ecarlino wrote:
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. 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....Show more →
Yes, from my tests, f/1.7 seems to be the sweet spot for the 50/1.4 ZA's OOF rendering. (sharpness and contrast as well).
f/5.6 is the sweet spot for landscapes but f/4 is nearly equally impressive. It's actually very flat field and could be used as an incredible landscape lens. (All three lenses are)
The Loxia is a sharp and contrasty lens but its bokeh is a little busy in comparison to the other two and especially to the 55/1.8. I mainly use it for landscapes but I'm considering selling it as the 24-70/2.8GM is slowly taking its place.
For landscapes I'm mainly using the 16-35/4, Loxia 21/2.8, 24-70GM and CY 100-300 lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps, the main difference is really planar vs sonnar rendering.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I do think the 50 f/1.4 ZA does have a very typical planar rendering. I am less convinced the 55 f/1.8 ZA is a typical sonnar, but it at least renders in that direction. One thing that Guy's shots captured is that the 50 f/1.4 ZA should be great for moderate distance shots and I am betting it will have excellent bokeh at about f/4. This sort of shot was a real strength of the old C/Y 50 f/1.4 planar and the ZE/ZF as well. I think the 50 is a lens that you will have to know well to know when it works and when it doesn't but if you do it will pay off with some pretty fantastic shots. On the other hand the 55 will be relatively easier to use across situations. It will be quite competent at most things. The drawback, however, is that it may produce fewer wow shots than the 50 when it is used for its strengths. ...Show more → Fred Miranda wrote:
I see them as modern designs deviating from their original formulas. However, to my eyes, the 50/1.4 ZA has a lot more in common with the Loxia 50/2 than the 55/1.8 ZA.
I didn't try any shots at apertures smaller than f/2.0 (except for the infinity tests). Tomorrow I will test at f/2.8 and f/4 and see how the rendering behaves.
Have you tried the Sonnar 50/1.5 C ZM? How do you think it compares to these modern lenses?
IMO the ZM 50/1.5 is a modern interpretation of the classic 50/1.5 Sonnar lenses. The old lenses tend to have somewhat crazy/busy/hard-edged rings around blur circles and double-line rendition wide open, but stopped down one to two stops and that calms down to a more gaussian feel, yet backgrounds that retain a fair amount of structure - an implied feeling of the environment. The ZM 50/1.5 is more similar to the 55/1.8 in rendering, though with harsher blur circles wide open that considerably smooth out a stop down, than the Planar/Loxia style rendition. However, the ZM will be much less technically perfect than the 55/1.8 at far distances. It won't have the across-frame sharpness nor as flat a plane of focus. Wide open, its 40lp/mm MTF plot starts at 40%. There's also the typical Sonnar focus shift to contend with.
The 55/1.8's blur quality IMO is closest to the 50 Lux ASPH in all of the RF 50s I've tried, with the Lux being slightly smoother, more gaussian, wide open and a stop down. Both lenses render blur circles with stronger/harder transitions as the lens is stopped down, with the smoothest rendition begin at or near wide open. But the Lux has a 'ninja star' style aperture shape in the 2.8-5.6 range that definitely affects the look of out of focus specular highlights.
Back when the a7 was first announced, I did an RF lens shootout with it. Part of that test was a near distance leafy scene with a bunch of ~50mm lenses. You can still access the full rez Jpegs from this test in my blog article, just go to near the bottom and under Downloads > By Scene pick the bokeh 50-55mm link.
rscheffler wrote:
IMO the ZM 50/1.5 is a modern interpretation of the classic 50/1.5 Sonnar lenses. The old lenses tend to have somewhat crazy/busy/hard-edged rings around blur circles and double-line rendition wide open, but stopped down one to two stops and that calms down to a more gaussian feel, yet backgrounds that retain a fair amount of structure - an implied feeling of the environment. The ZM 50/1.5 is more similar to the 55/1.8 in rendering, though with harsher blur circles wide open that considerably smooth out a stop down, than the Planar/Loxia style rendition. However, the ZM will be much less technically perfect than the 55/1.8 at far distances. It won't have the across-frame sharpness nor as flat a plane of focus. Wide open, its 40lp/mm MTF plot starts at 40%. There's also the typical Sonnar focus shift to contend with.
The 55/1.8's blur quality IMO is closest to the 50 Lux ASPH in all of the RF 50s I've tried, with the Lux being slightly smoother, more gaussian, wide open and a stop down. Both lenses render blur circles with stronger/harder transitions as the lens is stopped down, with the smoothest rendition begin at or near wide open. But the Lux has a 'ninja star' style aperture shape in the 2.8-5.6 range that definitely affects the look of out of focus specular highlights.
Back when the a7 was first announced, I did an RF lens shootout with it. Part of that test was a near distance leafy scene with a bunch of ~50mm lenses. You can still access the full rez Jpegs from this test in my blog article, just go to near the bottom and under Downloads > By Scene pick the bokeh 50-55mm link....Show more →
Thanks Ron,
Your expertise is much appreciated. I just downloaded the files and rented the Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Wide-open, it's sharper than what I expected. I see what you mean by the f/1.5 vs f/2 for the OOF rendition.
At f/11, it's great across the field but I would not be using this lens for this.
I'm not expecting high resolution or na aberration free lens. I am after a different look to my 55/1.8 for casual portraits.
My Loxia is on the block. I'll post it this weekend. The last tests just confirmed it for me. Great stuff bud. I'm still on the 1.4 camp over the 1.8 by kind a wide margin. Really the issue I see is foliage outside of that I think the bokeh on the 1.4 lens is really good. But here is the kicker if you have either the RXRII ( yes I do) and the GM 85 or even the 35 1.4 you get really nice bokeh on either side of the 50. To me having the one blazing sharp fast lens and well corrected is the ticket. Fred you did such a nice job in these tests, I almost don't have to test mine.
I will though I think Big Bronco is a good mid zone test. I really want to test it against my 85 too. Loxia is for sale, it just became redundant. Plus I got pay for this 50 with tax it was not fun.
OT and here is a take home for everyone. When I was at B&H my 19 year old son was with me so dad bought him his high school graduation present a used A6300 instead of some stupid rims for his car. He road around NY for two days on a Citibank Bike shooting like crazy and he loves it. He thanked me not only for the present from us but thanked me for refusing to buy those rims. Priceless
See this stuff is supposed to be fun. Lesson for all. Enjoy this craft
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, from my tests, f/1.7 seems to be the sweet spot for the 50/1.4 ZA's OOF rendering. (sharpness and contrast as well).
f/5.6 is the sweet spot for landscapes but f/4 is nearly equally impressive. It's actually very flat field and could be used as an incredible landscape lens. (All three lenses are)
The Loxia is a sharp and contrasty lens but its bokeh is a little busy in comparison to the other two and especially to the 55/1.8. I mainly use it for landscapes but I'm considering selling it as the 24-70/2.8GM is slowly taking its place.
For landscapes I'm mainly using the 16-35/4, Loxia 21/2.8, 24-70GM and CY 100-300 lenses....Show more →
I may change my landscape setup to. VC15, Loxia 21, RXrII, 50 1.4 and my ZM 85 f4. Just one big lens to carry. Loving these options and I have the 24-70 which I could sneak in or switch out.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, from my tests, f/1.7 seems to be the sweet spot for the 50/1.4 ZA's OOF rendering. (sharpness and contrast as well).
f/5.6 is the sweet spot for landscapes but f/4 is nearly equally impressive. It's actually very flat field and could be used as an incredible landscape lens. (All three lenses are)
The Loxia is a sharp and contrasty lens but its bokeh is a little busy in comparison to the other two and especially to the 55/1.8. I mainly use it for landscapes but I'm considering selling it as the 24-70/2.8GM is slowly taking its place.
For landscapes I'm mainly using the 16-35/4, Loxia 21/2.8, 24-70GM and CY 100-300 lenses....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
I may change my landscape setup to. VC15, Loxia 21, RXrII, 50 1.4 and my ZM 85 f4. Just one big lens to carry. Loving these options and I have the 24-70 which I could sneak in or switch out.
We have a similar set-up but my big lens for landscapes is the 24-70GM. I found it to be nearly as good as my primes at f/5.6 or smaller apertures. (70mm needs f/6.3).
I mainly shoot at 21mm and that's why I have a specialized prime for this FL. My 16-35 is really good at 16 and 18mm.
If I need anything above 21mm, the GM is my lens. My L50 is already for sale at the buy and sell. I have not used it since getting the GM zoom. It's better at 50mm though.
Yea I could use the zoom also. Need to figure that out but I only want one big lens. Who would have thought 2 years ago we get these great options. We need a 135 and a 35 F2 as good as my RXRII. I love this cam
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea I could use the zoom also. Need to figure that out but I only want one big lens. Who would have thought 2 years ago we get these great options. We need a 135 and a 35 F2 as good as my RXRII. I love this cam
Ultimately primes are best for landscapes as long as there is minimal crop in post. Even small crops could impact resolution tremendously. That's when it's nice to get a high IQ 24-70 zoom. (and that's why the GM zoom replaced my 50mm prime)
For example, you carried your Loxia 21 and RX1RII (35mm) to the field but these FLs do not work for your scene. Let's say you really needed the 24 or 28mm FOV for whatever reason. (It happened to me a lot)
Using your Loxia 21mm and cropping to 28mm in post is an option but that would reduce your 42MP file to only 24MP.
28/21=1.33
42/1.33/1.33=24
Any IQ advantage the Loxia 21 has would go down the tubes...
For my style, the crucial focal lengths are 21mm and then 16mm, 18mm and finally 24 until 100. (I need a zoom for the 24-70 gap plus a 100mm lens). Depending on the trip, I usually bring the tiny CY 100/3.5 or the bigger brother CY 100-300.
Yea there are times I would kill for a 28mm and the zoom is really good at 24/28. I honestly did not expect the 24-70 to be good as it is when we first got it. I knew it would be good I did not expect exceptionally good at 24/28.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you tried the Sonnar 50/1.5 C ZM? How do you think it compares to these modern lenses?
rscheffler wrote:
IMO the ZM 50/1.5 is a modern interpretation of the classic 50/1.5 Sonnar lenses. The old lenses tend to have somewhat crazy/busy/hard-edged rings around blur circles and double-line rendition wide open, but stopped down one to two stops and that calms down to a more gaussian feel, yet backgrounds that retain a fair amount of structure - an implied feeling of the environment. The ZM 50/1.5 is more similar to the 55/1.8 in rendering, though with harsher blur circles wide open that considerably smooth out a stop down, than the Planar/Loxia style rendition. However, the ZM will be much less technically perfect than the 55/1.8 at far distances. It won't have the across-frame sharpness nor as flat a plane of focus. Wide open, its 40lp/mm MTF plot starts at 40%. There's also the typical Sonnar focus shift to contend with.
The 55/1.8's blur quality IMO is closest to the 50 Lux ASPH in all of the RF 50s I've tried, with the Lux being slightly smoother, more gaussian, wide open and a stop down. Both lenses render blur circles with stronger/harder transitions as the lens is stopped down, with the smoothest rendition begin at or near wide open. But the Lux has a 'ninja star' style aperture shape in the 2.8-5.6 range that definitely affects the look of out of focus specular highlights.
Back when the a7 was first announced, I did an RF lens shootout with it. Part of that test was a near distance leafy scene with a bunch of ~50mm lenses. You can still access the full rez Jpegs from this test in my blog article, just go to near the bottom and under Downloads > By Scene pick the bokeh 50-55mm link. ...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks Ron,
Your expertise is much appreciated. I just downloaded the files and rented the Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Wide-open, it's sharper than what I expected. I see what you mean by the f/1.5 vs f/2 for the OOF rendition.
At f/11, it's great across the field but I would not be using this lens for this.
I'm not expecting high resolution or na aberration free lens. I am after a different look to my 55/1.8 for casual portraits.
Thanks Fred. It's definitely worth a try for people photos and IMO where it excels. It's also surprisingly small for such a fast lens. It is between modern in terms of color saturation, contrast and flare resistance and classic in terms of residual spherical aberrations.
I'm a big fan of the 'classic' Sonnar lenses from the 1950s which are even a bit more characterful (imperfect) than the ZM. I have the Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar and the Nikkor 5cm/1.4. There's also a Canon 50/1.5 and the WWII era and just postwar Zeiss variants. As well as the Russian Jupiter models. When I need a 50mm character lens, I reach for the Zeiss Opton.
I did a shootout with a bunch of these of foliage at ~1 and 1.5m, again posted on my blog with full-rez download links. Unfortunately not this time with the ZM 50/1.5, which was on loan from a friend for the other test. BTW, the Voigtlander 50/1.5 also has quite similar rendering to the 50 Lux ASPH, though has some problems with purple fringing at wider apertures.
Sorry for going a bit OT, but it's interesting to see how the new ZA fits into the range of 50mm rendering character. I definitely agree it feels very Planar in how it draws.
ecarlino wrote:
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?
I think the new 1.4/50 doesn't change anything regarding the Loxia.
The Loxia is and was primarily for:
- MF lovers who appreciate the perfect focusing action and the build quality
- Landscapers, who need great contrast and across the frame sharpness in a small package
- Those with a fetish for sun stars
It can be used for portraits too, but it only shines for subjects with a strong character face where the harshness and the contrast emphasizes the character.
The Loxia 2/50 could never be my only 50mm lens but it matches the 1.8/55 perfectly when this is too smooth (some say sterile )
The 1.4/50 is a completely different beast. The bulk, the AF, the weight and the f/1.4 put this lens in a different class. Those who replace the Loxia with it never really needed the attributes of the Loxia lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Another example showing the 50/1.4 and 55/1.8 (both wide-open)
The 55/1.8 OOF rendering is smoother to my eyes. See the crops below.
Hi Fred,
your examinations are discussed in a German forum too and there was a question regarding the playground images in post 18 at page 1.
The shutter speed of the 1.4/50 is 1/6400 where the bokeh suffers when the EFSC is turned on. The shutter speed of the 1.8/55 image is 1/2500, this is not critical and does not influence the bokeh.
Did you use the EFSC when doing these tests or did you use the mechanical shutter? If the EFSC was used, I'd be curious if the bokeh of the 1.4/50 improves in this comparison, for example with a grey filter.
Personally, after looking at all the sample pics that have been very kindly posted by Fred, Guy and ecarlino (as well as the pics on other sites), I've decided that I'll be buying this lens.
The bottom line is that I don't find the output of the 55/1.8 on par with what I'm getting from my 35/1.4 or Batis 85, and consequently I don't use it all that much. The 50/1.4 might have harsher bokeh in some circumstances, but I think it might more than make up with it with better contrast and clarity. In that respect it reminds me of the Touit 32 I used to have for APS (also a planar design), which is a lens that I really enjoyed.
The difference in clarity/contrast might not be dramatic between the 50/1.4 and the 55 (and it usually never is when comparing two very high performing lenses), but I've found that even subtle differences in image quality can make a very large difference in how much I enjoy the pictures that are coming out of a lens.
For example I recently sold my 35/2.8 in favor of a Loxia 35 (for the times when I don't feel like carrying around the 35/1.4) and I'm seeing a huge difference in how many keepers I'm now getting, even though a side by side comparison of the Loxia and the 2.8 would suggest that the differences are mostly subtle.
Now I just have to figure out whether to order from B+H or wait for it to show up locally...
ecarlino wrote:
It wasn't a Q of how the new guy affects the Loxia, rather given the 55/1.8 is really shining, why have the Loxia instead of the 55/1.8
Because of the points that I have listed.
At least I keep both lenses for their different strengths and characters. If I had a tight budget and had to decide for one solo ~50mm lens, it would be the 1.8/55 for it's allround talent and the moderate size.
Jannik Peters wrote:
Because of the points that I have listed.
At least I keep both lenses for their different strengths and characters. If I had a tight budget and had to decide for one solo ~50mm lens, it would be the 1.8/55 for it's allround talent and the moderate size.
That's *exactly* how I think of the roles of the Loxia and the 55. I'm very glad I have the Loxia for the pleasure of using it and it's stopped down contrast for landscape coupled with those ten blade sun stars, but I could live with just the 55 (indeed I did for a long time until I got a good deal on a Loxia)
If I was wealthier or had other needs I would consider the new 50 as yet another 50 (come to think of it I have an Olympus OM 50/3.5 macro I sometimes use..) it does do things neither the lox nor the 55 do - but they aren't things I need (wide open very high sharpness and APO characteristics at some cost in bokeh) and what I've got will do for my needs. And I couldn't live with my only 50 being that big.
This new 50/1.4 seems to be a great lens optically. And then the question - how does lugging this behemoth around feel? Slapping a big 'ol DSLR there would not change a thing other than you get a tilt screen which is good reason to go with Sony ofc.
your examinations are discussed in a German forum too and there was a question regarding the playground images in post 18 at page 1.
The shutter speed of the 1.4/50 is 1/6400 where the bokeh suffers when the EFSC is turned on. The shutter speed of the 1.8/55 image is 1/2500, this is not critical and does not influence the bokeh.
Did you use the EFSC when doing these tests or did you use the mechanical shutter? If the EFSC was used, I'd be curious if the bokeh of the 1.4/50 improves in this comparison, for example with a grey filter. ...Show more →
Hi Jannik,
Great observations.
I always use EFCS "On" with my A7RII. I didn't test using mechanical shutter so I'm not sure if it would make any difference in OOF rendering. The shutter speed discrepancy for that scene is mainly due to different aperture settings. There was also a slight change in lighting for that specific test (playground) but the histogram was equalized in LR.
However, to my eyes, the 50/1.4 ZA has a lot more in common with the Loxia 50/2 than the 55/1.8 ZA.
)