Fred Miranda wrote:
The only time I've seen harsh bokeh from the Zony was when shooting wide open at high shutter speeds with EFCS turned on.
Fred, can't speak on behalf of Melindra, but I chose Sigma because of smoother boke on scenarios I shoot.
List of items I simply do not care:
- Autofocus (outside initial shoot where I used AF to see how it works, I don't remember ever using it, I generally don't like AF and prefer MF)
- Size and weight (if cinema version would be same price I would immediately sell Sigma Art and buy corresponding cinema version) [for travel kit this is important due to flight carry-on regulations, but I have separate set of lenses for that]
- Wide open sharpness (as long as it's good enough, contrast makes images, not sharpness - if I print wallsize I would not choose f/1.4 landscape to print)
- I do not care which lens is "generally best". I have zero need for "generalist" lenses, if I would ever need one I would buy something boring and high quality like 24-70GM, not a prime lens.
I would not be surprised if Sony is better on all above categories. But as I do not care or value these features so I don't have vote on that, it's up to somebody else who cares to figure and valuate these features.
What usually ruins lenses for me is how lens renders foliage, forest undergrowth (complex, layered, high contrast on small detail = complete opposite of 99% urban environment boke scenes) etc. structures on boke transfer zone and in actual boke, and in various magnifications, specially important for medium and larger distances (any f/1.4 lens at 1m/3feet shooting distance blurs boke so completely that it's damn same what is the boke quality). I have not owned FE50/1.4 so I have not analyzed this deeper, but based on those few hundred RAWs I have studied I think this is because FE50/1.4 has high concentration of light to edges of boke highlight balls and overall higher contrast in boke.
This one rendering feature may not be important at all for some photographer, they may never go and shoot boke scene in nature, or they do it once 10 year on some holiday and outside that they shoot in urgent environment where 99% of lenses render boke nicely no matter how crappy boke rendering lens has in challenging conditions. But if this sucks on my lens it will ruin 95% of my photos -> there is and never will be such thing "best" without defining what is valuation criteria and weighting.
Some people have also said FE50/1.4 boke to be like "trioplan like", which sounds correct to me on the small number of photos I have shoot with FE50/1.4, viewed on my friend's photos and seen in forum & reviews. This rendering feature can also be used to benefit photographer (this is why trioplan lenses are so expensive). The photographer I argued in this thread before archiving (if I remember correctly) about boke rendering of FE50/1.4 has done exactly that on his whole body portraits with foliage backgrounds, and some of his photos were quite nice due to that, little bit similar as using ZE/ZF 1.4/50 wide open for it's wonky boke, I quite liked some of his portraits where this effect has been used but as the effect can't be turned off I would not enjoy it on my photos.
Comparison photos of boke foliage are available at least on some video we review where these two were compared. It was on this thread before archiving (if I remember correctly) where we had the discussion and somebody or me linked to that video.
Personally if I would not have FE50/1.4 or Sigma Art 50 and I could choose either one for free (but could not sell later) I would choose Sigma without any doubt. Sony FE50/1.4 would not be useful for me unless I change my main photography subject.
patotts wrote:
... Has anyone tried the Canon 50/1.2L...
I have the 50L and sony 1.4/50, both are used on a7r2. The Canon has better manual focus feel than the sony but essentially the sony is a better lens in virtually every other way. Wo sharpness on both is excellent. The 50L is sharp across most of the frame when wo, it's my sharpest f1.2 lens, but it has horrible purple fringing in high contrast situations which stops me using it more often. The sony is probably sharper wo but it has virtually no fringing, nothing of note anyway, so the wo images are very clean. The 50L has quite harsh bokeh, similar to the Canon 1.2/55 ssc Aspherical, which is very much the opposite of the sony which has quite soft bokeh.
Anybody upgraded from 55 1.8 to 50 1.4 and is happy with it? I do find 55 1.8 quite decent but rendering is nothing to brag about. Give us your own experience (the ones who did it please ).
milkod2001 wrote:
Anybody upgraded from 55 1.8 to 50 1.4 and is happy with it? I do find 55 1.8 quite decent but rendering is nothing to brag about. Give us your own experience (the ones who did it please ).
I did, the 1.4 is significantly better in every way. I prefer the Sigma 1.4/50 though.
milkod2001 wrote:
Anybody upgraded from 55 1.8 to 50 1.4 and is happy with it? I do find 55 1.8 quite decent but rendering is nothing to brag about. Give us your own experience (the ones who did it please ).
i upgraded and im exclusively using it at 1.4. if i were to use any other aperture on the regular i'd just get the 55, that lens is just way smaller and lighter.
i don't see any other reason to upgrade, unless you're gonna shot wide open, the 55 is insane but it 'only' goes to 1.8
milkod2001 wrote:
Anybody upgraded from 55 1.8 to 50 1.4 and is happy with it? I do find 55 1.8 quite decent but rendering is nothing to brag about. Give us your own experience (the ones who did it please ).
I have both, and use them for different purposes as they have different pros and cons. The 55 is faster and more accurate focusing, especially with subjects moving towards you where the 50 tends to falter more often. The 55 also seems able to cope with flare better than the 50, such as when shooting backlit subjects or where the sun is almost in the frame. In these cases there is virtually no loss of contrast with the 55 whilst the 50 tends to show the effects earlier and to a greater extent. Both lenses are sharp but I tend to think the 55 is sharper wo then the 50 wo (which is mainly the way I use them). Sure the 50 has nicer rendering, partly because it is a bit faster, and it has a decent (not perfect) MF focus feel which is rubbish with the 55. I use the 55 far more often the the 50 but that's because I use either of them when I need AF and the 55 is better in this respect. If you are only concerned with rendering, not AF performance or ability to cope with difficult lighting, than the 50 is the better choice.
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...
milkod2001 wrote:
Anybody upgraded from 55 1.8 to 50 1.4 and is happy with it? I do find 55 1.8 quite decent but rendering is nothing to brag about. Give us your own experience (the ones who did it please ).
The 55 1.8 was one of the first lenses I owned for the FE system. I liked it for the sharpness and compact size, but never really bonded with it completely - and that was when there weren't a whole lot of native HQ options for the FE system.
In the end, I ended up with the 50 1.4 ZA, and really like the rendering, sharpness and bokeh more than the 55.
I never shot with them side by side, and I'd like to think I've improved as a photographer, but wouldn't go back.
I never really liked the 55 myself. Sure it’s sharp as heck and it has CA issues and never warmed up to the bokeh at all. Hate the MF on it, frankly it’s the worst lens to manual focus
Now the 50 1.4 I heavily tested this lens. Now at 1.4 it has that nice soft look to the files especially people but it really starts at 1.7 on center sharpness like the GM 85 same thing. 1.4 is really nice looking but both at 1.7 the center sharpness really gets going and at around F4 corners really start taking off. Optimum is 5.6 and that pixel peepers nirvana. Has great color, tonal range and bokeh on the 50 is very smooth through the transition zones. Great people lens and can certainly be used for landscape type work. Not the lightest or smallest lens around and the AF let’s say you have to work and have a little patience but the rendering is quite awesome with no visable CA issues which is quite rare. Why I say the best AF 50 around. It just behaves very well All areas of IQ
To me it’s a great balance lens in regard to its lens qualities.
I completely agree to this statement. I've owned many 50mm and none of them come as close to this lens. The 50/1.4 ZA is just ridiculous in image quality. My copy is near apochromatic. But the trade off is the size and weight.
It lives permanently at f/1.4 for me.
On my A9, its a speed demon. On my A7RII, it's acceptable.
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.
dumplinknet wrote:
I completely agree to this statement. I've owned many 50mm and none of them come as close to this lens. The 50/1.4 ZA is just ridiculous in image quality. My copy is near apochromatic. But the trade off is the size and weight.
It lives permanently at f/1.4 for me.
On my A9, its a speed demon. On my A7RII, it's acceptable.
I've only tried it on a A9, I shoot a A7R3 these days - is the AF faster and/or more accurate on the A9 for this lens?
patotts wrote:
I've only tried it on a A9, I shoot a A7R3 these days - is the AF faster and/or more accurate on the A9 for this lens?
It is, definitely.
Another example is the cheap FE 50mm f/1.8. That lens is an entirely different lens in terms of speed on the A9 as opposed to my A7RII.
The A9 literally breathed new life into that lens.
Which is why I vouch for that lens 100% if you have an A9. It can also do 20fps with continous autofocus pretty amazingly.
I never shot the 50 1.4 on the A9. So in essence what that is saying is maybe with the new firmware coming for the A7rIII there is a chance it will get faster. Hmmmm now that would make my day
I was referring to the Native Sony version.
Yeah, I had the M mount version with the Techart Pro. It was very nice. Just not an adapter guy although it worked surprisingly well. Corners should be alittle better on the Native version.
Any time my GAS kicks in I dig out my Sony 50/1.4 and I'm reminded how great it is. I could shoot a whole wedding with this guy. And I have shot movement with it with success. That af/mf switch is really useful (Sigma has those too)
