Dj R wrote:
that's a nice share, thank you.
this is all so therapeutic, isn't it?
It is! I was on a plane and had nothing to do but dream of lenses.
Zony 50mm 1.4
think about it. it's $100 off right now, for how long, I don't know... anyone?
when considering money is no object... and you're either a pro or a semi pro, or a serious enthusiast.....
it's gotta be the best 50mm available, on all three platforms.
I guess one caveat? at 778 grams, I think it's a pig for a 50mm
But as others have mentioned back in march, in this thread,
one nice step forward, you're at 35
one healthy step back, you're at 85
with a 50mm, you're basically LIMITLESS.
so you may as well have a great one, you can roll with just that one lens! ...Show more →
You are clearly getting revenge for the 85GM I'm going to have to try this out.
anthonyket wrote:
Hi guys , currently have a 55 1.8 on a a7II and looking at the 50mm 1.4, but unsure on whether the price justifies the switch. So can anyone with experience provide comments with your switch ?
I'm sure others will say similar stuff, but here goes.
The 1.4 is the better lens technically, but it's huge.
Question is: what are you missing with the 1.8?
Well first thing is half a stop or so of DOF. Can't say that moves me much at this FL (*given that the 1.8 can, unlike any other 1.8 I know of, give good results wide open at 1.8*)
But if you really want 1.4, stop now.
Still here? What else then?
Well the 1.8 has more LoCA, and it's a bit flatter looking (a slight lack of contrast people call 'sterile')
The LoCA can be fixed with a bit of messing around with sliders, and in an image that really matters, you could always blend a corrected an uncorrected image so as to be sure of minimising side effects.
The contrast is surprisingly fixable. There are low contrast lenses that, when you boost in post, it looks fake. But with the 1.8/50 I find that fixing the black and white levels so everything is there, and a slight boost in contrast and clarity, and it looks as good as an optimally post processed image from the 1.4 in this respect.
So for the hassle of correction of LoCA (some, but remember in many images you won't get any) and contrast (trivial hassle just part of the standard post processing) you get a much smaller and lighter lens, whose bokeh I marginally prefer anyway, and which is similarly sharp at wider apertures and actually sharper stopped down.
In the end it probably depends on how much you care about the (tiny bit of) speed, and whether you want to use OOC JPEGS.
I have used the 1.4; but have never purchased it and don't plan to: the 1.8 fills my needs in this are actually better than the 1.4 would. But YMMV.
DavidBM wrote:
I'm sure others will say similar stuff, but here goes.
The 1.4 is the better lens technically, but it's huge.
Question is: what are you missing with the 1.8?
Well first thing is half a stop or so of DOF. Can't say that moves me much at this FL (*given that the 1.8 can, unlike any other 1.8 I know of, give good results wide open at 1.8*)
But if you really want 1.4, stop now.
Still here? What else then?
Well the 1.8 has more LoCA, and it's a bit flatter looking (a slight lack of contrast people call 'sterile')
The LoCA can be fixed with a bit of messing around with sliders, and in an image that really matters, you could always blend a corrected an uncorrected image so as to be sure of minimising side effects.
The contrast is surprisingly fixable. There are low contrast lenses that, when you boost in post, it looks fake. But with the 1.8/50 I find that fixing the black and white levels so everything is there, and a slight boost in contrast and clarity, and it looks as good as an optimally post processed image from the 1.4 in this respect.
So for the hassle of correction of LoCA (some, but remember in many images you won't get any) and contrast (trivial hassle just part of the standard post processing) you get a much smaller and lighter lens, whose bokeh I marginally prefer anyway, and which is similarly sharp at wider apertures and actually sharper stopped down.
In the end it probably depends on how much you care about the (tiny bit of) speed, and whether you want to use OOC JPEGS.
I have used the 1.4; but have never purchased it and don't plan to: the 1.8 fills my needs in this are actually better than the 1.4 would. But YMMV....Show more →
If we were still shooting film, I would go with the 50/1.4 ZA and deal with the size/weight. However, as David pointed out, lens contrast can be easily tweaked in post. Even the late Dr Hubert Nasse admitted that lens contrast does not carry too much weight in today's post-processing world.
I would say that the FE 55/1.8 ZA is a great lens for the size and weight but it needs the help of post-processing to be outstanding. Onion ring pattern is another story though. If you hate it, stay away from this lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
. Onion ring pattern is another story though. If you hate it, stay away from this lens.
Yes quite true, I should have mentioned it.
But it's worth thinking about whether you tend to take images that will display it: if your style is towards melty bokeh, the 1.8 is a champ and arguably preferable to the 1.4. If you tend to shoot backgrounds with specular highlights that give "bokeh balls" then the 1.8 will give more onion rings and smaller balls. You need to think how often this is given your intended use, and how much you care.
You are going to have fun with your new 85. I know we all sound the same about this lens, but it has that beautiful rendering.
Of course you also have to buy the Batis 135 or Guy will track you through the forum. I may be new but I learn fast
thx I have a small update
going 28/55 for light
at 200 grams and 280 grams, are you kidding, no brainer to get the 55 over the 50 1.8. especially since I'll be using it for moving subjects.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
Hey! For portraits I currently have the 50mm 1.4Z, 85mm GM, Nikkor 105mm 1.4E, Sigma Art 135mm 1.8 and Canon 200mm f2L IS. I used to have the Batis 85mm but recently sold that as it sat on the shelf once the GM 85mm arrived earlier this year.
Currently my most used portrait lens is the Nikkor 105mm via Commlite adapter on either my A9 or new A7RIII. That's for weddings and portraits in studio or outdoors.
For wedding candid stuff I'll use my 35mm 1.4Z and 85mm GM most of the day. I also had the Batis 25mm but recently sold that as it sat in the bag for months at a time. If you're really going to sell your Nikkor 28mm 1.4E shoot me a PM as I was planning on buying one before the end of the year for use at weddings on my Sonys.
For pictures of my daughters/family I'll use anything from the 50mm to the 105mm. Just depends on the situation and where I'm shooting them.
My gear list is B18, 35 1.4Z, 50 1.4Z, 85GM, 90 macro, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 135mm, Canon 200mm, 12-24G, 16-35GM, 24-70GM and 70-200GM and will be adding the Nikkor 28mm soon....Show more →
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
The performance with the Nikkor 105mm f1.4E is quite good. Including continuous AF and Eye-AF. The 28mm f1.4E arrives Friday and I will update.
Is it as good as native lens? By any chance, can you take a video of the af in process? 😁
The 105mm f1.4E has a ton of glass to move so it is slowish by default even on Nikon bodies. I would say it's slightly slower than my 85mm f1.4 GM. I'll try and shoot some video this weekend
Hmm... I thought there was a Planar FE 50mm ZA main thread before but I can't find it now. Did this site suffer a data loss?
Has anyone or @Fred Miranda@ with A9 and A7R3 tested the 50mm ZA to confirm if the smooth rendering issue at high shutter speeds (>1/1000s) is still there?
I am hoping with the more advance electronic shutter or maybe upgraded EFCS mechanism the A9 and A7R3 will no longer require manual ECFS to be turned off?
fredmirandafan wrote:
Hmm... I thought there was a Planar FE 50mm ZA main thread before but I can't find it now. Did this site suffer a data loss?
Has anyone or @Fred Miranda@@ with A9 and A7R3 tested the 50mm ZA to confirm if the smooth rendering issue at high shutter speeds (>1/1000s) is still there?
I am hoping with the more advance electronic shutter or maybe upgraded EFCS mechanism the A9 and A7R3 will no longer require manual ECFS to be turned off?
Regarding smoother OOF rendering with high shutter speeds when shooting wide open...Yes, it's an issue when using mechanical shutter and EFCS set to "On".
fredmirandafan wrote:
Hmm... I thought there was a Planar FE 50mm ZA main thread before but I can't find it now. Did this site suffer a data loss?
Has anyone or @Fred Miranda@@@ with A9 and A7R3 tested the 50mm ZA to confirm if the smooth rendering issue at high shutter speeds (>1/1000s) is still there?
I am hoping with the more advance electronic shutter or maybe upgraded EFCS mechanism the A9 and A7R3 will no longer require manual ECFS to be turned off?
there is a main thread, search for the word "rolling" in titles and it should appear immediately!
cheers
it's discussed for a bunch of pages, like 15~don't quote me! but then the thread moves along to other things.
please summarize for me here, when you figure out the answer to your question
Interesting thread. I bought the 55mm when I first got into the Sony system and honestly the 55mm was my only reason for staying with the system. I eventually sold everything but my A7II and the 55mm. The small size and excellent image quality kept me from selling the A7II. The overall slow operation of the system and awful battery life kept it in the bag most of the time. The A9 has brought me back to Sony. I tend to favor sonnar lenses over planar lenses, but I would like all my lenses to have the aperture ring. Shooting an event and changing lenses, the last thing I want is to have my controls change with my lenses. The FE 50mm F/1.4 ZA was not available when I bought the 55mm and I never really looked at the 50mm. I would love to see more pictures from the 50mm F/1.4 ZA. I have never had a client complain about cats eye bokeh or onion ring light balls. Its something I only see on forums.
I'm going to have to try this out.
