Just received an optimal copy of the 55/1.8 ZA. Took me a while to find one after regretting selling mine last year.
Now I can test this copy against the Voigtlander 50/2 APO with confidence.
One think is for sure, those complaining about axial CA for the APO lens should never try the ZA!
I did some EVF only comparisons with the Christmas Tree backlit (during the day). It was quite the difference....
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just received an optimal copy of the 55/1.8 ZA. Took me a while to find one after regretting selling mine last year.
Now I can test this copy against the Voigtlander 50/2 APO with confidence.
One think is for sure, those complaining about axial CA for the APO lens should never try the ZA!
tsdevine wrote:
I did some EVF only comparisons with the Christmas Tree backlit (during the day). It was quite the difference....
-Tim
It's quite clear that the 55/1.8 is less corrected for SA compared to the APO. There is slight haze wide open for the ZA which contributes to its smooth rendering -- but also lower contrast.
I'd say lenses for different needs where the ZA could be a better choice for portraits. (EyeAF, lower contrast, more SA, a bit longer FL)
#2 for those still worried - hopefully my last word on this CA issue before moving on to more images. Another f2 image and its (one) focal plane crop - best not to overload the thread with this stuff.
Another thing re LoCA is 'bokeh fringing', which also never seems to appear in this AL - indicating the level of correction. Lloyd Chambers refers to this effect as 'SLOCA' - secondary LoCA. Here is a link to his rather good explanation of several (incl APO) lenses (focused on the Milvus 50/1.4) and the various effects of CA. If you worry about the 50/2 APO-Lanthar don't even consider the (very fine) Milvus 50/1.4. Take a look:
One of the party pieces this lens has is the ability to shoot objects 15-20m away satisfyingly at f2 - sharp with lovely rearward fade (other examples from another member early on in this thread). You can do this thanks to the flat field, the very high MTF at f2 and the design that retains contextual info in OOF off the focal plane at that focus distance. It's often what you expect at f5.6.
This lens also picks up reflections like crazy (due to APO), and these often make you think it's false colour, then you see the colour source.
I think what happened with the FE 55/1.8 is that Sony did not reach further for APD level glass to go with the 4-5 asph surfaces because of cost minimisation. Also, it is a 2012 design like the APO Otus 55 and Summicron-M I have mentioned before.
They all just didn't have the glass formulas now available; it's not that the glass was not affordable outside of exotica - they simply did not have access to it yet, it did not exist. I think it's the reason why we see many bokeh aberrations in the Otus and M APO lenses, but these are much more muted in the SL primes or these APO-Lanthars.
Better fabrication, better (extreme) stray light suppression, better light path optimisation, better assembly tolerances and element preparation - all play a part too. Not many people will have to search for copies of the APO-Lanthar to find 'a good one'.
Phillip, Are you repeating Cosina market speak or do you have any real examples? What type (within APD class) of glasses were not available when the Zony 55/1.8 was released?
(FWIW, the FE 28/2 includes 2 APD elements and one AA element. It is not the cost either. What stopped Sony from using any APD elements in their current FE 35/1.8 is anyone’s guess.)
philip_pj wrote:
They all just didn't have the glass formulas now available; it's not that the glass was not affordable outside of exotica - they simply did not have access to it yet, it did not exist.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Just received an optimal copy of the 55/1.8 ZA. Took me a while to find one after regretting selling mine last year.
Now I can test this copy against the Voigtlander 50/2 APO with confidence.
Looking forward to your tests, Fred. I have the 55/1.8 and have been trying to talk myself out of "needing" the 50/2 APO. I actually quite like the 55 for portraiture, but I do have a few extra bucks I just don't know what to do with.
And, since most of my work is B&W, I don't really care much about CA.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's quite clear that the 55/1.8 is less corrected for SA compared to the APO. There is slight haze wide open for the ZA which contributes to its smooth rendering -- but also lower contrast.
I'd say lenses for different needs where the ZA could be a better choice for portraits. (EyeAF, lower contrast, more SA, a bit longer FL)
Absolutely. While no-one needs multiple 50s, for people who like them and for whom the sacrifice is manageable, I think it makes sense to have a few.
I have the 1.8/55 and won't get rid of it when the 2/50 arrives. It makes a great AF travel lens sharp enough though not as nice as the CV in contrast etc landscape lens, and a great informal people lens as you say with light weight and eye AF. and a tiny bit longer (I also have too many others, but could probably justify a couple - the ZA 1.4 for portraity stuff when the weight is not an issue, and maybe a few older lenses for their distinctive look. I like some of the crazy appearance of older 1.2/50s for occasional fun - mine of choice is the Zuiko 1.2/50 (no the 55) and the C-Sonnar for a completely different look again).
It's fair to infer that even 8-10 year old lenses did not benefit from the recent developments in glass formulae. People speak in generalities in interviews and don't specify each glass type by its technical identifier.
However, designer speak is different from market speak, in my opinion. Engineers generally understate matters or accurately describe technical issues, as they deal with the real world. It's 'put up or shut up' for them. In data analysis, we look for corroborating statements from several sources. The 65/2 and 50/2 designer has no reason to mislead here:
"The front group is all anomalous dispersion glass, except for aspheric lenses. From the other end, I'm using glass that really takes care of color and eliminates chromatic aberration. *New glass that didn't exist 10 years ago*.."
Nor do Leica design engineers re the SL lenses (2018):
"Lens elements and their refractive indices had to be arranged in new configurations, *new glass types had to be used* and the optical system had to include asphericals.."
"The APO-Summicron-SL 75 f/2 ASPH. has a total of eleven elements, one of which is an aspherical. In addition to this, *all elements* in the optical system are *made from high-quality special glasses*.
The aspherical corrects monochromatic aberrations and the *special glass types take care of chromatic aberrations*. As a result of this, even highlights remain completely free of color fringing. This then means that the lens earns the quality seal ‘APO’.."
I've shot several hundred portraits with the 55/1.8. Most have been in pretty good light or were rescuable, and it excels in many instances for other needs. But it's unpredictable in poor conditions when I need reliable results the most. After the last trip it's done its dash with me for humans, I'm afraid. It may still be useful to carry, being just 280 grams and small. I'd rather miss quite a few to mis-focuses than have to suffer from this lens any further:
philip_pj wrote:
I've shot several hundred portraits with the 55/1.8. Most have been in pretty good light or were rescuable, and it excels in many instances for other needs. But it's unpredictable in poor conditions when I need reliable results the most. After the last trip it's done its dash with me for humans, I'm afraid. It may still be useful to carry, being just 280 grams and small. I'd rather miss quite a few to mis-focuses than have to suffer from this lens any further:
Just Googled "Sony 55/1.8 portraits" and looked at many great portraits taken with the lens. They remind me that CA correction is not everything. I haven't seen any pictures from the 50 APO where I like the bokeh much. The pictures are sharp and clear, but have a clinical look to me. I believe that a very good copy of the 55 (sample variation for the 55 is high according to LR).is "close enough" in sharpness to the 50APO. Waiting to see Fred's comparison, but even he may not have a golden copy of the 55.
I got very similar sharpness results (macro and infinity) when I compared my excellent Sony 90 Macro to the Voigtlander 110 APO. I posted those results here, but I believe they have since been appended by Fred in that thread. In the end I preferred the look (mostly better bokeh) and size/weight/handling/AF of the 90 Macro.
I plan on keeping my 55 regardless, for my AF kit. My problem lies with the Voigtlander 40/1.2. My third copy is an excellent copy, and that lens serves a greater purpose than I see the 50 APO ever doing. I has character when shot wide open, and sharpness stopped down. The 40'ish focal length is also more useful. The problem is, I don't want to have both in my manual focus kit. Seems like a waste of resources. I would never go out with both, and would probably favor the 40.
That is exactly what many said about the Zony 55/1.8.
Now, it has character?!
I have a superb copy of the 55/1.8. The AL 50/2 is much more preferable, AFAIC.
IMO, the 50APO has less character than the 55. I never said the 55 is a lens known for its character There are other lenses that have more character than the 55.
The 55/1.8 being a bit longer and faster than the 50/2 may help things.
This thread is getting a bit weird. Guys, if you want to buy the lens or if you already have done that, congratulations! It's a great lens. But you don't need to talk about it as if it is capable of taking extraordinary pictures by itself, regardless of the photographer 😃. At the end of the day, it's a lens.
If you don’t want or need to buy it for any reason, you don't have to trash it. Just keep what you have and let others decide for themselves.
