Arty73 wrote:
Do you think the 50/1.4 ZA have a similar look comparing to 24GM? I’m looking for a f1.4 prime setup for replacement of the 24-70 focallenght, indoor reportage style photography no flash allowed.
I Have the 24GM, using with crop mode 24mm + 36mm focallenght, 50mm could be 75mm. (I have consider 85GM but to expensive for now)
You should take a look at the Samyang 85 1.4 if you were considering the 85GM. It is sharp and renders nicely as well
Shot with the 50mm ZA again this past weekend. Wish I could say I was ever disappointed with this lens, but it always delivers. Works so well on my A9 and I'm never worried about missing a shot. My only wish was that it had a custom function button on it, but otherwise it is still the king of my bag!
Agreed! Give me a 35mm 1.4 with that sharpness & rendering and Id be one very happy man!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the 24 GM has smoother rendering and slight lower contrast compared to the 50/1.4 ZA and 135 GM. To me, the 24/1.4 GM's rendering really reminds me of the 35/2 Sonnar. (RX1)
I'm in Toronto and mine was sent to MTC in Whitby for the recall service. After the recall procedure the lens was very soft and with a lot of glow wide open. I sent it back to MTC (shipping on their tab) and after a bit of wait I received a brand new 50 1.4 from Sony.
rcaday3 wrote:
Just an update from my previous post on sending the 50/1.4 for service on the recall. If you're in Canada, don't do it. Save the trouble and ask to ship to a repair facility in the US.
The only servicer listed on the Sony Canada website for interchangeable lenses is L2W in Toronto. I'm not sure how they qualified them to be a repair facility but I'm pretty sure it's just a guy in his apartment. There is no business phone number, but someone's personal number. I called numerous times as the lens was delivered 5/20 and did not see any status update on the Sony Case tracker. I contacted Sony support and they asked me to continue calling L2W. I finally got a hold him and he said he will need to call me back. I again contacted Sony support to follow up. They eventually called me and said L2W shipped the lens to Photo Tech in NY (received 5/24) because L2W was incapable of performing the service. I'm not sure if it's standard practice to ship the lens to another country without contacting the customer, but I wasn't happy.
I asked Sony support to follow up with Photo Tech on how long the repair would take. They eventually called me back and said they can't get an answer yet, but they will contact me later this week. So I guess I'm in limbo as to the status of lens for a few more days.
I'm just curious if any fellow Canadians have had their lenses serviced by L2W and what was your experience? It's possible I'm just being unreasonable like my wife always tells me....Show more →
Do you see the 85 1.4 GM as also having similar rendering to the RX1R and the 24 1.4 GM?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the 24 GM has smoother rendering and slight lower contrast compared to the 50/1.4 ZA and 135 GM. To me, the 24/1.4 GM's rendering really reminds me of the 35/2 Sonnar. (RX1)
richpjr wrote:
I should really not ever come on to this forum. I have been debating about whether or not to pick up the 55 mm as I don't have a prime in that range and this thread is fanning the flames to go for the 1.4 instead!
I have sold two 55 1.8's they just don't do it for me. They are sharp but they lack the wonderful rendering of the planar.
The last one I bought thinking that for travel it would be nicer to take with me but I could not bring myself to take it since the images do not pop like my 50 1.4 ZA so I sold it too.
It is a very good lens but it is not a great lens like the 24 GM, 50 1.4, 85 GM, 100 STF GMm 135 1.8 GM or 100-400 GM.
If you want the best images better lenses play a big part in acquiring them.
I have my CV 50 1.2 to be my Sony 50 1.4. I needed the Batis 18 so something had to go but I may grab a 55 but seriously it will never make it on my camera except for event work. Not fond of its look or I may try the Rok 45 1.8 I have a credit at Adorama coming for like 700. Seriously my 24 , 85 and 135 do most of the work . I returned the Rok 35 1.4 still shaky AF. Not in a big hurry but this crap that still exist in 35/40/45 has to be solved. I thought about the Batis 40 but not fond of that one either . So I’ll be buying a lens I’m not fond of . Don’t that just suck
I’m just so picky but if I set my mind on it’s only for work stuff I can justify it
trstahly wrote:
I have sold two 55 1.8's they just don't do it for me. They are sharp but they lack the wonderful rendering of the planar.
The last one I bought thinking that for travel it would be nicer to take with me but I could not bring myself to take it since the images do not pop like my 50 1.4 ZA so I sold it too.
It is a very good lens but it is not a great lens like the 24 GM, 50 1.4, 85 GM, 100 STF GMm 135 1.8 GM or 100-400 GM.
If you want the best images better lenses play a big part in acquiring them....Show more →
Yeah, this was exactly what I was going back and forth on - the size and cheaper price of the 55 are very tempting and it is a good lens. But the 50 has more mojo, but cost more and weighs more. Decisions, decisions...
GMPhotography wrote:
Sooo I know the question is coming the answer is the CV 50 1.2 is just as wonderful as the Sony 50 1.4. I know I’m half baked but I ain’t stupid.
Seriously that’s a test someone needs to do. A lot smaller lens but it’s manual.
I am also in doubt which one is the best for my needs. In particular I wonder if the microcontrast of the Sony 50/1.4 may not be a little too much for portraiture of people with less than perfect skin.
I had the Summilux 50 ASPH when I still had my M9. I found it to be just right in that regard: contrasty but still soft on the skin.
I currently have the CV 21mm f/3/5, Tamron 28-75 and Sony 100-400.
I really like these 3 lenses, but I'm looking for a special lens with a different/smoother rendering in the ~50mm FL.
So I rented the 50/1.4 ZA for 1 day, here are my observations:
- AF of the 1.4ZA is not as quiet and as fast as the Tamron
- sharpness is great across the frame, already very good at f1.4. At 50mm f2.8 the Tamron is about the same as the Sony at f2.8 (will post an example)
- Rendering and bokeh: I'm a bit disapointed, I was expecting a bigger improvement compared to the Tamron.
I did some comparisons f/1.4 vs the Tamron at 50mm 2.8 and at 75mm f2.8 to get a more comparable DOF to evaluate the out of focus areas.
It may not sound right to compare 50mm vs 75mm, but my objective was to find out if the 1.4ZA would give me a special/smooth rendering that I cannot get today with the 28-75.
My conclusion is this 1.4ZA is definitely a great 50mm overall but is not for me. I don't feel like I would give up the flexibility of the 28-75 range very often, only for some marginal improvements to my eyes. Of course the Sony would kill the Tamron in low light because of the extra stops, but it's not the reason why I'm considering it. And it's heavy and big, and the price ... I will try to rent the CV 50 1.2 .
Evaluating a lens rendering is quite subjective, I know some love this lens. Just wanted to share my opinion.
Fboss wrote:
I currently have the CV 21mm f/3/5, Tamron 28-75 and Sony 100-400.
I really like these 3 lenses, but I'm looking for a special lens with a different/smoother rendering in the ~50mm FL.
So I rented the 50/1.4 ZA for 1 day, here are my observations:
- AF of the 1.4ZA is not as quiet and as fast as the Tamron
- sharpness is great across the frame, already very good at f1.4. At 50mm f2.8 the Tamron is about the same as the Sony at f2.8 (will post an example)
- Rendering and bokeh: I'm a bit disapointed, I was expecting a bigger improvement compared to the Tamron.
I did some comparisons f/1.4 vs the Tamron at 50mm 2.8 and at 75mm f2.8 to get a more comparable DOF to evaluate the out of focus areas.
It may not sound right to compare 50mm vs 75mm, but my objective was to find out if the 1.4ZA would give me a special/smooth rendering that I cannot get today with the 28-75.
My conclusion is this 1.4ZA is definitely a great 50mm overall but is not for me. I don't feel like I would give up the flexibility of the 28-75 range very often, only for some marginal improvements to my eyes. Of course the Sony would kill the Tamron in low light because of the extra stops, but it's not the reason why I'm considering it. And it's heavy and big, and the price ... I will try to rent the CV 50 1.2 .
Evaluating a lens rendering is quite subjective, I know some love this lens. Just wanted to share my opinion.
I think you're pretty much on point when it comes to 50 ZA's rendering smoothness, as I think I've read here at least a couple of times that a bit too contrasty bokeh is listed as one of the cons of that lens.
There's an excellent comparison of the rendering/bokeh with the Voigtlander by Fred Miranda here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/20#14832246
So, it seems that for that "buttery" look, Voigtlander is the better choice indeed.
However, I think I don't agree completely on your view on Tamron vs ZA rendering, as with the Tamron I find it easier to find harsh background, which ends up "uneasy on the eyes" when evaluating the photo (IMHO). I haven't done any direct comparison between them, so I'd have to do that to back up my claim and don't get me wrong - I think Tamron has nice bokeh in general (and is a great lens - that's the only zoom I have). It's just that it's easier to induce this "unpleasant" bokeh ...
Fboss wrote:
I currently have the CV 21mm f/3/5, Tamron 28-75 and Sony 100-400.
I really like these 3 lenses, but I'm looking for a special lens with a different/smoother rendering in the ~50mm FL.
So I rented the 50/1.4 ZA for 1 day, here are my observations:
- AF of the 1.4ZA is not as quiet and as fast as the Tamron
- sharpness is great across the frame, already very good at f1.4. At 50mm f2.8 the Tamron is about the same as the Sony at f2.8 (will post an example)
- Rendering and bokeh: I'm a bit disapointed, I was expecting a bigger improvement compared to the Tamron.
I did some comparisons f/1.4 vs the Tamron at 50mm 2.8 and at 75mm f2.8 to get a more comparable DOF to evaluate the out of focus areas.
It may not sound right to compare 50mm vs 75mm, but my objective was to find out if the 1.4ZA would give me a special/smooth rendering that I cannot get today with the 28-75.
My conclusion is this 1.4ZA is definitely a great 50mm overall but is not for me. I don't feel like I would give up the flexibility of the 28-75 range very often, only for some marginal improvements to my eyes. Of course the Sony would kill the Tamron in low light because of the extra stops, but it's not the reason why I'm considering it. And it's heavy and big, and the price ... I will try to rent the CV 50 1.2 .
Evaluating a lens rendering is quite subjective, I know some love this lens. Just wanted to share my opinion.
The 50/1.4 ist definitely sharper stopped down two stops than the Tamron wide open at 50 mm in my book. We have the 28-75 at work. A careful comparison making sure the focus is exactly on the same point is necessary. Giving the tremendous performance already wide open at f1.4 I would wonder about that no being so. Your shots show a comparison of different focal lengths, changed perspective, changes in lighting, probable changes in distance (or changes in effective focal length), which makes comparing both even more difficult.
There are so many parameters to consider when evaluating the performance including distance, background distance, light, aperture etc. that a short rent is probably not showing a lot.
In my opinion the rendering and performance of the 50 is fantastic, having shot many 50mm lenses professionally. Personal taste is a thing to consider of course, but compared to the Tamron at 50 there is hardly a contest.
I very much like the 50/1.4 ZA's rendering. At mid-distance, it's not as smooth compared to lenses like the CV 50/1.2 or Samyang 50/1.4 AF which are under-corrected for spherical aberration. The 50/1.4 ZA renders like a modern lens being well-corrected and sharp from wide open and across the field (with a slight mid-field dip)...In that sense, it reminds me of the FE 135/1.8 GM's look with fantastic contrast, high resolution, great color rendering and neutral bokeh.
If you are not a fan of the 50/1.4 ZA's rendering, stay away from the Samyang 45/1.8 AF.
j4nu wrote:
However, I think I don't agree completely on your view on Tamron vs ZA rendering, as with the Tamron I find it easier to find harsh background, which ends up "uneasy on the eyes" when evaluating the photo (IMHO). I haven't done any direct comparison between them, so I'd have to do that to back up my claim and don't get me wrong - I think Tamron has nice bokeh in general (and is a great lens - that's the only zoom I have). It's just that it's easier to induce this "unpleasant" bokeh ...
You are right that in some cases the background on the Tamron can be harsh. The Sony is certainly more consistent, just not as smooth as I would have liked. I looked at the test pictures posted by Fred, and yes I believe the CV 50mm 1.2 is exactly what I'm looking for in terms of rendering. Just need to decide if I will be Ok with a MF lens in this focal length. The CV 21mm is really easy and fun to use. But I don't have any experience with a 50mm MF.
Holger wrote:
The 50/1.4 ist definitely sharper stopped down two stops than the Tamron wide open at 50 mm in my book. We have the 28-75 at work. A careful comparison making sure the focus is exactly on the same point is necessary. Giving the tremendous performance already wide open at f1.4 I would wonder about that no being so. Your shots show a comparison of different focal lengths, changed perspective, changes in lighting, probable changes in distance (or changes in effective focal length), which makes comparing both even more difficult.
There are so many parameters to consider when evaluating the performance including distance, background distance, light, aperture etc. that a short rent is probably not showing a lot.
In my opinion the rendering and performance of the 50 is fantastic, having shot many 50mm lenses professionally. Personal taste is a thing to consider of course, but compared to the Tamron at 50 there is hardly a contest. ...Show more →
Yes my tests were not very scientific, I just wanted to have a feel of the Sony in some random shots. I have read many people saying it's the best AF 50mm on the market, and I believe that. But the Tamron at f/2.8 is sharp enough for me, and what I want is a better rendering.
and don't get me wrong - I think Tamron has nice bokeh in general (and is a great lens - that's the only zoom I have). It's just that it's easier to induce this "unpleasant" bokeh ...