tristannyc wrote:
I am curious, has anyone had any issues with eye auto focus tracking on the 50 1.4? I was having a bitch of a time getting it to trigger for some reason. Do I need to adjust a setting in camera or something I have the A7Riii. For stills.
I am interested in that answer as well.
I will buy an A7iii or an A7Riii in the near future and I consider the 1.4/50 again for its optical qualities. AF of the 1.4/50 was very slow with my A7ii, but I hope for improvements.
Does anybody have experience in shooting moving kids with the 1.4/50 and a more recent Sony body?
tristannyc wrote:
I am curious, has anyone had any issues with eye auto focus tracking on the 50 1.4? I was having a bitch of a time getting it to trigger for some reason. Do I need to adjust a setting in camera or something I have the A7Riii. For stills.
So let me say, the focus speed is great(for what it is), but the eye autofocus on it doesn't seem to engage. I do get this issue with my other lenses sometimes. I think maybe I have a setting wrong in the camera or something. Not really sure. I do know on this lens I had more trouble getting eye autofocus to work then the others.
But the 50 1.4 has amazing color rendition. It is crazy good actually.
The 50 1.4 is one of if not the best e-mount lenses period. I have owned two 55 1.8's and sold both of them there is no way I could mount one of those and leave my magical 50 1.4 behind.
I thought well for a trip and being compact I would use it but I always took the 50 1.4 even when traveling because I am serious about my photography and the 55 doesn't do it for me.
I love my 50/1.4, but also find the Loxia 50 to be a very acceptable substitute for when I want to travel light.
I mean, it's clearly not as good as the 1.4, but its a closer match to the color and contrast of the 1.4 than the 55 is. I feel like it can give me 90% of the image quality at 1/3 the weight.
In addition to being a lighter alternative, I find it's also good to have as a companion to the 1.4 due to the different shooting experience, with its MF feel.
How's the AF speed of the 1.4/50 compared to the 1.8/55? I often shoot 'catwalk' with the 1.8/55 (continuous AF) with subjects walking towards me and have virtually never missed focus in tens of thousands of images, it's just extremely fast. I can't see the 1.4/50 being able to do that but maybe I'm wrong (I have used the 1.4/50, just not in situations that really test if AF). Any input or links to comparisons would be appreciated.
tristannyc wrote:
So let me say, the focus speed is great(for what it is), but the eye autofocus on it doesn't seem to engage. I do get this issue with my other lenses sometimes. I think maybe I have a setting wrong in the camera or something. Not really sure. I do know on this lens I had more trouble getting eye autofocus to work then the others.
But the 50 1.4 has amazing color rendition. It is crazy good actually.
Well, one possible cause for EyeAF not locking is that EyeAF only works within the focus area designated by the user. So, if you use focus area - Center or Flexible Spot set to the center, EyeAF won't grab an eyeball off to one side of the frame. Try using focus area Wide to see if that's it. Or, use it to your advantage by pointing the camera to the (particular set of) eyeballs you're interested in. Also, if the eyeball is too small in the frame, it won't lock. Low light and glasses (forget sunglasses) hurt EyeAF. Suggest using Face Detection conjunction with EyeAF. I'm not sure Face Detection will help EyeAF lock in, but when EyeAF fails the camera will fail over into Face Detect instead of to generic focusing, and that's more likely to give you a usable shot without needing to see the eye. It also seems to sometimes prevent AF from wandering as far from your subject if/when it goes hunting. With all that, it's still not going to be 100%, of course; nothing is. But, it's a really nice feature. Hope one of these ideas helps your hit rate.
In my experience, the 50/1.4 tracks eyes much better than the 55/1.8.
The 50/1.4 also does 20fps which the 55/1.8 cannot do.
JohnJ wrote:
How's the AF speed of the 1.4/50 compared to the 1.8/55? I often shoot 'catwalk' with the 1.8/55 (continuous AF) with subjects walking towards me and have virtually never missed focus in tens of thousands of images, it's just extremely fast. I can't see the 1.4/50 being able to do that but maybe I'm wrong (I have used the 1.4/50, just not in situations that really test if AF). Any input or links to comparisons would be appreciated.
I have tested these two lenses side by side. Optically, the 50/1.4 ZA is one Sony's best...but I ended up with the 55/1.8 ZA. The 50/1.4 has stronger contrast, cleaner bokeh balls and much less axial CA. However, the 55/1.8 has amazing resolution and the size/weight is right for me. The 55/1.8 needs more post-processing help while the 50/1.4 ZA is already amazing out of the camera. I can live with that.
Had the 55 1.8. Bought the 50 1.4. Sold the 55 1.8. The 55 is a very good lens but the 50 has better sharpness, color, contrast and bokeh. The 50 is a chunk, but to me worth the weight/girth. Comes down to your priorities. If best image quality get the 50. If price and portability get the 55.
I agree that this is about priority. Having been a Canon shooter for some time, I struggled with this decision but ultimately through talking to folks who have owned both I’ve concluded that the 55 was the better fit. Though I’ve never tried the 50 1.4, I heard that it’s one of the best lenses for Sony. I was really tempted but I was really enjoying the portability of the Batis 25 and Sony 85 1.8. I didn’t feel like I was sacrificing IQ at all. In the case of the 55, it was a simple matter of it being more than good enough IQ wise and it being so much more portable than the 50 1.4. It’s been great.
Your post it is one of the better and most concise assessments of the two lenses.
I have owned a 55 1.8 on two different occasions and the size is great but the lens just didn't do it for me. The 50 1.4 never ceases to amaze me, it's a special lens!!!
I have only used A7RII now III and A9 but I am sure the better then sensor/camera the more the 50 stands out in comparison to the 55.
As better sensors arrive in the next new cameras and beyond the differences will be even more apparent.
rjenson wrote:
Had the 55 1.8. Bought the 50 1.4. Sold the 55 1.8. The 55 is a very good lens but the 50 has better sharpness, color, contrast and bokeh. The 50 is a chunk, but to me worth the weight/girth. Comes down to your priorities. If best image quality get the 50. If price and portability get the 55.
Stopped down, most copies of the 55 are a little sharper than the 50 (the 50 is a little better around f2).
That's based on the published MTF, and my own experience of one copy of each. But of course that doesn't mean that there aren't copies around that don't perform that way.
With my single copy of each 55 and 50 I found sharpness essentially equal from f2.2 and higher. The biggest difference to my eyes is the better color(especially skin tones) and bokeh of the 50 1.4.
Can't go wrong owning either or both.
Doubling up is the way to go! 35 and 50 are my two most used focal lengths, so I figured that it made sense (well, maybe not financial sense ) to own both the Sony 1.4 lenses and the Loxias in those focal lengths.
I had all four Loxia's now none as I prefer having AF on the wide end and actually found the 21 & 85 the better of the four Loxia's. I sold the 85 because I have the 85 GM, 90 macro and 100STF and it didn't make sense but now I miss that lens I may get another one.
21 as good as it is I replaced along with my Batis 18 & 25 and Voigtlander CV15 with the 12-24G and 16-35GM. Two excellent lenses with zoom and AF instead of four was not a difficult decision.
I have too many lenses and duplicate FL's as it is even after selling off seven lenses.
You buy a fast lens for fast apertures where they shine, and if you like the color and snap more, all good. But stopped down work, the 55mm is hard to beat in that arena between these two - see the current 'three nights hiking' thread for a real world endorsement by FM members.
One reason for the large lenses is to produce fast lenses that are market-ready for high resolution, which ruthlessly exposes lenses' weaknesses. And most f1.4 lenses are shot at what aperture range? The market demands wide open excellence.
For many keen 50-58mm shooters, the 55 can be like the old Gloria Gaynor song: Never can say goodbye. It's just good at what it does, light/small, crisp stylish images. It sees the world very clearly. Extremely versatile first lens for the system.
This recent thread (AF on Sony A7 / A9 (live view setting effect and stopping... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1554180 ) prompted me to properly compare the, relatively new to me, 1.4/50 with the 1.8/55.
I like to focus 50mm lenses manually (although I certainly use AF when needed) and have found the aperture behaviour of the 1.4/50 to be problematic compared to the 1.8/55. The 1.4/50 will only manual focus with the lens stopped down to the working aperture, regardless of the Live View Setting Effects position, ie it doesn't open up to focus then stop down to the working aperture to shoot. This isn't great, it's almost impossible to focus at F8 or 11 for example, and I've found I'm sometimes using the lens as if it were a vintage lens without aperture linkage at all, ie focusing wide open then stopping the lens down, just because it's difficult to focus with the lens stopped down beyond about F4.
The 1.8/55 on the other hand opens the lens up to focus manually, again regardless of Live View Setting Effects position, so you can shoot with the lens stopped down and still manual focus with a bright view finder, but more importantly, you can focus accurately because of the shallow dof instead of guessing focus with a very wide dof, as with the 1.4/50.
Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, I've updated to the latest firmware on camera and lenses, but the 1.8/55 seems to have much better functionality in this respect, even with it's relatively poor manual focusing.
JohnJ wrote:
This recent thread (AF on Sony A7 / A9 (live view setting effect and stopping... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1554180 ) prompted me to properly compare the, relatively new to me, 1.4/50 with the 1.8/55.
I like to focus 50mm lenses manually (although I certainly use AF when needed) and have found the aperture behaviour of the 1.4/50 to be problematic compared to the 1.8/55. The 1.4/50 will only manual focus with the lens stopped down to the working aperture, regardless of the Live View Setting Effects position, ie it doesn't open up to focus then stop down to the working aperture to shoot. This isn't great, it's almost impossible to focus at F8 or 11 for example, and I've found I'm sometimes using the lens as if it were a vintage lens without aperture linkage at all, ie focusing wide open then stopping the lens down, just because it's difficult to focus with the lens stopped down beyond about F4.
The 1.8/55 on the other hand opens the lens up to focus manually, again regardless of Live View Setting Effects position, so you can shoot with the lens stopped down and still manual focus with a bright view finder, but more importantly, you can focus accurately because of the shallow dof instead of guessing focus with a very wide dof, as with the 1.4/50.
Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, I've updated to the latest firmware on camera and lenses, but the 1.8/55 seems to have much better functionality in this respect, even with it's relatively poor manual focusing....Show more →
It is your lens or lenses and you can do with them as you please, of course. But why would you get a fast lens that excels at wide open or close to wide open and use it stopped down? Still, I just checked mine on the A7r III and A9, and the lens doesn’t have any problems focusing at f/8 though. For real life shooting, I do not stop down my 50mm f/1.4 smaller than f/2.8, mostly down to f/2, if that but I understand YMMV.
Also do not forget the different FL. Some tests showed that the Planar is more a 47mm! The 55mm was always a tac too long for my needs and I rather take a 85mm then. The Planar, positioned slightly under 50mm comes very close to my prefered FL around 40mm.
) to own both the Sony 1.4 lenses and the Loxias in those focal lengths.