justruss wrote:
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).
In real life, the Sigma Art comes very close, too, in my opinion. I use it regularly and find my copy sharper than the 55/1.8 wide open.
Thanks for the unbiased presentation of your images Fred, very helpful given your controlled methodology. And thanks as well for your analysis I'm going to hang on to my FE 55/1.8. I end up favoring lenses with lower contrast, less bite, and smoother bokeh wide open (even though I hate the LoCA that often comes with it) that sharpen up in the f/5.6-8.0 zone. We are truly spoiled for choice these days!
Thanks a lot for all the tests and I'm very surprised by the bokeh wide open. I'm not in the market for a 50mm lens, that focal length just doesn't rock for me, but if I were, it would be a difficult decision ahead for sure!
My biggest issue with the 55mm F1.8 was the large amount of vignetting even as you stopped down to 2.8+. That and the focal length; it always felt like I was shooting a 58mm lens and that it was better suited for portraits than all around use.
Aug 03, 2016 at 10:07 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think what this lens has is excellent sharpness and very low aberrations including CA outside the focus plane (bokeh fringing) and coma. Those are some real big positives. It may not be quite as good as the Otus in that regard, but it is close and may be slightly sharper in the centre. The Sigma Art is close to the FE 50 f/1.4 ZA, but perhaps just a hair less in term of performance and it is bigger especially when you consider the adapter. So, there is little question this is an impressive lens.
Still, I think it will take a skilled photographer to use it well. One will have to know when to stop it down and be able to anticipate the bokeh. This is not a lens to just open it up to f/1.4 and shoot away--not if you want the best results. You need to know when to shoot at f/1.8, when at f/4, and when to shoot it wide open. The sharpness and the aberrations won't be the issue, but the bokeh will be.
In the right hands this lens will produce some wonderful shots, but in the wrong hands the results will look ugly at times. That is generally true for all lenses, but I think it will be more true for this lens.
Well done Fred. I haven't read all the comments, but I assume you have ruled out a decentering issue on the 50 1.4 to account for the OOF rendering? In that case, I think I actually prefer the rendering of the 55 1.8. There is more to a lens than absolute sharpness, and minor CA, even LOCA, can be dealt with more easily in post these days. Of course, I'm sure both lenses are stellar.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
any noticeable difference in AF performance?
I'd like to see the Otus thrown in the mix.
Talking about AF...
The AF motor sound and speed reminds me of the 85GM. It's not quiet and takes longer to achieve focus when compared to the 55/1.8 ZA. (Which is fast and silent)
Another difference is that the 55/1.8 ZA opens to f/2 to achieve focus when shooting at smaller apertures. The 50/1.4 ZA focuses at shooting aperture. (Just like the 85GM)
In MF mode, surprisingly the 50/1.4 is very accurate with focus by wire. I can see tiny changes by very slightly rotating the focusing ring and I know for sure when I nailed focus. Perhaps being a sharper lens and better corrected helps in the manual focus department.
Everythingis1 wrote:
My biggest issue with the 55mm F1.8 was the large amount of vignetting even as you stopped down to 2.8+. That and the focal length; it always felt like I was shooting a 58mm lens and that it was better suited for portraits than all around use.
Here is a vignetting comparison between the 50/1.4 (TOP) and 55/1.8 (BOTTOM) at f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6 and f/8.
garyvot wrote:
Well done Fred. I haven't read all the comments, but I assume you have ruled out a decentering issue on the 50 1.4 to account for the OOF rendering? In that case, I think I actually prefer the rendering of the 55 1.8. There is more to a lens than absolute sharpness, and minor CA, even LOCA, can be dealt with more easily in post these days. Of course, I'm sure both lenses are stellar.
Yes, that's the first test I do. If a lens is not perfectly centered, I wait for a replacement before posting samples.
I have very well-centered copies of the 55/1.8, L50/2 and 50/1.4 lenses.
I've been studying images from these 3 lenses and saw a few things I'd like to share with samples...
As I wrote on this thread, the FE 50/1.4 ZA and FE 50/1.8 ZA are very comparable wide-open in terms of sharpness but the 50/1.4 has slightly higher contrast. This can be somewhat mitigated with a "+12" contrast boost in LR for the 55/1.8 but we are mainly testing out of the camera performance here.
It's actually a superb performance for the new 50mm at f/1.4, which is capable of outputting better corrected images with more bite and presence straight out of the camera. (If you don't mind its bokeh wide-open)
The main differences are:
a) 55/1.8 has smoother bokeh rendering at all apertures. However, the 50/1.4 bokeh rendering improves at f/1.7.
b) 50/1.4 has better contrast and images have more punch.
c) Both are sharp wide-open
d) 50/1.4 has better aberration control.
Here are sample examples: Focus was carefully placed at the same exact location (best of 5 in live view at 12.5x mag.)
50/1.4 (TOP) vs 55/1.8 (BOTTOM) -- both wide-open
Close up at the focused area. Look at the difference in rendering between these two lenses wide open
Here is the same scene above. This time, I added +12 'contrast' in Lightroom for the 55/1.8 image.
They look more comparable now in terms of contrast wide-open.
50/1.4 (TOP) vs 55/1.8 (BOTTOM) -- both wide-open (+12 contrast for the 55/1.8 image)
The next thing I wanted to figure out is what's going on with the 50/1.4 bokeh wide open.
So, at what aperture, does the 50/1.4's rendering gets smoother? I would say f/1.7 is the sweet spot.
f/1.6 is noticeably better than f/1.4 and f/1.7 slightly better than f/1.6.
f/2 makes things busier.
See crops below:
50/1.4 at f/1.4 (left) compared to f/1.6 (right) - noticeable improvement
50/1.4 at f/1.6 (left) compared to f/1.7 (right) - slightly improvement
How about the 50/1.4 ZA compared to the 55/1.8 ZA at f/2.
It's way sharper and more contrasty in comparison but the 55/1.8 retains its rendering smoothness. (adding +12 contrast for the 55/1.8 brings them closer together)
Finally a comparison to the Loxia 50/2 wide-open at f/2.
The Loxia bokeh looks a bit funky in comparison (50/1.4 is smoother) but it's a very sharp/contrasty lens.
Fred - really great stuff - and a ton of work on your part to not only take the shots (ensuring exact comparisons is very tedious) AND all the work to present the comparisons - THANK YOU.
One question - the obvious surprise is the 55's bokeh being better than the 50s - i never shot the Loxia (nor paid much attention to it) my question is - after all these comparisons - where does it leave the Loxia for you? From these narrow set of comparison criteria, it seems to be the odd man out. I've seen a lot of replies saying they'll stick w/ the 55/1.8 over the 50/1.4 - but if i had the Loxia 50, i'd be selling it (with the possible exception of those who highly prioritize a real MF feel).
For me, the cliff notes are (wrt to shooting the 50/1.4) it looks great at f/1.7 if i want the background blurred or f/5.6 if i want to get it all.
I'm going to hang on to my FE 55/1.8. I end up favoring lenses with lower contrast, less bite, and smoother bokeh wide open (even though I hate the LoCA that often comes with it) that sharpen up in the f/5.6-8.0 zone. We are truly spoiled for choice these days!
