Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
p.18 #1Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
That link doesn't work for me, two browsers say the 'link didn't originate from this site' and the app won't open.
So, any chance of posting the images directly that you found issues with?
Mar 16, 2021 at 07:29 PM
p.18 #2Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
I think it’s less tasteful sometimes to blow out backgrounds full of people. Otherwise I think the out of focus areas look fine.
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Mar 16, 2021 at 07:33 PM
p.18 #3Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Bob_S wrote:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843That link doesn't work for me, two browsers say the 'link didn't originate from this site' and the app won't open.
So, any chance of posting the images directly that you found issues with?
You will end up with the same message ....
DaveFP wrote
50 images from Galer shot wide open:Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
So, any chance of posting the images directly that you found issues with?
You will end up with the same message ....
Mar 16, 2021 at 07:40 PM
p.18 #4Pre-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.
Mar 16, 2021 at 08:07 PM
p.18 #5Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
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?
Mar 16, 2021 at 08:17 PM
p.18 #6Pre-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:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.I'm actually REALLY impressed with the vignetting. @ f1.4 it has less vignetting than the Sigma 40mm 1.4 and at f2 they are tied. I know not the same focal length but...optical vignetting is not bad either. Better than the Canon from the examples I've seen.
Chris
Fred Miranda wrote:
Schlotkins wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
Mar 16, 2021 at 08:51 PM
p.18 #7Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
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.
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
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.
Mar 16, 2021 at 09:25 PM
p.18 #8Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
VetraLens wrote:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843Could 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?
Hope so.
DaveFP wrote
50 images from Galer shot wide open:Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Hope so.
Mar 16, 2021 at 09:56 PM
p.18 #9Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
darbo wrote:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843I 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.......
DaveFP wrote
50 images from Galer shot wide open:Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Trouble is I buy 1.2s for the quality of the oof area.......
Mar 16, 2021 at 09:57 PM
p.18 #10Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
gocolts wrote:
FYI- Precision Camera will let you place a preorder now with a $200 deposit...and for me that means no sales tax...
Precision has no sales tax? I haven't been to the one in Austin in ages.
FYI- Precision Camera will let you place a preorder now with a $200 deposit...and for me that means no sales tax...
Precision has no sales tax? I haven't been to the one in Austin in ages.
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:25 PM
|
p.18 #11Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Wow, those photos look great. Very impressive demonstration of this lens.
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Wow, those photos look great. Very impressive demonstration of this lens.
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:27 PM
p.18 #12Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
I just watched the video and then looked at his images in the link. I really like what I’m seeing. A LOT.
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:33 PM
p.18 #13Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Holger wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.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.
Edited on Mar 16, 2021 at 10:57 PM · View previous versions
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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.
Edited on Mar 16, 2021 at 10:57 PM · View previous versions
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:45 PM
p.18 #14Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Buckeye2604 wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.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. 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.
Holger wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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 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.
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:57 PM
p.18 #15Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
DaveFP wrote:
50 images from Galer shot wide open:
Anyone else think the OOF areas look odd?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/albums/72157718647687843
Bokeh is personal preference of course but overall these look very impressive to me!
Mar 16, 2021 at 10:58 PM
p.18 #16Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Buckeye2604 wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.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.
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.
Holger wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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.
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.
Mar 17, 2021 at 01:10 AM
p.18 #17Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Holger wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.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.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.
Buckeye2604 wrote
Holger wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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 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.
Mar 17, 2021 at 01:30 AM
p.18 #18Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
BastianK wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.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.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...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
Holger wrote
Buckeye2604 wrote
Holger wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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 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.
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...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
Mar 17, 2021 at 01:46 AM
p.18 #19Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Fred Miranda wrote:
* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.I'm actually REALLY impressed with the vignetting. @ f1.4 it has less vignetting than the Sigma 40mm 1.4 and at f2 they are tied. I know not the same focal length but...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
Schlotkins wrote
j4nu wrote
I think I can live with heavy vignetting or focus breathing as I don't care too much for those but 2 things from lenstip review might affect overall picture quality imho:* rather unexpected astigmatism
* moustache distortion.
Not deal breakers, but something to keep in mind I think.
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
Mar 17, 2021 at 02:49 AM
p.18 #20Pre-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.
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.
Mar 17, 2021 at 03:26 AM