Greggf wrote:
Horses for courses...but I can attest to the fact once you see the images produced by the FE 50 1.4 ZA you will quickly forget the weight
One of the best 50's I've ever used...
Gregg
Gregg, my orig post actually referenced the fact that i can tell right away every time you post on the big thread with the 50/1.4 - once you get familiar with the shots from it, it's so obvious but i can't quite put my finger on it - it's not one thing in particular but i really love the images.
Bespoked wrote:
As others have said, the CA wide open and until about f2.8 is a very small issue, but may be for you, if so, consider the switch.
For me the 1.4 was big, heavy, expensive, had worse bokeh and transitions from in focus to OOF, the 1.8 was faster focusing (slightly, but noticeably) and smaller, lighter, cheaper etc.
I don't like the onion ringing in specular highlights on the 55, but easily live with them.
you think the 50/1.4 had worse bokeh than the 55/1.8 ?
during the initial release, i think it was Fred that pointed out that the bokeh of the 50/1.4 (or is it all lenses) can suffer from EFCS when shutter speed is faster than 1/1000 - that's the only time i've seen the 50/1.4 bokeh be a bit harsh, but that was the camera, not the lens.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
Shot with the 50mm after I just got it.
Ken, those are the sort of shots, regardless of equipment, one hopes for when picking up a camera - those will be cherished within your family for generations.
But also a great example of what the 50/1.4 can do.
ecarlino wrote:
Ken, those are the sort of shots, regardless of equipment, one hopes for when picking up a camera - those will be cherished within your family for generations.
But also a great example of what the 50/1.4 can do.
Thank you. My daughters put up with me getting pictures of them whenever I get new gear. And that's happened a lot in the last year since I've added Sony to the wedding bag.
The FE 50 1.4 in a word is smooth. Or maybe better said more film like compared to the 55. Or said another way a more character lens. Or even better said it trounces it when it comes too look. I kinda liked that lens. Lol
Seriously they are both great lenses . Depends on what your after. Anytime you buy a lens that's is a laser usually what follows is a little digital looking. That's a general comment not a absolute.
GMPhotography wrote:
The FE 50 1.4 in a word is smooth. Or maybe better said more film like compared to the 55. Or said another way a more character lens. Or even better said it trounces it when it comes too look. I kinda liked that lens. Lol
Seriously they are both great lenses . Depends on what your after. Anytime you buy a lens that's is a laser usually what follows is a little digital looking. That's a general comment not a absolute.
You had the 50za, tested it, loved it, and then...switched, didn't you Guy? Why?
It's a really great question. Simple fact is a 50 is not my favorite focal length. I'm more a 35/85 shooter. Certainly 35 is really my lens cap. At the time also I had the GM 85 so really close. But now I don't have the GM 85 so to get that look back I might buy back the 50 because I need the 85 1.8 for speed but it's not going to have the GM 85 or 50 1.4 look so I'm really considering buying it back. Also I'm not thrilled with the Sigma or Batis 135. So that look I want in a 135 not sure is there. I just got the Rokinon 135 F2 again until the 135 stuff all settles out. But I do miss the technical brilliance of the 50 1.4 but I also miss the look. It might of been one of my mistakes selling it
GMPhotography wrote:
Your trying to get me a divorce. Your worse than me. ROTFLMAO
I have to be careful my baseball helmet is cracked from the last time I bought a lens. Lol
The only problem is that if you buy it again, it will end up on the Buy and Sell board after a few weeks as 50mm is not a main focal length for you.
Don't feel bad, I'm also a 35/85 shooter myself.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The only problem is that if you buy it again, it will end up on the Buy and Sell board after a few weeks as 50mm is not a main focal length for you.
Don't feel bad, I'm also a 35/85 shooter myself.
i'm not smart enough to know what it is that i actually love so much about the 50/1.4 - but i wish i felt that way about the (several) 35/1.4s i had - part of me thinks i was never entirely confident with my copies but part of me feels that getting the flat field, low aberrations, etc is far more difficult with a fast 35 - and part of me feels that somehow i like the perspective of the 50 - or maybe it's that a step back subs for a 35 and a step in subs for an 85 (although clearly not a perfect replacement, but for my right-sized travel kit goals, it fits).
i think i'd feel better if there was an 85GM-like lens somewhere between 105 to 135 (i'm expecting to have to wait another year for that) that could be the big brother b/c there's still a tension when i go to grab the 50/1.4 instead of the 85GM sometimes. but the batis 25 & 50/1.4 make a nice pair to walk around with.
The real problem and it's a root cause issue there is no 28 that's worth salt to match the gap of the 50. The 50 winds up to close to the 35 and 85. If you had the gap of 21,28,50 than life for many would be great . As it is those 20/21 folks have no 28 to turn to gap with a 50mm. So they are buying 35s and winding up like Fred for instance 21,35 and that a pretty big gap. Not to pick on Fred in any way but he is looking and has been for awhile now that 21,28,50 combo.
GMPhotography wrote:
The real problem and it's a root cause issue there is no 28 that's worth salt to match the gap of the 50. The 50 winds up to close to the 35 and 85. If you had the gap of 21,28,50 than life for many would be great . As it is those 20/21 folks have no 28 to turn to gap with a 50mm. So they are buying 35s and winding up like Fred for instance 21,35 and that a pretty big gap. Not to pick on Fred in any way but he is looking and has been for awhile now that 21,28,50 combo....Show more →
i've stopped even mentioning the 28 - a high quality (either GM or Zony - although from the sounds of it, people think a Loxia would come first, bummer for me) to match the 50/1.4 would be perfect for me.
i'd go Batis 18, 28, 50/1.4 - then a 105 (preferably) or 135 (more likely first) and i'd be done with primes.
GMPhotography wrote:
The real problem and it's a root cause issue there is no 28 that's worth salt to match the gap of the 50. The 50 winds up to close to the 35 and 85. If you had the gap of 21,28,50 than life for many would be great . As it is those 20/21 folks have no 28 to turn to gap with a 50mm. So they are buying 35s and winding up like Fred for instance 21,35 and that a pretty big gap. Not to pick on Fred in any way but he is looking and has been for awhile now that 21,28,50 combo....Show more →
Guy,
I agree with you completely here. Right now I have the FE28 to gap my Loxia 21 and 50 1.4. I really do not hate the 28, it is really small, focuses fast, and honestly produces nice pictures. But, I do feel it lacks that "special" feel or look that the Lox 21 and FE 50 1.4 and other Zeiss glass produce. I know there are plenty of people who would say this is crazy and that you can adjust the 28's photos in post to almost perfectly resemble the Batis 25. Maybe you can, but it has not stopped me from continuing the debate if I want to grab a Batis 25 in place of the FE28 or hope for a 28GM or the like. Maybe we are all spoiled with great lenses and we find fault in lenses that are JUST good.
I agree with you completely here. Right now I have the FE28 to gap my Loxia 21 and 50 1.4. I really do not hate the 28, it is really small, focuses fast, and honestly produces nice pictures. But, I do feel it lacks that "special" feel or look that the Lox 21 and FE 50 1.4 and other Zeiss glass produce. I know there are plenty of people who would say this is crazy and that you can adjust the 28's photos in post to almost perfectly resemble the Batis 25. Maybe you can, but it has not stopped me from continuing the debate if I want to grab a Batis 25 in place of the FE28 or hope for a 28GM or the like. Maybe we are all spoiled with great lenses and we find fault in lenses that are JUST good....Show more →
a couple of times, i've nearly bought the 28 just for the foc len, but i just don't think it matches my other lenses - some may be OK w/ having different IQ levels / rendering qualities among their lenses, but i'd prefer leaning towards more consistency - granted there are still differences - i don't want to find myself picking a lens b/c at certain times i want more quality, i just want to focus on foc len and trust anything in the bag will be quality.
I have different FL needs depending on my application.
For landcapes, my favorite focal lengths are: 12, 21, 28, 35, 50 and 85... (All manual)
However, for portraits and general photography, I'm happy carrying only 35 and 85mm AF lenses -- Basically wide/normal and tele in two lenses.
I agree with you completely here. Right now I have the FE28 to gap my Loxia 21 and 50 1.4. I really do not hate the 28, it is really small, focuses fast, and honestly produces nice pictures. But, I do feel it lacks that "special" feel or look that the Lox 21 and FE 50 1.4 and other Zeiss glass produce. I know there are plenty of people who would say this is crazy and that you can adjust the 28's photos in post to almost perfectly resemble the Batis 25. Maybe you can, but it has not stopped me from continuing the debate if I want to grab a Batis 25 in place of the FE28 or hope for a 28GM or the like. Maybe we are all spoiled with great lenses and we find fault in lenses that are JUST good....Show more →
Well that is part of the problem , its not so much spoiled but maybe more expecting if you will. We have some fabulous lenses like the Loxia 21,50,85. Sony 35 1.4,50 1.4 the GM glass and some others but we have some serious holes like the 28,135 primes. Yea we have some 3rd party stuff in the super wides and such but no one has attacked the 28mm area yet. So yea we are picky but lets be honest we are a small group here that actually gives a crap about image quality. I find nothing wrong with that and also be upfront talking about it is a very good thing. Any smart company should be reading what we write, I know I hope they do listen to me sometimes and others here. We have to voice our opinions but again not in a negative way but a way that gets the attention that what we are asking for is important to us and helps them with their business as well. We have to be stewards of the industry.
ecarlino wrote:
a couple of times, i've nearly bought the 28 just for the foc len, but i just don't think it matches my other lenses - some may be OK w/ having different IQ levels / rendering qualities among their lenses, but i'd prefer leaning towards more consistency - granted there are still differences - i don't want to find myself picking a lens b/c at certain times i want more quality, i just want to focus on foc len and trust anything in the bag will be quality.
That really is how I feel about the 28, it dosnt quite match my other lenses. I dont want to hate on it, because it is a good lens, but when trying to fill out my bag with lenses that as you say, you can trust any, it seems to just fall a bit short.
Not wanting to hijack this threat totally, I think we can bring it full circle to say that the 50 1.4 is that nice/good of a lens that so many of us are complaining because we want all our FL to be as good!
And that's happened a lot in the last year since I've added Sony to the wedding bag.