p.18 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
It's successful for the look they are aiming for - a finely drawn subject with a correspondingly heavily blurred background and tremendous subject isolation. How will it go with subjects not so centrally placed? Or stopped down some. These are nearly all 'magic donut' images.
Could be his post processing? In his video review he mentioned pushing shadows 3 stops and bringing down highlights in one of the backlit shots. I think some of those backgrounds look fake blurred because he pulled highlights maybe?
p.18 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
If only the coma was as good wide open. Seems like at f1.8 it’s good tho. The 50 1.4 is almost coma free wide open. Of course the 40 1.4 is the coma champion.
Chris
Fred Miranda wrote:
optical vignetting is not bad either. Better than the Canon from the examples I've seen.
I was thinking the same thing when looking at Gordon Laing's review images on YT. In spite of the OOF oddness, I actually think the images look really great though.
p.18 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
VetraLens wrote:
Could be his post processing? In his video review he mentioned pushing shadows 3 stops and bringing down highlights in one of the backlit shots. I think some of those backgrounds look fake blurred because he pulled highlights maybe?
p.18 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
darbo wrote:
I was thinking the same thing when looking at Gordon Laing's review images on YT. In spite of the OOF oddness, I actually think the images look really great though.
Trouble is I buy 1.2s for the quality of the oof area.......
p.18 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Holger wrote:
The Canon has clearly more vignetting, half a stop more (if opticallimits is correct), look after 6:15 in Manny's video, too. Looks like the Sony is comparable to the Nikon, here.
Distortion is a bit higher (0.6% vs. 0.25% (Nikon) vs. 0.2% (Canon)), but nothing to be concerned about , imo. I think Sony went the Sigma route in trading size for distortion.
CAs look indeed well controlled. I expected the Nikon, due to its size, to be better: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-50mm-f1-2-s-review/2/
But that doesn't seem to be the case.
I like Manny but it’s seems pretty clear he had vignette control enabled on Sony (-2.9ev per lenstip) and Nikon (maybe?) but not Canon (-3.2ev per optical limits). Less than a half stop difference wouldn’t be the drastic difference shown in his examples - we don’t know his exposure either. I like to leave the technical reviews to the sites that repeat those types of tests frequently and influencer YouTube videos for entertainment.
p.18 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I like Manny but it’s seems pretty clear he had vignette control enabled on Sony (-2.9ev per lenstip) and Nikon (maybe?) but not Canon (-3.2ev per optical limits). Less than a half stop difference wouldn’t be the drastic difference shown in his examples - we don’t know his exposure either. Leave the technical reviews to the sites that repeat those types of tests frequently and influencer YouTube videos for entertainment.
I would take anything serious from Manny. The only thing you can get from his is maybe the rendering difference when he didn't shift the frame too much.
p.18 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Buckeye2604 wrote:
I like Manny but it’s seems pretty clear he had vignette control enabled on Sony (-2.9ev per lenstip) and Nikon (maybe?) but not Canon (-3.2ev per optical limits). Less than a half stop difference wouldn’t be the drastic difference shown in his examples - we don’t know his exposure either. I like to leave the technical reviews to the sites that repeat those types of tests frequently and influencer YouTube videos for entertainment.
That is of course a possibility and you could well be right. That would be a grave omission indeed (the first thing I always do is switch all in-camera corrections to off).
I was surprised, though, to find the Sony showing less vignetting than the Canon, given the size and weight of the lens. Oftentimes the smaller mount was cited as a culprit, but Sony seems o be able to design around it.
p.18 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Holger wrote:
That is of course a possibility and you could well be right. That would be a grave omission indeed (the first thing I always do is switch all in-camera corrections to off).
I was surprised, though, to find the Sony showing less vignetting than the Canon, given the size and weight of the lens. Oftentimes the smaller mount was cited as a culprit, but Sony seems o be able to design around it.
Don't expect too much from the (especially early) "reviewers".
I see plenty of samples taken at very fast shutter speeds with EFCS on, clearly harming the bokeh.
When it comes to vignetting numbers I trust no one who does not state the distance he took the samples
at and fully discloses the RAW editing.
The focus distance is a massive factor, lenses often show 1 EV+ less vignetting at closer distances compared to infinity
(this is also why the "FF lens xy shows only moderate vignetting on GFX" claims backed up by a sample image taken at MFD are completely bogus,
hope no one falls for that only to discover later that the corners are just black in actual shooting...).
A slight change in tonal curve (and cameras from different manufacturers come with different tonal curves) can have a notable influence here, too.
p.18 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
BastianK wrote:
Don't expect too much from the (especially early) "reviewers".
I see plenty of samples taken at very fast shutter speeds with EFCS on, clearly harming the bokeh.
When it comes to vignetting numbers I trust no one who does not state the distance he took the samples
at and fully discloses the RAW editing.
The focus distance is a massive factor, lenses often show 1 EV+ less vignetting at closer distances compared to infinity
(this is also why the "FF lens xy shows only moderate vignetting on GFX" claims backed up by a sample image taken at MFD are completely bogus,
hope no one falls for that only to discover later that the corners are just black in actual shooting...).
A slight change in tonal curve (and cameras from different manufacturers come with different tonal curves) can have a notable influence here, too....Show more →
You are right. I therefore like standardized tests from people like lenstip.com https://www.lenstip.com/2.1-article-How_do_we_test_the_lenses_.html
p.18 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Fred Miranda wrote:
optical vignetting is not bad either. Better than the Canon from the examples I've seen.
Otoh, the canon is not a reference
It looks to have more Optical vignetting than the 35 GM, and much more than the Sigma Art, which for me Is a reference, and an argument to keep it.
I have always prefered the sigma to the zeiss, because it has less OV, a better midfield sharpness, a better MF, equivalent AF, and No focus breathing (I don't remember about the zeiss)
Now with the GM, I could improve AF of course, and a bit of sharpness wide open... but the focus breathing is noticeable, and the price difference is to consider...
Now I have to say, I still look at it with a little interest
p.18 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Saw from the Cameralabs review that the 50 GM continues precedent set by the 20 G & 35 GM in that it can focus closer in MF... but Gordon didn't measure the MFD or mention the resulting reproduction ratio. Has anyone seen it listed somewhere?
Would be curious to find out as Gordon's quoted 20cm object would put it at 0.18x and just shy of 1:5, which... while pretty good by 50mm standards isn't quite so impressive overall.
