Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
p.19 #1Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
JVan_02 wrote:
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.
40 cm instead of the usual about 50 cm.
I think the Sigma 50 Art was focussing a bit closer, too, but I forgot the detailed values.
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.
40 cm instead of the usual about 50 cm.
I think the Sigma 50 Art was focussing a bit closer, too, but I forgot the detailed values.
Mar 17, 2021 at 04:04 AM
p.19 #2Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
@Holger 40 cm/0.17x is the AF MFD and corresponding reproduction ratio. The lens is allowed to focus closer manually apparently, but the specs aren't listed on Sony's site and the corresponding reproduction ratio.
This is actually better than the direct competition already, with both the RF and S 50 1.2s at 45cm in AF and MF. I'm mostly curious what the MF MFD is.
This is actually better than the direct competition already, with both the RF and S 50 1.2s at 45cm in AF and MF. I'm mostly curious what the MF MFD is.
Mar 17, 2021 at 04:09 AM
p.19 #3Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Holger wrote:
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.40 cm instead of the usual about 50 cm.
I think the Sigma 50 Art was focussing a bit closer, too, but I forgot the detailed values.
Are you sure? I thought 40cm was the AF close focussing distance (which is a bit better than the 45cm that 50s tend to have)
So if the MF MFD is closer, it's closer than 40cm...
JVan_02 wrote
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.
I think the Sigma 50 Art was focussing a bit closer, too, but I forgot the detailed values.
Are you sure? I thought 40cm was the AF close focussing distance (which is a bit better than the 45cm that 50s tend to have)
So if the MF MFD is closer, it's closer than 40cm...
Mar 17, 2021 at 04:24 AM
p.19 #4Pre-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 →
To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?
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 →
To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?
Mar 17, 2021 at 04:35 AM
p.19 #5Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
So... did anyone managed to find any comparisons to the ZA?
I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...
I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...
Mar 17, 2021 at 04:58 AM
p.19 #6Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
JVan_02 wrote:
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.
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one of the Batis speciality (in addition to aperture closing in close distances) is that in close focus mode the lens clears the vignetting almost compleatly (while maintaining superb resolution across the frame). The Close focus works very nicely with the Batis and it's quite possibly impossible to find another standardish lens outside of macro lenses where all the details would have worked out as nicely.
Edit: or do you mean that reproduction ratio kind of increases in MFD because of lens breathing ie. focal length changes when focused closer?
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.
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one of the Batis speciality (in addition to aperture closing in close distances) is that in close focus mode the lens clears the vignetting almost compleatly (while maintaining superb resolution across the frame). The Close focus works very nicely with the Batis and it's quite possibly impossible to find another standardish lens outside of macro lenses where all the details would have worked out as nicely.
Edit: or do you mean that reproduction ratio kind of increases in MFD because of lens breathing ie. focal length changes when focused closer?
Mar 17, 2021 at 05:01 AM
p.19 #7Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
derKoekje 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.To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first...Show more →
I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
BastianK wrote
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 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.
I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
Mar 17, 2021 at 05:14 AM
p.19 #8Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
BastianK wrote:
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.To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what...Show more →
Yep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...
derKoekje wrote
BastianK wrote
Holger wrote
Buckeye2604 wrote
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 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 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.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what...Show more →
Yep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...
Mar 17, 2021 at 05:27 AM
p.19 #9Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Kalainen wrote:
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one...Show more →
The Batis actually can focus to MFD with AF, and in my experience (not that I've used every lens) the 20/35/50 G/GM lenses are unique. (I make no claims about how unique this is overall.)
I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the MFD in AF so that the lens had a more accurate response in this use case, but again: impossible to know.
The only area where these Sony lenses fall short of the 40 CF is of course in the CF range on slower moving objects. Not only can the 40 actually focus at MFD, but by engaging the focus limiter response I have a much better success rate getting small flowers and insects to focus with my 40 CF than my 20 G... and this is at the AF MFD. Trying to manually focus on small flowers blowing in the wind with my 20 would be an effort in futility.
I guess the ideal approach would be a bit of a blend between the two: only allow for MFD at the discretion of the focus limiter, but determine the ideal point between AF accuracy and utility for most uses of the lens.
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one...Show more →
The Batis actually can focus to MFD with AF, and in my experience (not that I've used every lens) the 20/35/50 G/GM lenses are unique. (I make no claims about how unique this is overall.)
I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the MFD in AF so that the lens had a more accurate response in this use case, but again: impossible to know.
The only area where these Sony lenses fall short of the 40 CF is of course in the CF range on slower moving objects. Not only can the 40 actually focus at MFD, but by engaging the focus limiter response I have a much better success rate getting small flowers and insects to focus with my 40 CF than my 20 G... and this is at the AF MFD. Trying to manually focus on small flowers blowing in the wind with my 20 would be an effort in futility.
I guess the ideal approach would be a bit of a blend between the two: only allow for MFD at the discretion of the focus limiter, but determine the ideal point between AF accuracy and utility for most uses of the lens.
Mar 17, 2021 at 05:46 AM
p.19 #10Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
JVan_02 wrote:
The Batis actually can focus to MFD with AF, and in my experience (not that I've used every lens) the 20/35/50 G/GM lenses are unique. (I make no claims about how unique this is overall.)
I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the...Show more →
Yep, Sony has better motors for their lenses as they can do whatever they want with the E-mount design specs. They also have the incentive to invest into new innovations as they are not just selling the lenses, but a whole Sony Alpha system. So when it comes to tech specs related to E-mount, they will one way or another always have some sort of edge.
By the way and for fun, there's also the inverted aspect of the MFD: lenses that focuses over the infinity. It has been used as an aesthetic effect, for example check out Hiroshi Sugimotos work. So, forget the current bokeh nonsense as it is not the past infinity, when are we going to get lenses that can be out of focus over the otherside of the reality! Not seeing much of them from the big manufacturers yet,how boring...
Kalainen wrote
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one of the Batis speciality (in addition to aperture closing in close distances) is that in close focus mode the lens clears the vignetting almost compleatly (while maintaining superb resolution across the frame). The Close focus works very nicely with the Batis and it's quite possibly impossible to find another standardish lens outside of macro lenses where all the details would have worked out as nicely.I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the...Show more →
Yep, Sony has better motors for their lenses as they can do whatever they want with the E-mount design specs. They also have the incentive to invest into new innovations as they are not just selling the lenses, but a whole Sony Alpha system. So when it comes to tech specs related to E-mount, they will one way or another always have some sort of edge.
By the way and for fun, there's also the inverted aspect of the MFD: lenses that focuses over the infinity. It has been used as an aesthetic effect, for example check out Hiroshi Sugimotos work. So, forget the current bokeh nonsense as it is not the past infinity, when are we going to get lenses that can be out of focus over the otherside of the reality! Not seeing much of them from the big manufacturers yet,how boring...
Mar 17, 2021 at 06:32 AM
|
p.19 #11Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
Looking forward to Fred's comparison with 50ZA.
for the samples shots so far, looks like 50GM might has abit softer corners with wide aperture (vs 50ZA).
for the samples shots so far, looks like 50GM might has abit softer corners with wide aperture (vs 50ZA).
Mar 17, 2021 at 06:47 AM
p.19 #12Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
j4nu 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.To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviewsYep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV...Show more →
Yes, ridiculous indeed. I don't understand it, four generations of cameras and Sony still hasn't thought of adding an option to automatically select full mechanical shutter if shutter speed is above 1/500s... AFAIK most other cameras have this.
BastianK wrote
derKoekje wrote
BastianK wrote
Holger wrote
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.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 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.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV...Show more →
Yes, ridiculous indeed. I don't understand it, four generations of cameras and Sony still hasn't thought of adding an option to automatically select full mechanical shutter if shutter speed is above 1/500s... AFAIK most other cameras have this.
Mar 17, 2021 at 07:05 AM
p.19 #13Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
JVan_02 wrote:
The Batis actually can focus to MFD with AF, and in my experience (not that I've used every lens) the 20/35/50 G/GM lenses are unique. (I make no claims about how unique this is overall.)
I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the...Show more →
I would think that one would expect any 20mm lens to focus more quickly than any 40mm lens--less distance to move elements to achieve critical focus.
Kalainen wrote
I was under impression that most if not all AF lenses focus closer in MF mode. Why? Because AF requires lens elements to go back and forward to acguire critical focus. The AF focusing is limited when they reach close to MFD because the lens cannot move enough to make sure it has a critical focus. However, when put to MF user can move the lens elements in extreme position and can achieve closer MFD. As you still probablt have the might Batis 2/40 I should add that this is also true for the Batis. If I remember correctly, one of the Batis speciality (in addition to aperture closing in close distances) is that in close focus mode the lens clears the vignetting almost compleatly (while maintaining superb resolution across the frame). The Close focus works very nicely with the Batis and it's quite possibly impossible to find another standardish lens outside of macro lenses where all the details would have worked out as nicely.I think in use the Sony approach might be a bit superior to Zeiss' in terms of general usability. I say 'I think' because it's impossible to say how much first party knowledge Sony uses in leveraging their lenses for AF, but I have much better response from my 20 G than my Batis 40 at near MFD with moving subjects. I'm assuming Sony restricted the...Show more →
I would think that one would expect any 20mm lens to focus more quickly than any 40mm lens--less distance to move elements to achieve critical focus.
Mar 17, 2021 at 07:07 AM
p.19 #14Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
keepcoding wrote:
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.To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviewsYep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...Yes, ridiculous indeed. I don't understand it, four generations of cameras and Sony still hasn't thought of adding an option to automatically select full mechanical shutter if shutter speed is above 1/500s... AFAIK most other cameras have this.
FWIW, Mark Galer doesn't think the EFCS issues at high speed/large aperture are worth worrying about.
Edited on Mar 17, 2021 at 07:17 AM · View previous versions
j4nu wrote
BastianK wrote
derKoekje wrote
BastianK wrote
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.
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.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...
FWIW, Mark Galer doesn't think the EFCS issues at high speed/large aperture are worth worrying about.
Edited on Mar 17, 2021 at 07:17 AM · View previous versions
Mar 17, 2021 at 07:08 AM
p.19 #15Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
chiron wrote:
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.To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviewsYep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...Yes, ridiculous indeed. I don't understand it, four generations of cameras and Sony still hasn't thought of adding an option to automatically select full mechanical shutter if shutter speed is above 1/500s... AFAIK most other cameras have this.FWIW, Mark Galer doesn't think the EFCS issues at high speed/large aperture is worth worrying about.
I've seen plenty of issues with EFCS, including cropped bokeh balls and uneven illumination (top part is brigher than the bottom part of the image). At this point I am pretty much done with EFCS and use mechanical shutter all the time.
keepcoding wrote
j4nu wrote
BastianK wrote
derKoekje wrote
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.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...
I've seen plenty of issues with EFCS, including cropped bokeh balls and uneven illumination (top part is brigher than the bottom part of the image). At this point I am pretty much done with EFCS and use mechanical shutter all the time.
Mar 17, 2021 at 07:10 AM
p.19 #16Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
j4nu wrote:
So... did anyone managed to find any comparisons to the ZA?
I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...
He has a website with comparisons
https://www.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm-video-review-and-comparison-samples/
So... did anyone managed to find any comparisons to the ZA?
I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...
He has a website with comparisons
https://www.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm-video-review-and-comparison-samples/
Mar 17, 2021 at 08:22 AM
p.19 #17Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
keepcoding wrote:
I trust anyone who discloses his testing, which is not true for many unfortunately.
My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviewsYep, that lenstip sample is 100% EFCS.
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...Yes, ridiculous indeed. I don't understand it, four generations of cameras and Sony still hasn't thought of adding an option to automatically select full mechanical shutter if shutter speed is above 1/500s... AFAIK most other cameras have this.FWIW, Mark Galer doesn't think the EFCS issues at high speed/large aperture is worth worrying about.I've seen plenty of issues with EFCS, including cropped bokeh balls and uneven illumination (top part is brigher than the bottom part of the image). At this point I am pretty much done with EFCS and use mechanical shutter all the time.
I know I had some issues with EFCS engaged when shooting at 1.4 and high shutter speeds with my 85mm 1.4 DG DN. Mostly some strange artifacts and some shading in the out of focus areas. Now I turn it off at higher shutter speeds.
chiron wrote
keepcoding wrote
j4nu wrote
BastianK wrote
derKoekje wrote
To be fair Bastian I think most reviewers are using the A1 with electronic shutter so I don’t think EFCS is much of a factor with this lens’ reviews at least. And come on. Disclosing distances? If you’re used to a focal length like the reviewer you are then I’m sure you’ll have a pretty decent guess to the distance the subject is from the camera. I know you’re critical but I feel this is just shorthand for: I don’t trust anyone but myself. Which is fine but why be interested in the samples and early discussion in the first place?My point about vignetting was mainly: when you compare values from different sources or even derived from different cameras you are most likely comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, I am 99% sure I see EFCS artefacts in most of the Lenstip samples, especially this one:
https://pliki.optyczne.pl/son50GM/son50_fot23.jpg
And 85% sure this "official Sony sample" shows it too:
https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/lens/SEL50F12GM/#post-1697
And no, no matter how good a reviewer you are, with a plain white image where you only see the shading
you can not tell at what distance it was taken.
I still don't know at what distance lenstip is checking, but as I got the same exact values out of the same sample of the same lens I guess it is infinity
PS: I am genuinely interested in the bokeh rendering of the GM 50mm 1.2, so I think I am allowed to look at the early reviews
I find the whole EFCS situation in Sony-land quite ridiculous. Even seasoned testers forget about its effect with high shutter speeds, the same way I do when the light changes and I'm shooting at wide apertures.
I'm also not really thrilled with the approach Sony has taken to this "problem" with A7c and A1. In the latter case (and in my planned usage luckily), you could argue you don't really run into the issue as you can stay in full electronic for most (if not) all the time. I wonder though how the future A7IV and A7RV will fare with slower sensor readout and no full mechanical shutter option...
I know I had some issues with EFCS engaged when shooting at 1.4 and high shutter speeds with my 85mm 1.4 DG DN. Mostly some strange artifacts and some shading in the out of focus areas. Now I turn it off at higher shutter speeds.
Mar 17, 2021 at 08:32 AM
p.19 #19Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
This guy (german review) has some RAWs comparing the 1.2 with the ZA and the 55/1.8 (link in the comments section).
Mar 17, 2021 at 08:42 AM
p.19 #20Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998)
swldstn wrote:
I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...He has a website with comparisons
https://www.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm-video-review-and-comparison-samples/
Thanks, missed that.
A first, quick look and an interesting observation right away:
j4nu wrote
So... did anyone managed to find any comparisons to the ZA?I thought this would be the one:
but seems he got a botched copy of the Zeiss...
https://www.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm-video-review-and-comparison-samples/
Thanks, missed that.
A first, quick look and an interesting observation right away:
Mar 17, 2021 at 08:51 AM