Grenache
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.55 #2 · Sony Planar T* FE 50/1.4 ZA tests | |
Excellent summary and very balanced. Of all of the lenses that I have owned and later sold, this is the one that haunts me. I needed to sell something when I bought the GM and don’t remotely regret getting the GM, but I sold the wrong lens. I loved the rendering, when I had it but love it even more so, when I look back at old photos of my kids.
The only minor thing that I would add to your summary is that - compared to newer lenses like the GM - the ergonomics/weight distribution is a noticeable difference. The GM feels like it is part of the camera body. The Zony felt more like an awkward graft. To be fair, personally, it did not bother me at all, but for people that prefer smaller and lighter kits, it might be an issue.
I keep thinking about getting one of these again but have always gotten stuck at defining when I would prefer to use it over the GM (as I have several other 50s just collecting dust). It would be a fun problem to have, though.
Jim
Schwarzlicht wrote:
My take on the ZA 50mm f/1.4 – long-term user perspective
I’ve had the Planar ZA for a very long time now – bought it about 9 years ago, and for a good stretch, it was practically glued to my camera. I shot nearly half of my daughter’s childhood with it. Even today, I’d still describe it as an outstanding lens.
If you break it down into individual technical metrics, it may not look extraordinary on paper compared to the newest releases:
Sharpness: Even by today’s standards, it holds its own remarkably well. Resolution is genuinely impressive for its age. That said, I suspect the newer GM variants (both 1.2 and 1.4) do edge it out in pure sharpness wide open.
CA correction: It’s not a "CA monster," but wide open, you can get some lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration in high-contrast scenes – though it's usually correctable in post. The GM lenses are definitely better controlled here. The Planar's CA performance isn't bad per se, but if a lens at this price point launched today with that level of CA, I think the forum crowd would be quite critical – we tend to expect near-perfection these days.
Bokeh circles: At f/1.4, they’re cat-eye shaped toward the edges. At f/1.6 they get rounder, and from f/1.8 onward they're almost perfectly circular. Thanks to the 11-blade aperture, they stay round across all apertures when stopped down. The GMs do this a bit better wide open, but what I love about the Planar’s bokeh circles is how clean they are – no onion-ring structures. I previously owned the 85mm GM for years, and while its wide-open bokeh circles were rounder, upon closer inspection you could often see faint textures inside them.
Bokeh character: In most situations, the Planar delivers beautiful, creamy, smooth bokeh – exactly what most of us hope for. But in certain tricky lighting or busy backgrounds, it can occasionally look a bit restless or harsh. The GM lenses seem to deliver consistently pleasing bokeh even in challenging conditions.
Colors: Very good, but distinctly different from, say, Loxia or Batis rendering. The Planar is much more neutral – slightly cool, perhaps – but very natural and lifelike. Colors feel close to reality, which I personally appreciate.
Now, here’s the thing: In tech forums like this, we tend to obsess over individual performance categories and compare numbers. And by that measure, the Planar may no longer be class-leading in every box. But what gets lost in that pixel-peeping is the overall image quality – the rendering.
And that, to me, is where the Planar still belongs to the absolute best in the entire Sony ecosystem. The images it produces are simply gorgeous. The overall impression is often strikingly impressive – skin tones are natural and vibrant, images feel highly three-dimensional, with a palpable sense of depth. The way this lens handles contrast is almost emotional – it draws you into the photo.
When I look at images from different lenses side by side, my eye inevitably lingers on the ones shot with the Planar. That’s not something you can replicate in post by just cranking up the contrast. In comparison, many newer lenses – technically excellent as they are – often come across as clinical, lifeless, or just plain unexciting to me. The eye doesn’t get hooked.
Even after all these years – sometimes after months of not using it – when I pick it up again and review the files, I’m still surprised by the results. And I’ve owned this lens for nearly a decade. That says a lot.
So yes – the 50mm ZA may not win every lab test anymore, but it absolutely wins in character and soul. And that’s why it’s the last lens I’d ever part with.
...Show more →
|
