Sener wrote:
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.
It wasn’t hype. There had been no 1.8 50 lens that was so good over the field before. And as much as we worry about onion rings and LoCA it also had the smoothest bokeh of any moderate fast fifty before, (of course not everyone likes smooth).And fifties of it’s speed were generally super sharp stopped down: but this little lens was sharper still stopped down. Many folks purchased 1.4/50 lenses primarily to use at f2 where they got decent unlike 1.8s which were generally still sketchy at f 2. But this little lens could, be confidently shot wide open.
Now it’s a little low in contrast so it can look flat and dull compared to some, but that’s a quick fix in post. You can’t really fix resolution or busy bokeh convincingly.
So wou,d it be great if there were an AF lens like it but apochromatic, contrastier and with no onion rings? Sure and. I’ll get it when there is. But until then it’s got a place in my bag. And it’ll always have. Zola e in history as the first commercial moderate speed normal lens to depart from simple double gauss design with unprecedented results for its class.
As a landscape photographer who loves wides I never really considered buying the 55/1.8. I was using an adapted old Nikon 50/1.8 AIS lens.
It was ok, but the corners were weak on the 36mp of the A7R and it had coma. So after reading the 55/1.8 was low coma I got one and it's a very nice lens. Sharp, low coma, AF seems decent (I normally am a MF guy). In short it's a winner!
I still think the Loxia 21 and a good copy of the Voigtlander 15mm are "better" lenses, but I like wides.
I mostly shoot landscape, and for that purpose it's insanely good. When you need that focal length, or when stitching panos with it, the results are just amazing. Shame about the LoCA though, it's uncorrectable in some situations.
I never did any formal comparison or testing of them all but have shot extensively with the Sigma Art, both the planar and mp adapted, and the FE 55 from the ones you have mentioned above.
The Sigma Art was the one I enjoyed the most as far as optics and general image rendering. It was also the best functionally/operationally adapted 50 of them all.
The copy of the planar I have is pretty soft wide open and gives you pretty odd/almost swirly cat eye oof areas.
The mp has always been a favorite of mine since the Canon days for image rendering and optics. But it wasn't really practical for what I did/do most since it was an MF lens with a super long throw (being a macro and all).
Never shot that Canon stm but do have the mk ii lens still. Decent lens but don't care for it adapted. lol.
Never cared for the FE 55 for the reasons stated previously. It was just a lot of money for something that wasn't a good fit for what I do. Again though, if it is a lens that meets many needs for a specific shooter, then I suppose it would be the best option for that particular person.
Side note - I agree with what a couple other posters have said in that the LoCa was something I really hated at times (often enough). While the images out of the lens can be spruced up in post, the same can be said for many other lenses.
I agree with what others have stated. All lenses are a compromise of sorts. In the case of a compact/lightweight 50mm'ish native FE lens with pretty good optics and function, the FE 50/1.8 is a much better compromise of all factors for me. It is noticeably smaller and just feels better mounted (to me) than the 55. I also prefer the hood shape of the 50 as I will always lean toward non-petal when possible.
The 50 is plenty sharp although takes a small hit moving away from center when compared to the 55. Regardless, the IQ difference isn't huge enough for me to look past all the other factors I didn't like about the FE 55.
My two biggest issues with the 55 are the focal length itself (for how I use 50mm) and the price/value ratio (for my uses). Although not by much, the FE 50 appears to be slightly wider than my other 50mm lenses which is a welcome characteristic for me. Also, I paid $180 for a new one off Greentoe versus the roughly $800 I paid for the 55 each respective time I've had it.
If I want a compromise-50mm lens, the FE 50 is plenty sharp, more compact, cheaper, and mostly just as easy to spruce IQ up for in post if needed for the kind of shooting I do. I have owned/currently own many high-end native and adapted lenses for the Sony and Fuji systems. But the FE 50 still stands as one of the most enjoyable for me to shoot and certainly the best value I have gotten out of any lens with regard to price versus value ratios.
I don't mean to knock the 55 in general and am certainly not saying that it isn't potentially a better option for some shooters. But the above is my take on it for my specific use case.
I should preface by saying that I'm a planar rather than sonnar man but I've never seen a single image from the 55mm 1.8 which inspired me with its drawing style.
Is it a classic? Well I would certainly say yes when it comes to the Sony FE mount lenses it just ticks nearly all the boxes of the original A7 series concept small, light and high quality. On the other had if my Leica summilux 50 ASPH had been good performer on the A7 and the TAP adapter had been available a few years ago I would have kept them. I have been using mine a lot more recently and I have to say I really love it.
I had the 55 with my ol' A7R (I bought them together), and I sold the 55 as well, never looking back. With the RIII, I'm currently using the very inexpensive Sony 85 1.8, and I'm happier with the way it renders.
Technically, the 55 is pretty darn brilliant, and very sharp indeed. But the pictures never really made me go "WOW" for some reason. Pics with my cheap old 58mm MC Rokkor f/1.2, which is nowhere near as sharp and contrasty, always seemed more interesting. Beautiful rendition, hypnotic, swirly bokeh, and just something about the rendering that made me smile.
This is a star lens in Sony line up, it was born with right concept: small, light with high optic quality.
This was the lens I miss most about using Sony system. It has its flaw, such as CA and Bokeh are not bullet proof, could be not attractive sometime. but I find for portrait, good resolution with smooth bokeh and less contrast is always preferred, for landscape, at mostly after f4, just a few slider adjust make it one of sharpest 50 as well. What to complain?
I understand some feel the lens is a little bland, but it is just like compare RAW to processed JPG, is it the point of shooting RAW that leave you to PP the images as you like?
However, I don't know it has a good value or price to performance ratio compare to Nikon 1.8 or Canon f1.8, both of them are quite good actually, almost as small and light, and after f5.6, you will not see much difference either but none of them build as handsome as Zony, offer the total package Zony offer though at a premium price. I'd love to pay more for better craftsmanship with slightly better performance, but that is just me.
I still keep this lens in my closet, the only Sony lens I didn't sell, wait for future Sony body to mount on
I don't know about all time great lens. However, i think it will be a classic lens for sure. Its compact, fairly light, AF is good, and overall image quality is great, and build quality is pretty good imo as well. I wished Sony continued this effort to make more compact Fe lenses, rather than these big bulky G-Master ones.
I can't speak for anyone else, but i switch from Nikon to Sony because i wanted a lighter setup. By giving us bigger lenses, f2.8 zooms, f1.4 primes, it defeats of the purpose of a light setup. Although, you gotta cater to what sells.
Imo, the Fe 55 1.8 is the pinnacle of what the Fe system should be, at least imo .
Like some others, I bought it (twice) and have almost no keepers to show for it. Calling its rendering sterile... I don't know if that is the word I would use, but something in the rendering totally lacks charm and warmth, and life.
Yes, many people love it, mostly because sharpness is its n°1 virtue. Yes, Fred suggests that my not loving it has to do with inferior PP skills. But, when it came out, it was called mini-Otus. That has to be a laugh, because I have an Otus. If you can't see the difference in results, you might as well buy the inexpensive Sony 50, which is a very good lens as inexpensive lenses go.
philber wrote:
...Yes, many people love it, mostly because sharpness is its n°1 virtue...
I don't agree that sharpness is the fe 1.8/55's no. 1 virtue although maybe some do. Its soft bokeh is what drew me to, its wo sharpness is a bonus. Plenty of lenses are sharp.
Just to chime in on this thread, I still have my 55 which I bought not long after the release of A7R. To be honest, I rarely use it now (although I used it quite often at the beginning since the choice of native FE lens was so limited back then). There are two issues for me: the FL is a bit too narrow for a 'normal' lens, and character wise is just so so. Yes it is damn sharp with smooth bokeh, however it doesn't have that special character and rendering. I was more captivated by the Cron 50 that I had (and sold) earlier.
At the moment it mainly functions as a portrait lens for my wife's a6500, although sometimes I still use it whenever I want to travel very light with one lens setup. A very good lens though, and "classic" in the way that it is one of the first two FE lenses available, but nothing more than that
the 55mm is a ~perfect, maybe to perfect lens.
and now?
i did buy a 7artisans 50mm 1.1 Lens.
its a total opposite of the 55mm.
and because also price wise, its close to a must have.
I have one and it's fine... I guess. Hard for me to know because you've noted a truth among many owners of that lens - I rarely use it and am rarely inspired to. I'm not sure why that is. There's nothing at all wrong with it except that maybe I like my primes faster? The only lenses I shoot on my Sony A9 are Leica f/1.4 M Summiluxes with or without a TechArt Pro AF adapter. They are fun to use, a little smaller, more tactile, and render a delicious and ethereal scene. The 55FE feels like a very accurate recorder of anything - and you could easily zoom in to 800% and still find detail in your 55FE images. The Leicas are obviously very impressive as well, but when I need the perfect and in-focus image, the 55FE is really hard to beat. Yet for some reason, the 55's magnificently competent output doesn't appeal to me anymore, except perhaps in landscapes.
phuviano wrote:
Imo, the Fe 55 1.8 is the pinnacle of what the Fe system should be, at least imo .
Totally agree insofar as what the FE system "should be." I wish in vain that the FE system focused on smaller lenses. But as for the FE, I wish it was faster for its size. It's still kind of large for an f/1.8. Also, I would like to have seen a manual aperture ring for what Sony charges for that lens.
Other lenses have seen more use lately, but examining my archive reminds that I should use it more often. Sharp with smooth rendering wide open, small and light, and being a bit long for a normal suits me fine as it complements a 35 very nicely. Beach life at 70˚N:
