4? Maybe time to start a which-is-your-favorite-50-thread? ;-)
Meanwhile, it might be worth giving the Planar T* another try...
...Show more →
You really should try the CV 50 1.2 VM... I have one and it's pretty damn nice, with very nice bokeh as well .
Gregg
And here is a landscape taken on Maui 2017 looking across at Lanai, shot wide open on A7rll.
Gregg
PS...sorry for the low quality , it's been resized a couple of times on my iPhoneX to fit here
Greggf wrote:
And here is a landscape taken on Maui 2017 looking across at Lanai, shot wide open on A7rll.
Gregg
Gregg, finally you started posting here again! I hope everything is well on your end. The family is doing well, too from what I could see on IG. Great to see you again, buddy!
Greggf wrote:
You really should try the CV 50 1.2 VM... I have one and it's pretty damn nice, with very nice bokeh as well .
Gregg
Yes if you want a manual focus 50 than I agree the CV 50 1.2 VM is really really nice. I actually think it’s sharper on center than the CV 40 1.2 Sony. For AF lens one should rent the Sony and try it. Guarantee it will be hard to send back. Fred and I both tested this lens quite awhile ago and it seems we both have it again. I actually want to test it against my CV 40 1.2 not replace but just see how each renders next to each other. I think that would be worth a look. Just got to find the time
Gregg, finally you started posting here again! I hope everything is well on your end. The family is doing well, too from what I could see on IG. Great to see you again, buddy! Joshua
Hi Joshua! I do need to start posting again. Thank you for the likes on IG. The family is doing great(minus the sickness this time of year😷!
Here are two more FE 50 1.4 ZA grabs taken wide open...this lens is just brilliant.
Gregg
I actually think it’s sharper on center than the CV 40 1.2 Sony
Guy...the copy I have is pretty stellar wide open from about 4-5ft out . Up close, and especially with a close focus adapter, it's so-so wide open, but that's not its intended purpose, so i don't sweat it. I recently used it(VM 50 1.2) for a photo shoot and was super impressed how the grabs came out. They look very, IDK, medium formatty to me...for lack of better comparison. I really liked it. Stopped down, it is NO slouch as well and is a good all round 50!
Gregg
Greggf wrote:
Guy...the copy I have is pretty stellar wide open from about 4-5ft out . Up close, and especially with a close focus adapter, it's so-so wide open, but that's not its intended purpose, so i don't sweat it. I recently used it(VM 50 1.2) for a photo shoot and was super impressed how the grabs came out. They look very, IDK, medium formatty to me...for lack of better comparison. I really liked it. Stopped down, it is NO slouch as well and is a good all round 50!
Gregg
I can see that about MF quality. Images have a lot of dimension to them. First word I thought of. Interesting
! 
