Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps, the main difference is really planar vs sonnar rendering.
I do think the 50 f/1.4 ZA does have a very typical planar rendering. I am less convinced the 55 f/1.8 ZA is a typical sonnar, but it at least renders in that direction. One thing that Guy's shots captured is that the 50 f/1.4 ZA should be great for moderate distance shots and I am betting it will have excellent bokeh at about f/4. This sort of shot was a real strength of the old C/Y 50 f/1.4 planar and the ZE/ZF as well. I think the 50 is a lens that you will have to know well to know when it works and when it doesn't but if you do it will pay off with some pretty fantastic shots. On the other hand the 55 will be relatively easier to use across situations. It will be quite competent at most things. The drawback, however, is that it may produce fewer wow shots than the 50 when it is used for its strengths.
They did expand to full size for me Jorge. Once I mouse-over them, a magnification icon shows up and when I click on one of your images, I see the full size right on top of it.
And yes, this lens is razor sharp wide-open! Post more samples.
Best,
Fred
Steve Spencer wrote:
I do think the 50 f/1.4 ZA does have a very typical planar rendering. I am less convinced the 55 f/1.8 ZA is a typical sonnar, but it at least renders in that direction. One thing that Guy's shots captured is that the 50 f/1.4 ZA should be great for moderate distance shots and I am betting it will have excellent bokeh at about f/4. This sort of shot was a real strength of the old C/Y 50 f/1.4 planar and the ZE/ZF as well. I think the 50 is a lens that you will have to know well to know when it works and when it doesn't but if you do it will pay off with some pretty fantastic shots. On the other hand the 55 will be relatively easier to use across situations. It will be quite competent at most things. The drawback, however, is that it may produce fewer wow shots than the 50 when it is used for its strengths....Show more →
I see them as modern designs deviating from their original formulas. However, to my eyes, the 50/1.4 ZA has a lot more in common with the Loxia 50/2 than the 55/1.8 ZA.
I didn't try any shots at apertures smaller than f/2.0 (except for the infinity tests). Tomorrow I will test at f/2.8 and f/4 and see how the rendering behaves.
Have you tried the Sonnar 50/1.5 C ZM? How do you think it compares to these modern lenses?
GMPhotography wrote:
I'll join this thread with my tests later this week when I get home. But my theory is this the 85 is the creamy soft ice cream lens with nice lower contrast and bokeh for more people type shots . The 50mm 1.4 is my laser with decent bokeh but that's not primary but being a laser wide open is. I have zero interest in the 55mm but others do. The Loxia 50 is a great lens but I'm pretty sure it's redundant now
Yes, we need some Big Bronco tests here. I suspect your aperture tests will be amazing for this lens.
Currently, I have the Loxia 2/50 for my land-/cityscape needs and the 1.8/55 for my portrait and documentation work. The 1.8/55 has pretty low coma wide open, therefore I use it sometimes for nightscapes too.
I thought about replacing my 1.8/55 with the 1.4/50 next year, but I am not going do this. I really like to choose my tools for the job that I do and I prefer to have some flexibility when it comes to the look of my lenses.
For me, either the Loxia 2/50 or the Planar 1.4/50 are good companions for the Sonnar 1.8/55, but I can't imagine to pair my Planar 2/50 with the Planar 1.4/50 because the looks are very close to each other.
For land- and cityscapes, the Loxia does the job for me because of it's sun stars and the contrast. The Planar 1.4/50 would have the great contrast, but I'm sure that it can't match the quality of the Loxia sun stars. One strength of the high contrast look of these lenses are portraits of special characters or mature people. In this case, I like the harsher rendering.
The 1.8/55 works terrific for soft portraits and baby shots, I recently did a newborn shooting with my son and the results were very pleasing. I also think, that the 1.8/55 has this magic in the transition zone like the 1.4/85 GM. The 1.8/55 renders this important area beautifully smooth and creamy.
The only thing, that interests me about the 1.4/50 is the great control of chromatic abberations. This aspect annoys me quite often with the 1.8/55. I pick the Batis 1.8/85 then, which handles this aspect much better.
By the looks of it this is optically a fantastic lens though I have to say that I will be sticking with my FE55 as I think it is really good enough for most mere mortals and fits better with the original ethos of the Sony A7 series in offering a smaller package than a DSLR and now seems like a cheap option compared to the 50/1.4
That said I have to say that I hardly use the FE55 anymore since getting the 24-70 GM (I know this goes against my previous statement about keeping it small) as it is so good even wide open at 50mm and my Loxia 50 has now been sold since it just wasn't getting any use
Thanks for the testing, Fred! On balance, I have to favor the fast 50. The b/g bokeh sets my teeth on edge, but I'm lately more interested in color control. Even when it doesn't cause exploding plumes of magenta, CA affects the entire image by muddying the color rendition and lowering sharpness. Since Sony is cranking out a new 50 every two months, perhaps they'll design a slow 50 with all the optical goodies (smooth bokeh, perfect linearity, color purity, low vignetting, no field curvature). I can accept a max aperture of f/4, just like the Coastal Optics 60.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not surprised about the bokeh. The bokeh pattern with this FE 50 f/1.4 reminds me a lot of the Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2. That lens too has much nicer bokeh stopped down a little than wide open. This FE 50 f/1.4 will be great for low light shooting, but the smart photographer like Guy will shoot it at f/1.8 or f/2 with even moderate light and it will be very sharp and the bokeh will be much better. This is a lens for when you want extreme sharpness at wide apertures and good aberration control. It should be great for a lot of types of shooting, but for portraits I think the 85 GM will be much better. So, I definitely see a place for this lens, but for portraits I expect their will eventually be a 50 GM that will be the bees knees and have bokeh that even puts the FE 55 f/1.8 to shame....Show more →
This was exactly my first thought when I looked at the results and read Fred's comment about stopped down bokeh smoothing out.
This has the signature of the Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 and Canon FL 55mm f/1.2: Bokeh is smoothest and creamiest at around f/2.0. Wide open is a little hectic. (That said, those older lenses simply cannot compete from a technical standpoint with their high LoCA and likely weak-coatings-induced wide open highlight glow.)
rico wrote:
Thanks for the testing, Fred! On balance, I have to favor the fast 50. The b/g bokeh sets my teeth on edge, but I'm lately more interested in color control. Even when it doesn't cause exploding plumes of magenta, CA affects the entire image by muddying the color rendition and lowering sharpness. Since Sony is cranking out a new 50 every two months, perhaps they'll design a slow 50 with all the optical goodies (smooth bokeh, perfect linearity, color purity, low vignetting, no field curvature). I can accept a max aperture of f/4, just like the Coastal Optics 60.
Because the squeaky wheel gets the grease: I still want a set of $800-$1,000, moderately sized, IQ-focused, f/2 lenses to maximize Sony sensor image quality AND the size/weight aspect of the A7x line: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Contax G lenses for the mirrorless, AF world.
The new 50 f/1.4 definitely has a place at the table. But like I've maintained for a while: ultra fast aperture mainly benefits light gathering. This lens performs best at f/1.7-2.0-- but you can shoot it at f/1.4 when needed without worrying that you're dropping below some kind of IQ threshold (unlike, say, the Canon 50mm f/1.4). What I mean is that while I think a lot of people will buy this lens to shoot it W/O-- I also bet that if they had most of those shots at W/O and f/1.7 they'd mostly pick the f/1.7 shots as selects due to the better image quality and the likely unnoticeable (or even beneficial) difference in DOF.
Side note: It will be very interesting to see how this lens performs in night-lit environments like streetscapes, nighttime street, low-key evening portraiture. I suspect we'll like what we see, and its use scenarios will expand.
justruss wrote:
Because the squeaky wheel gets the grease: I still want a set of $800-$1,000, moderately sized, IQ-focused, f/2 lenses to maximize Sony sensor image quality AND the size/weight aspect of the A7x line: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Contax G lenses for the mirrorless, AF world.
The new 50 f/1.4 definitely has a place at the table. But like I've maintained for a while: ultra fast aperture mainly benefits light gathering. This lens performs best at f/1.7-2.0-- but you can shoot it at f/1.4 when needed without worrying that you're dropping below some kind of IQ threshold (unlike, say, the Canon 50mm f/1.4). What I mean is that while I think a lot of people will buy this lens to shoot it W/O-- I also bet that if they had most of those shots at W/O and f/1.7 they'd mostly pick the f/1.7 shots as selects due to the better image quality and the likely unnoticeable (or even beneficial) difference in DOF.
Side note: It will be very interesting to see how this lens performs in night-lit environments like streetscapes, nighttime street, low-key evening portraiture. I suspect we'll like what we see, and its use scenarios will expand....Show more →
With the Batis 25/2, 85/1.8 and the 55/1.8 you have a high IQ moderate size AF set of lenses already, in my opinion. Add a possible future Batis 35/1.8 and you are set?
Holger wrote:
With the Batis 25/2, 85/1.8 and the 55/1.8 you have a high IQ moderate size AF set of lenses already, in my opinion. Add a possible future Batis 35/1.8 and you are set?
Yes, that mythical lens remains the biggest missing link in the whole puzzle! (For me: 18mm, 35mm, 100mm.) And if it was delivered I'd probably shut up about it.
That said, I am in love with the whole Zeiss thing at 18mm, but I'm less into the traditional Zeiss look (namely the bokeh style) at 85mm in the Batis, and would likely feel similarly about a Batis at 35mm if I think about it. I'd still scoop up the latter with gusto.
True but we can't overlook 1.4 on tests 1.7 maybe better but damn at 1.4 it's better than anything else. Those head shots from I took in NY where just happy snappys but man was 1.4 brilliantly sharp. I have no issue at 1.4. Sure I'll go to 1.7 but
This is the best 1.4 at 1.4 native I have seen yet. I'm bugged by the lo ca in the 55
I still see it very slightly after Fred defringed it.
I don't think I have that tool in C1 unless they put it in and I have not noticed it yet
justruss wrote:
Because the squeaky wheel gets the grease: I still want a set of $800-$1,000, moderately sized, IQ-focused, f/2 lenses to maximize Sony sensor image quality AND the size/weight aspect of the A7x line: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm. Contax G lenses for the mirrorless, AF world.
The new 50 f/1.4 definitely has a place at the table. But like I've maintained for a while: ultra fast aperture mainly benefits light gathering. This lens performs best at f/1.7-2.0-- but you can shoot it at f/1.4 when needed without worrying that you're dropping below some kind of IQ threshold (unlike, say, the Canon 50mm f/1.4). What I mean is that while I think a lot of people will buy this lens to shoot it W/O-- I also bet that if they had most of those shots at W/O and f/1.7 they'd mostly pick the f/1.7 shots as selects due to the better image quality and the likely unnoticeable (or even beneficial) difference in DOF.
Side note: It will be very interesting to see how this lens performs in night-lit environments like streetscapes, nighttime street, low-key evening portraiture. I suspect we'll like what we see, and its use scenarios will expand....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
True but we can't overlook 1.4 on tests 1.7 maybe better but damn at 1.4 it's better than anything else. Those head shots from I took in NY where just happy snappys but man was 1.4 brilliantly sharp. I have no issue at 1.4. Sure I'll go to 1.7 but
This is the best 1.4 at 1.4 native I have seen yet. I'm bugged by the lo ca in the 55
I still see it very slightly after Fred defringed it.
I don't think I have that tool in C1 unless they put it in and I have not noticed it yet
Absolutely, which was my point. When you can, you shoot it at f/1.7ish. When you have to, you shoot it at f/1.4-- and nothing else matches it short of perhaps an Otus (which is MF).
Agree we now have a native AF Otus at far less costs. That wants me to keep it and the extremely well corrected lens is really nice t have in at least one lens in the kit. This is a exciting lens for me at least. I know it's not cheap, small or light weight but either am I. Lol
Click on it for larger image
I suspect your aperture tests will be amazing for this lens.