Chaliel wrote: DavidBM wrotemudlake wroteAll I wanted was a 50/1.4 GM at 500 grams and $1,300. This 1.2 will be bigger and more expensive which means a likely no buy. I’ll wait and see...yeah, I would personally have preferred a smaller, lighter, and even better version of the ZA1.4
But this lens probably makes more commercial sense, and I'm sure plenty will prefer it.F1.8 and GM optics.
I really think bokeh and small DOF is largely over estimated at the moment.
Yup. I think if they had a trinity (or more) in the vein of the 35 FE, they'd clean up. Look how popular the "Fujicron" lenses are. All f/2, but they have solid IQ and are very compact.
Chaliel wrote: DavidBM wrotemudlake wroteAll I wanted was a 50/1.4 GM at 500 grams and $1,300. This 1.2 will be bigger and more expensive which means a likely no buy. I’ll wait and see...yeah, I would personally have preferred a smaller, lighter, and even better version of the ZA1.4
But this lens probably makes more commercial sense, and I'm sure plenty will prefer it.F1.8 and GM optics.
I really think bokeh and small DOF is largely over estimated at the moment.
Sigma already beat Sony on this with their Series I lenses.
DavidBM wrote: mudlake wroteAll I wanted was a 50/1.4 GM at 500 grams and $1,300. This 1.2 will be bigger and more expensive which means a likely no buy. I’ll wait and see...yeah, I would personally have preferred a smaller, lighter, and even better version of the ZA1.4
But this lens probably makes more commercial sense, and I'm sure plenty will prefer it.
Fred Miranda wrote: Chaliel wroteDavidBM wrotemudlake wroteAll I wanted was a 50/1.4 GM at 500 grams and $1,300. This 1.2 will be bigger and more expensive which means a likely no buy. I’ll wait and see...yeah, I would personally have preferred a smaller, lighter, and even better version of the ZA1.4
But this lens probably makes more commercial sense, and I'm sure plenty will prefer it.F1.8 and GM optics.
I really think bokeh and small DOF is largely over estimated at the moment.Sigma already beat Sony on this with their Series I lenses.
Do you think or know Sigma will make a 50-55mm also in their I Serie?
Be careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”
SoundHound wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”
According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.
Holger wrote: SoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.
Yeah. Partly, I think, to record good resolutions figures in the corners wide open, though why you would care is beyond me.
I think high optical vignetting can help give high corner resolution figures.
But a pleasing look into the corners is surely more important, corner to corner sharpness can wait a few f stops.
But it's a brave company that makes a nice looking 1.2/50 that gives bad numbers in the corners wide open in order to have a nice look.
Holger wrote: SoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.
I used to believe - or maybe rather hope? - that a higher diameter of a lens will yield less (optical) vignetting,
but I have been proven wrong about that more than once.
E.g. the Samyang 50mm 1.2 XP is hardly doing a better job here than the Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 E and same is true when comparing the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art with the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 III/SE.
So it remains to be seen, where we end up with this 50mm 1.2 GM.
DavidBM wrote: Holger wroteSoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.Yeah. Partly, I think, to record good resolutions figures in the corners wide open, though why you would care is beyond me.
I think high optical vignetting can help give high corner resolution figures.
But a pleasing look into the corners is surely more important, corner to corner sharpness can wait a few f stops.
But it's a brave company that makes a nice looking 1.2/50 that gives bad numbers in the corners wide open in order to have a nice look.
I Hope Sony is that company, but I doubt it.
I think there's a lot in this. A lens' aberrations come more from the edges of the glass than the centre - that's why stopping down, and thus only looking through the central part of the glass, can help sharpness on most lenses.
If the slightly aberrated (higher CA, lower contrast) light from the edges of the glass is simply dimmer than the sharply-focussed, well-corrected light from the centre, then the aberration is not so visible. In a sense, you're softly stopping down even when wide-open.
It might be described as a difference between, for example, the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and the Sony ZA f/1.4. The one doesn't weigh much more than the other. The Sony has little or no CA and a tiny tiny bit better sharpness, but far more vignetting than the Sigma.
The new and old Sigma 85 f/1.4s differ mainly in size, weight, and vignetting. The newer design being the tiniest bit sharper and aberration-free, too, perhaps thanks in part to that same vignetting? Though the optical performance of the old 85 was already at a very high level.
And all of these examples are flawed, there's a lot lot more going on in lens design, in these specific examples and in general, of which I am being recklessly ignorant. Still, I suspect that an added vignette is indeed a way to bring aberrations down, but am happy to learn more from anyone who can correct me.
Is this inherent? I think it's more a matter of precision and cost. To make a large set of lens elements, that is in sum wholly aberration-free without the commonly acceptable corner-cut of vignetting, must require very high standards of manufacturing indeed. The edges of a lens may have the strongest curvature and need to deflect the path of light the furthest from its original course, hence the edges of a lens are usually the hardest to figure perfectly and smoothly. The quality has risen a lot in the past decade but the cost of further progress might be prohibitive eventually.
"Big and heavy" in a lens body doesn't have to mean "low vignetting" - whether because of the near-unavoidable issue with wide-angle lenses on short-flange (mirrorless) mounts or, on both longer and shorter focal-length lenses, because some extra vignetting is a way to help make the lens sharp.
(Again, I apologise for waffling so much, I am ignorant of the subject really and just speculating more than I ought on a topic of no great importance)
The "high-vignetting, sharp, relatively small, relatively inexpensive" design is popular, hence even the older 50mm f/1.4 ZA - and the 55mm f/1.8 - which both go down that design route already, so yes, I'd have thought a possible Sony f/1.2, if the rumours are real, will also exhibit high vignetting in return for a smaller size and cost at a given quality. As someone who likes to do astrophotography I would prefer to have as high a true / usably "low vignette" aperture as possible, but I am a niche market, and should probably have bought the Sigma Art 1.4 already if I want that in 50mm (I imagined Sigma might one day make an f/1.2 that was even a little better than the f/1.4's slightly ageing design... but I'm less sure now - they have usually released first, and cheaper, than a subsequent Sony model, so their window in the market is narrowing a little with this news of a Sony f/1.2 beating them to it).
It took a while, but now they have certainly moved quickly to offer GM's in 35mm and 50mm. I have no use for a 50 1.2, but I kinda expected them to produce an f1.2 lens at some point. After all, almost everybody seems to have at least one in their line-up these days.
What's missing (other than updated versions of existing glass) from the GM line-up? The rumored UWA (16 1.8?) prime, a 100 2, 300 2.8, 500 4, and of course, that elusive 28 GM? Even if they finally got around to come up with a 200 2.8 or 300 4, you'd think those would get the G designation.
Yes, indeed a large heavy lens is no guarantee of low vignetting and hi IQ at the frame edges. However, a small light lens often guarantees the reverse. Consider FF tilt/shift lenses who’s huge image circle grossly over covers the format. When not tilted/shifted (or for FF lenses used on a crop sensor) vignetting and fuzzy edges are typically substantially attenuated.
300 and 500 GM variants are missing. The 28 I could see being a G. An 85 refresh with latest focusing/motor tech. The 16 was rumored but not confirmed. I always thought a longer macro would be nice, but niche. A couple wide angle tilt/shit lenses would be appreciated my some. Many avoid the 70-200 variants—so I could see updates needed there too. 24-70GM update? That’s about it though.
Chris_88 wrote:
It took a while, but now they have certainly moved quickly to offer GM's in 35mm and 50mm. I have no use for a 50 1.2, but I kinda expected them to produce an f1.2 lens at some point. After all, almost everybody seems to have at least one in their line-up these days.
What's missing (other than updated versions of existing glass) from the GM line-up? The rumored UWA (16 1.8?) prime, a 100 2, 300 2.8, 500 4, and of course, that elusive 28 GM? Even if they finally got around to come up with a 200 2.8 or 300 4, you'd think those would get the G designation. ...Show more →
If the weight of a 50/1.2 GM < CV50 + Loxia 85 and the LOCA and sharpness are equal or better at like-apertures I would consolidate those two lenses into the GM.
BastianK wrote: Holger wroteSoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.I used to believe - or maybe rather hope? - that a higher diameter of a lens will yield less (optical) vignetting,
but I have been proven wrong about that more than once.
E.g. the Samyang 50mm 1.2 XP is hardly doing a better job here than the Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 E and same is true when comparing the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art with the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 III/SE.
So it remains to be seen, where we end up with this 50mm 1.2 GM.
Yep, but then look at the vignetting even stopped down 2/3 of a stop... the difference is huge.
BastianK wrote: Holger wroteSoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.I used to believe - or maybe rather hope? - that a higher diameter of a lens will yield less (optical) vignetting,
but I have been proven wrong about that more than once.
E.g. the Samyang 50mm 1.2 XP is hardly doing a better job here than the Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 E and same is true when comparing the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art with the Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 III/SE.
So it remains to be seen, where we end up with this 50mm 1.2 GM.
I have noticed this myself across lenses and been curious about it for sometime. Do you know why? The 35i vignettes intensely, despite the moderate aperture and element size. I had anticipated it would be better.
DavidBM wrote: Holger wroteSoundHound wroteBe careful what you wish for. Fast lenses with minimum glass can weigh less but, typically vignette more or “It’s only F1.2 in the middle part of the lens.”According to opticallimits the RF50/1.2 has 3.24 stops of vignetting at f1.2 - and it is not a small lens.Yeah. Partly, I think, to record good resolutions figures in the corners wide open, though why you would care is beyond me.
I think high optical vignetting can help give high corner resolution figures.
But a pleasing look into the corners is surely more important, corner to corner sharpness can wait a few f stops.
But it's a brave company that makes a nice looking 1.2/50 that gives bad numbers in the corners wide open in order to have a nice look.
I Hope Sony is that company, but I doubt it.
This seems to be the new norm with modern lenses. Let vignetting get out of control in order to reduce the overall lens' size. I also doubt it will be any different with the upcoming 50/1.2 GM.
The advantage is not only in size but also higher resolution/contrast at the corners since optical vignetting causes a "step-down" effect off-axis. The disadvantage is noisier corners after correction and a non-uniform rendering, noticeable at certain distances, where the OOF background is smoother on-axis compared to off-axis.