bill9000 wrote:
"Compared to the primary other options in this class, it really is the best performance to value ratio. The Sony 50mm is $500 more, and I don’t see a $500 difference in the images, as a matter of fact the Sony 50mm is known to have a pretty widespread de-centering problem that makes the focus plane off, even when the image is technically in focus and many need to be replaced. That is a pretty large smudge on the reputation of something that bears the Zeiss name."
Did you compare it to the FE 50/1.4 ZA side by side?
I agree that the Sigma is cheaper and high IQ but the Sony is ~175g lighter, smaller and hard to beat in resolution, contrast and especially rendering. It's one of the best Sony native lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Did you compare it to the FE 50/1.4 ZA side by side?
I agree that the Sigma is cheaper and high IQ but the Sony is ~175g lighter, smaller and hard to beat in resolution, contrast and especially rendering. It's one of the best Sony native lenses.
I didnt compare side by side on same shoot. But from my eyes the FE 50/1.4 ZA was definitely nice as well, I couldn't see it being any better. But you are right! side-by-side on the same session would be the way to go, I'm going to see about putting that together and posting the samples side by side! Thanks!
Did you compare it to the FE 50/1.4 ZA side by side?
I agree that the Sigma is cheaper and high IQ but the Sony is ~175g lighter, smaller and hard to beat in resolution, contrast and especially rendering. It's one of the best Sony native lenses.
I compared side by side (nikon mount Art). On every shot I preferred the Art, but the difference was so small that I kept the Zeiss. (I use it for weddings and portraits, so a tiny bit of additional consistency was worth the difference and the FE mount was not yet out)
SloPhoto wrote:
I compared side by side (nikon mount Art). On every shot I preferred the Art, but the difference was so small that I kept the Zeiss. (I use it for weddings and portraits, so a tiny bit of additional consistency was worth the difference and the FE mount was not yet out)
Thanks for your input.
What difference was small? Resolution, contrast, color, rendering? I would be great if we could see these differences side by side.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for your input.
What difference was small? Resolution, contrast, color, rendering? I would be great if we could see these differences side by side.
I just did some test shots, ugly stuff. I have yet to sell the Art though, so I may take some before I get rid of it.
I prefer the rendering of the Sigma (but prefer smoother falloff than traditional for Zeiss, so take it with a grain of salt). SOOC colors are more my taste (with PP they can be very very close). I would defer to the lensrentals test on resolution and contrast, both are stellar.
I wish the Sony had better AF, it is quite disappointing compared to the other sony lenses I have.
ajamils wrote:
Not to get technical but isn't bra supposed to provide "support" instead of being a "cover" . So better title would be "cover in the field"
