lensfan wrote:
I feel like both APO 35 and 50 lenses are ones of the brightest F2 lenses at F2 I used. Checked DXO and they rate 1.4/50 ZA as 1.8 T stops which is not cool.
The T stop doesn’t affect the depth of field which is what most buy fast lenses for these days, it’s not like film days where a third of a stop transmission might be a big deal because of the slow film you were using!
DavidBM wrote:
The T stop doesn’t affect the depth of field which is what most buy fast lenses for these days, it’s not like film days where a third of a stop transmission might be a big deal because of the slow film you were using!
Yes, but 1/3 and 2/3 longer exposures gathering more light might affect the IQ of the samples used for comparison, especially in the center. I'm no expert - just a thought. If effect is not that significant stopped down, ZA might have even bigger advantage (handicap) here.
waterden wrote:
The key factor (for me) when used wide open is the quality of subject separation and I suspect the Zeiss, with its signature mid range punch, might be the winner. I'd certainly be interested to know what owners of both think about that.
I own both APO 35 and 50 and only Loxia 35. Usually taking pictures from the opposite side of Hudson.
What I love about APOs is that I don't need to care which aperture I'm at quality wise. I care about my aperture only from depth of field and light perspective.
While with Loxia, image quality significantly decreases wide-open or close to wide-open.
Will get Loxia 21 soon - happy to test but this is a different kind of beast.
Super curious to see how CV50APO compares against Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM. From what I saw in other tests (e.g., lenstip.com), with the same aperture, 50GM has better center resolution but CV50APO fares better off center.
Fred, any chance we can see a resolution comparison with the two?
moyang_mm wrote:
Super curious to see how CV50APO compares against Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM. From what I saw in other tests (e.g., lenstip.com), with the same aperture, 50GM has better center resolution but CV50APO fares better off center.
Fred, any chance we can see a resolution comparison with the two?
I won't be able to do a scientific comparison but both lenses are great. I doubt the variations in lab-tested sharpness will make difference in real-life application.
Both are at the top of the food chain. Both produce extremely well corrected images. There may be some minor fringing on 50GM wide open.
50GM is for bokeh-porn with AF at useful focal length. I find 50GM's rendering of distant OOF objects sometime on a busier side. I have 15 lenses for Sony, and this is the first one to show me issues with fluorescent lights and silent shutter on a7r4.
Overall, 50APO-L is my favorite fifty so far.
lensfan wrote:
50GM is for bokeh-porn with AF at useful focal length. I find 50GM's rendering of distant OOF objects sometime on a busier side.
Since you have both the APO and GM, you could shoot a simple comparison to show that busyness in background rendering.
Otherwise, you know, you could be misleading people reading these topics ...
j4nu wrote:
Since you have both the APO and GM, you could shoot a simple comparison to show that busyness in background rendering.
Otherwise, you know, you could be misleading people reading these topics ...
I took a few recent shots from 50GM image thread which demonstrate what I find a busier background for a background melter/obliterator lens:
Don't get me wrong, I love all these photos - having looked at them I decided to get the lens.
zugzwang2 wrote:
Please stop. There are far too many threads like this. How could he be "misleading people" unless he is lying about what he says that he thinks?
It's very easy - often it's the conditions (light, distance, etc.) that make the shot look this or that way. If you don't shoot one lens against the other in those conditions, you can't really say what makes the shot look busy.
Thanks, but in the post above I explained why I'd prefer a direct comparison.
Also, maybe I misunderstood you as I thought you're saying that the APO is less busy than the GM. That would be the first time I read such a statement, that's why I asked for those shots if possible.
On my part, I did compare ZA to GM and found GM to be definitely smoother (looks closer to the Nokton, but I don't have that one to compare).
I also don't think the busyness of the background is very subjective, as most people agree when the background looks busy and when it melts away.
Anyways, maybe what you're saying is that those shoots just look busy on a 50/1.2 ...
Nov 17, 2022 at 02:11 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think what you are not appreciating in these shots is that to really blow out the background with any lens you need to be fairly close to the subject and the background need to be distant. In all these shot the subject is fairly distant and the background is fairly close (especially the building in the last two shots). If you reverse that and have subject close and the background distant you can obliterate the background even with a lowly lens and even with a narrow aperture. I will post a shot below in which I am a foot or so away from the subject and the background tree is close to a mile away. The background is nicely softened even though it was shot with the lowly Canon EF 35 f/2 at f/8. I don't think the Sony 50 GM is doing bad at all in your shots and I like the rendering and I generally like the shots. It is just if you want to be softening the background and get more bokeh, then you need to get closer to them, position the background further away (like in the shots with the building as the background move the model away from the background) or both. I think getting the camera to subject and subject to background distances the way you want them is very under appreciated in creating nice bokeh.
zugzwang2 wrote:
Please stop. There are far too many threads like this. How could he be "misleading people" unless he is lying about what he says that he thinks?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think what you are not appreciating in these shots is that to really blow out the background with any lens you need to be fairly close to the subject and the background need to be distant. In all these shot the subject is fairly distant and the background is fairly close (especially the building in the last two shots). If you reverse that and have subject close and the background distant you can obliterate the background even with a lowly lens and even with a narrow aperture. I will post a shot below in which I am a foot or so away from the subject and the background tree is close to a mile away. The background is nicely softened even though it was shot with the lowly Canon EF 35 f/2 at f/8. I don't think the Sony 50 GM is doing bad at all in your shots and I like the rendering and I generally like the shots. It is just if you want to be softening the background and get more bokeh, then you need to get closer to them, position the background further away (like in the shots with the building as the background move the model away from the background) or both. I think getting the camera to subject and subject to background distances the way you want them is very under appreciated in creating nice bokeh....Show more →
Steve - did you mistype when you said the background tree is almost a mile away? With a 35mm lens I can’t imagine a tree at a mile that large in the frame.
Nov 17, 2022 at 05:48 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mudlake wrote:
Steve - did you mistype when you said the background tree is almost a mile away? With a 35mm lens I can’t imagine a tree at a mile that large in the frame.
I did mistype and meant to say trees not tree. I wasn't referring to the big tree which is about 100 yards away in this shot, but the trees in the treeline on the lower left that are very nicely blurred. They are about a mile away, and nicely blurred even though this was shot with a 35mm lens at f/8.
j4nu wrote:
I also don't think the busyness of the background is very subjective, as most people agree when the background looks busy and when it melts away.
Anyways, maybe what you're saying is that those shoots just look busy on a 50/1.2 ...
A careless photo editing too can ruin background rendition.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think what you are not appreciating in these shots is that to really blow out the background with any lens you need to be fairly close to the subject and the background need to be distant. In all these shot the subject is fairly distant and the background is fairly close (especially the building in the last two shots).
I do appreciate close focus for background melting. I have no doubt fellow FMers understand how to blur background by focusing on a close subject. If your background is not melted away this means you are not focusing close enough. 50GM has no issues blurring background - no doubt about that. But what I'm trying to say is that I find this lens to have a unique rendering style which reminds me of some 'clinical' manual focus lenses - you have this sharpness for in-focus subjects but rather detailed background at medium distances behind compared to similar or many slower high quality lenses. I love to have this quality as I'm tired of modern style lenses which melt everything in most situations. This is what I'm after here.
On the other hand, APO 50 which I would expect to behave more like a summicron lens, to have a 'clinical' or busy style rendering for medium distance objects, I find it to be smooth and smoother than 50GM in those types of situations.
Just shot this on 50GM at f1.2. I find this background busy... And those half-circle bubbles once again.
Not a comparison but another example of background rendering. This was literally my 2 shot on Loxia 21. This was supposed to be a quick and dirty snapshot to test close focus but became my favorite shot of the year. Background objects are 10-30m away.
...
