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 ).
---------------------------------------------
Melindra wrote:
I did, the 1.4 is significantly better in every way. I prefer the Sigma 1.4/50 though.
---------------------------------------------
JohnJ wrote:
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....Show more →
My own experience matches the analysis in JohnJ's nuanced post, which persuasively refutes the bald assertion that the 50/1.4 is "significantly better" than the 55/1.8 "in every way".
I photograph strangers, close-up, in the street. Frequently I am approaching a stationary subject though more commonly we are approaching each other. I had been getting excellent results with the 55/1.8 but couldn't resist picking up a new 50/1.4 at an extremely attractive price. Why? Because of its superior rendering. Had I read JohnJ's explanation of the respective strengths and weaknesses of these two lenses six months ago, I doubt I would have bothered with the 50/1.4. He points out that the 55's AF is faster and more accurate ("especially with subjects moving towards you") and he is 100% correct. In terms of focus accuracy and, consequently, sharpness my keeper rate dropped when I switched to the 50/1.4 and rose significantly when I switched back to the 55/1.8. It took me way too long to admit to myself that I'd made a mistake (sunk cost fallacy: you irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something!) but at least the experience of using the 50/1.4 reminded me that the pictures I make depend for their success not on rendering but rather on the precise depiction of a subject, a moment, a relationship. As Gary Winogrand said: "There is nothing so mysterious as a fact clearly described". Rendering, at which the 50/1.4 excels, takes a back seat to AF performance and sharpness, given that my primary subject(s) will ideally be clearly delineated against backgrounds comprised of out-of-focus buildings and bystanders.
One might say, then, that the 55/1.8 is significantly better than the 50/1.4, not in every way, but certainly for particular use cases.
My own experience matches the analysis in JohnJ's nuanced post, which persuasively refutes the bald assertion that the 50/1.4 is "significantly better" than the 55/1.8 "in every way".
I photograph strangers, close-up, in the street. Frequently I am approaching a stationary subject though more commonly we are approaching each other. I had been getting excellent results with the 55/1.8 but couldn't resist picking up a new 50/1.4 at an extremely attractive price. Why? Because of its superior rendering. Had I read JohnJ's explanation of the respective strengths and weaknesses of these two lenses six months ago, I doubt I would have bothered with the 50/1.4. He points out that the 55's AF is faster and more accurate ("especially with subjects moving towards you") and he is 100% correct. In terms of focus accuracy and, consequently, sharpness my keeper rate dropped when I switched to the 50/1.4 and rose significantly when I switched back to the 55/1.8. It took me way too long to admit to myself that I'd made a mistake (sunk cost fallacy: you irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something!) but at least the experience of using the 50/1.4 reminded me that the pictures I make depend for their success not on rendering but rather on the precise depiction of a subject, a moment, a relationship. As Gary Winogrand said: "There is nothing so mysterious as a fact clearly described". Rendering, at which the 50/1.4 excels, takes a back seat to AF performance and sharpness, given that my primary subject(s) will ideally be clearly delineated against backgrounds comprised of out-of-focus buildings and bystanders.
One might say, then, that the 55/1.8 is significantly better than the 50/1.4, not in every way, but certainly for particular use cases....Show more →
As well as AF speed, there’s another way the 1.8/55 is better than the 1.4: stopped down resolution. You can see it in the manufacturer MTF as well as in images. Both are good stopped down from f5.6, nut the 1.8 is a touch better especially in the midfield. So for landscape...
But the somewhat greater sharpness at wide apertures and snappier contrast overall against a somewhat nicer softer and cleaner background means I keep the 1.4 and love it. But in the kind of work where keeper rate matters, I can see that the 1.8 might be a better choice. If I am travelling I often take the 1.8 for compactness quite apart from its other advantages.
DavidBM wrote:
As well as AF speed, there’s another way the 1.8/55 is better than the 1.4: stopped down resolution. You can see it in the manufacturer MTF as well as in images. Both are good stopped down from f5.6, nut the 1.8 is a touch better especially in the midfield. So for landscape...
But the somewhat greater sharpness at wide apertures and snappier contrast overall against a somewhat nicer softer and cleaner background means I keep the 1.4 and love it. But in the kind of work where keeper rate matters, I can see that the 1.8 might be a better choice. If I am travelling I often take the 1.8 for compactness quite apart from its other advantages. ...Show more →
Totally agree. I normally use both lenses (50/1.4 and 55/1.8) at f/2.8 to give myself some leeway with non-stationary subjects and definitely prefer the results from the 55/1.8. But I have no intention of selling the 50/1.4 for the reasons you state. It's superb at what it's good at.
Just shot a test of Big Bronco between the 50 1.4 and the CV 50 3.5. The Sony was wider now who knows if one is actually 50 or not technically. But between the two the Sony is more like 48mm if we assume the CV is correct. Assumption not based on fact of course. Just interesting
My own experience matches the analysis in JohnJ's nuanced post, which persuasively refutes the bald assertion that the 50/1.4 is "significantly better" than the 55/1.8 "in every way".
I photograph strangers, close-up, in the street. Frequently I am approaching a stationary subject though more commonly we are approaching each other. I had been getting excellent results with the 55/1.8 but couldn't resist picking up a new 50/1.4 at an extremely attractive price. Why? Because of its superior rendering. Had I read JohnJ's explanation of the respective strengths and weaknesses of these two lenses six months ago, I doubt I would have bothered with the 50/1.4. He points out that the 55's AF is faster and more accurate ("especially with subjects moving towards you") and he is 100% correct. In terms of focus accuracy and, consequently, sharpness my keeper rate dropped when I switched to the 50/1.4 and rose significantly when I switched back to the 55/1.8. It took me way too long to admit to myself that I'd made a mistake (sunk cost fallacy: you irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something!) but at least the experience of using the 50/1.4 reminded me that the pictures I make depend for their success not on rendering but rather on the precise depiction of a subject, a moment, a relationship. As Gary Winogrand said: "There is nothing so mysterious as a fact clearly described". Rendering, at which the 50/1.4 excels, takes a back seat to AF performance and sharpness, given that my primary subject(s) will ideally be clearly delineated against backgrounds comprised of out-of-focus buildings and bystanders.
One might say, then, that the 55/1.8 is significantly better than the 50/1.4, not in every way, but certainly for particular use cases....Show more →
Towards the mid-field area, the 55/1.8 ZA is capable of higher resolution compared to the 50/1.4 ZA, especially at large apertures (and even at f/5.6). This happens at any distance, and it's a clear case of resolution dip. (Not field curvature)
I tend to frame my subject at the rule of thirds or close to it and it's very obvious the 55/1.8 ZA does better in that zone. The 50/1.4 ZA rules at center though.
Regarding AF, I agree, the 55/1.8 ZA rarely misses focus and it's something I see a lot with the 50/1.4 ZA. The former's AF is also noticeably faster.
I much prefer the 50/1.4's rendering with its cleaner specular highlights, much less LoCA and higher contrast but can't find the courage to sell the 55/1.8 ZA for its size, IQ and fast/accurate AF.
This is a great lens in F1.4, which reach to top class by f2-2.8. An ideal lens to shoot portrait as your wonderful indoor/outdoor samples. Besides, what a beautiful young lady!
I also share 2 shots by my FE50 1.4 here, in my point of view, it do have excellent tone and smooth bokeh...
The only downside for me is that it doesn't stay in the top class when stopping down - like f8. And that is personally I value most. So now I prefer to my new Batis 40 when I go traveling, which keep its stunning resolution when stopping down, and has advantage by size/weight.
I am also curious, considering a Kolari's mod, thinner filter glass applied A7RIII, if a summlilux50 asph will perform better than this FE50 1.4ZA (in terms of optical performance of course)
Finally grabbed another one of these again...Comes today, I remember it being a stunning lens just heavy...The examples above are getting me excited to shoot it!
For those who have this beautiful lens, how will the Zeiss 50 1.4 compare with the Sony 24mm GM in colour, rendering, etc. can the characters of these lenses compliment each other?
To me the 50/1.4 has more punch to it. Bit sharper as well. But the 24 is plenty sharp. Not sure what else,rendering wise. I use those 2 lenses during the getting ready portion of weddings.
Arty73 wrote:
For those who have this beautiful lens, how will the Zeiss 50 1.4 compare with the Sony 24mm GM in colour, rendering, etc. can the characters of these lenses compliment each other?
