Or is it merely very sharp, very 3D-ish and nothing else?
Since it came out with the original A7 bodies we've been raving about the lens. It's in every Sony user's bag, it's a dear even if you don't really do 50mm, it's become almost a reference in terms of 50mm sharpness, it's your best lens, etc etc.
But is it?
I believe this lens created as much hype as the level of its performance. High hype and high performance.
But I sometimes get the impression that people like to rave about the lens rather than to actually shoot it. To me it's become like a must-own but rarely-shoot lens.
There's one more thing. I have the lens. Some one year after buying it I wanted to try the VM Nokton 1.5/50. And then later the Batis 85. This led to two revelations;
1. The Nokton draws a more dramatic scene. Its sense of 3D and its bokeh gives you a feeling of true depth; i.e. the further the background goes the more you get drawn into the image. Compared to this, the 55 feels a bit porcelain-y, very 3D but it's like a 3D subject placed on a flat background. No perception of spatial depth in images. It feels like a studio. The OOF areas being so low in contrast, I think, also contribute to this perception of rendering.
2. The B85 draws kind of a more "rounded" image compared to the Z55. It's like the colors are more "robust", more "uniform and under control", it feels like a "matured" Z55. The texture this lens draws look more lifelike, the colors a bit richer and a bit more pastel, and overall what I'd like to call a "velvety" rendering. It feels more "behaved" compared to the Z55. In comparison the Z55 feels like a sharpness freak, a contrast freak, an in-your-face-3D but merely it.
A common idea from both revelations is that, while the Nokton and B85 feel like they appeal to your senses, the Z55 appeals to paper specs. Like a classic car and a very high-tech but soulless-feelless car. It's like we give you in abundance what you most want; sharpness, bokeh and 3d. and not much else. It almost feels like Sony used this lens rather like a marketing tool for the A7 series launch, to attract pixel peepers and spec fans to the system.
I would example my views here with images too, but those are different images not at all shot side by side or even in the same conditions, so that would open up a very unneeded "unhealthy comparison" debate. So I won't. I'm just narrating my overall experience with the lenses.
The combo of size, weight, rendering and sharpness make it one of my favorite lenses and one of the best lenses I’ve used. It checks all the boxes. That being said, I’m sure that other lenses do certain things better, as you eloquently noted. At the end of the day, it’s a matter of trade offs, and under that mindset the 55 offers a compelling package.
Owned it twice and sold it twice. It's not a bad lens. But certainly nowhere near what I would consider an all-time great.
It's also a weird focal length for many of us (especially the shooters that lean toward wider than 50 as a preference). When I shoot a 50mm'ish lens, I want it to be no longer than 50mm (and even slightly wider if I can help it). At 55, it is a tad too tight of a focal length for how I use 50mm most often which makes it awkward. If I want 50, I grab a 50. If I want a little wider, I go with 35. If I want any longer than 50, I'm going to 85.
I have a few buddies that love theirs because they like the focal length for what they shoot. Outside of that, I think the lens renders pretty nicely, is compact, and performs pretty well on Sony bodies. But none of that (for me) equates to being an all-time great. It's just a pretty good lens if you need it.
If it was a 35mm...then maybe, but being a 55mm...zero interest from me. First and foremost, I look at a focal length I need, then look for lenses in that focal length. I just did not need a 50 / 55mm lens...so nope, no matter how great the image quality is from the lens.
Not for me...I was happy to sell it and replace with a Loxia 50.
First, I didn't care for the rendering - I've heard this described as "sterile" many times. Not a term that I'd have used - I don't know that I can actually put my finger on it, but I didn't like it.
Far more important to me, though, is the fact that it has the worst manual focus I've ever seen, thanks to its non-linear focus by wire. I only use manual focus; I bought it at the same time as my A7RII since reviews at the time were unanimously good, and I thought I'd give it a try even though I normally avoid autofocus lenses. It was truly difficult to determine whether focus was accurate - back and forth, over and over, without being sure. Good riddance, I say!
chez wrote:
If it was a 35mm...then maybe, but being a 55mm...zero interest from me. First and foremost, I look at a focal length I need, then look for lenses in that focal length. I just did not need a 50 / 55mm lens...so nope, no matter how great the image quality is from the lens.
but if you think about it..... it's subjective, focal length
or at least, the love or lack of love, for a mid range zoom or prime.
so for you. Master Chez. the 55 is not great b/c you have zero interest in this tool regardless of it's quality or performance.
but someone who loves a 50, they may think the 55 1.8 is great.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Not for me...I was happy to sell it and replace with a Loxia 50.
First, I didn't care for the rendering - I've heard this described as "sterile" many times. Not a term that I'd have used - I don't know that I can actually put my finger on it, but I didn't like it.
I agree 100% with this. I feel that the Loxia somehow has more pop than the 55/1.8 and I've been much happier with the images I'm getting from it. More color/contrast, no onion rings, less CA. And still plenty sharp wide open.. 50 also gaps better between 35 and 85.
Owned it twice and sold it twice. It's not a bad lens. But certainly nowhere near what I would consider an all-time great.
It's also a weird focal length for many of us (especially the shooters that lean toward wider than 50 as a preference). When I shoot a 50mm'ish lens, I want it to be no longer than 50mm (and even slightly wider if I can help it). At 55, it is a tad too tight of a focal length for how I use 50mm most often which makes it awkward. If I want 50, I grab a 50. If I want a little wider, I go with 35. If I want any longer than 50, I'm going to 85.
I have a few buddies that love theirs because they like the focal length for what they shoot. Outside of that, I think the lens renders pretty nicely, is compact, and performs pretty well on Sony bodies. But none of that (for me) equates to being an all-time great. It's just a pretty good lens if you need it....Show more →
Interesting. I thought 5mm would make a world of difference in wider angles, but no so much in normal angles.
I think the hype is worthy because it offers great optical performance, AF speed, accuracy and silence, all in a very compact light package. Is it the best at any of these?... No. There are certainly better optical options (Sony f/1.4 and Otus) and smaller options, but none that combine all of these characteristics into a single lens. The Sony FE 55mm is a very compelling package if you're a 50mm shooter.
Of course, 50mm is one of my fav focal lengths. Before I switched to Sony, all the 50mm options on Canon had major compromises that the FE55 solved for me. The 50L focus had a mind of it's own and it was enormous and heavy and the other 50's had AF, optical, or build quality issues as well. Maybe Nikon has the ultimate 50 as I'm not that familiar with Nikon's product line. But for me, the FE 55 ticks all the boxes for what's important to me in a prime lens.
The thing is, we have a couple examples now of the size and weight of a no compromises 50/55 FF lens for the Sony system and I don't want to walk around with a lens the size of a ZA 50 or Otus most of the time.
If, like Danny, I didn't like AF lenses, I would certainly be using something else, like my 50 Cron which I really like on FF Sony. But, it's precisely because the 55 is a native mount AF lens that I use it.
I used to use MF lenses exclusively, but I've been spoiled by Eye AF, which for me has been one of the great camera advancements of the past few years. So, even if the 55 is not as perfect as a ZA 50 or Otus, taking into account size, performance and AF abilities, it's a go to lens for me.
I think it has a "reference rendering", except for the pronounced LoCA. It's pretty good at everything with very even and predictable performance at all apertures and distances. The bokeh is terrific and sharpness is great. Maybe not as "3D" as the classic Zeiss lenses, but close enough.
But I can't find any use for 50-55 mm lenses, so mine is gone. I traded it for the Loxia 50 that I never use for the same reason. It's always too long or too short. Just no mans land.
Now, if someone could make a lens like this between the 55 and the Batis 25 (which has very, very similar rendering). That would be something.
