"The Sony [FE 50 F1.4] is phenomenally good in the center; just absolutely superb. From a resolution standpoint it is clearly better than the Otus in the center, and just as good as the Otus away from the center as well. There is a little sag of the Sony’s MTF halfway to the center but then improvement out to the edges."
p.2 #2 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
I have both Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZA and Sony GM 50/1.2 and I like them both.
Sony excells in overall sharpness and virtual lack of any kind of aberrations,whereas Zeiss has more favourable colours and higher microcontrast stopped down.
p.2 #3 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Peire wrote:
I have both Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZA and Sony GM 50/1.2 and I like them both.
Sony excells in overall sharpness and virtual lack of any kind of aberrations,whereas Zeiss has more favourable colours and higher microcontrast stopped down.
Would you mind saying how you rate them?
Do you think they are different enough to warrant an "upgrade" from ZA?
p.2 #4 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
j4nu wrote:
Would you mind saying how you rate them?
Do you think they are different enough to warrant an "upgrade" from ZA?
Well.It is not an easy question and comes down to personal preferences.Both are great lenses on their own and I will keep both.
In pure technical terms Sony is clearly superior,though not by a large margin.On the other hand for someone like me Zeiss colours and microcontrast are more important than slight differences in sharpness.
p.2 #5 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Peire wrote:
Well.It is not an easy question and comes down to personal preferences.Both are great lenses on their own and I will keep both.
In pure technical terms Sony is clearly superior,though not by a large margin.On the other hand for someone like me Zeiss colours and microcontrast are more important than slight differences in sharpness.
Thanks! Sure, I also think it's very subjective at this high level of quality glass .
"The Sony [FE 50 F1.4] is phenomenally good in the center; just absolutely superb. From a resolution standpoint it is clearly better than the Otus in the center, and just as good as the Otus away from the center as well. There is a little sag of the Sony’s MTF halfway to the center but then improvement out to the edges."
I’ve owned, and loved, the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Favorite lens of all time. Gorgeous color, contrast, and oof rendering.
I’ve also owned, and not liked, the Sony 50mm 1.4 ZA. If I was taking pictures of test charts, sure, the ZA looks super. There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.
The 50GM rendering is looking much more promising to me - I hope it can finally satisfy my craving for an 55mm Otus-quality rendering in an AF FE-mount lens. The Otus seems to liquify oof areas - like a watercolor painting - and I’m seeing the same look repeatedly in the 50GM image thread. I like that very much!
p.2 #7 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
darbo wrote:
I’ve owned, and loved, the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Favorite lens of all time. Gorgeous color, contrast, and oof rendering.
I’ve also owned, and not liked, the Sony 50mm 1.4 ZA. If I was taking pictures of test charts, sure, the ZA looks super. There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.
The 50GM rendering is looking much more promising to me - I hope it can finally satisfy my craving for an 55mm Otus-quality rendering in an AF FE-mount lens. The Otus seems to liquify oof areas - like a watercolor painting - and I’m seeing the same look repeatedly in the 50GM image thread. I like that very much! ...Show more →
Does ZA really have busy oof rendering? I've never really noticed it but I also have never really compared it to other fast 50... I think Nokton is a bit smoother but the difference is not dramatic.
p.2 #8 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
darbo wrote:
I’ve owned, and loved, the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Favorite lens of all time. Gorgeous color, contrast, and oof rendering.
I’ve also owned, and not liked, the Sony 50mm 1.4 ZA. If I was taking pictures of test charts, sure, the ZA looks super. There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.
The 50GM rendering is looking much more promising to me - I hope it can finally satisfy my craving for an 55mm Otus-quality rendering in an AF FE-mount lens. The Otus seems to liquify oof areas - like a watercolor painting - and I’m seeing the same look repeatedly in the 50GM image thread. I like that very much! ...Show more →
The Sony 50 1.4 has always been one of my favorite IQ lenes. Seems its a very popular IQ lens overall. Some of us still call it awesome. I like to use it for street/event portraits right at 1,4. I’ve never noticed nervous/harsh rendering, but I’ve never compared to the Otus 55.
p.2 #9 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Peire wrote:
I have both Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZA and Sony GM 50/1.2 and I like them both.
Sony excells in overall sharpness and virtual lack of any kind of aberrations,whereas Zeiss has more favourable colours and higher microcontrast stopped down.
Would be great if you have a chance to post a few wide open compare images. Gratias tibi
p.2 #10 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
j4nu wrote:
Does ZA really have busy oof rendering? I've never really noticed it but I also have never really compared it to other fast 50... I think Nokton is a bit smoother but the difference is not dramatic.
I didn’t like the way it renders oof vegetation. Or, at least I’ll put it this way: the Otus 55mm and (from what I’ve seen thus far) the 50GM renders oof vegetation more smoothly.
Look this is all 100% down to personal preference and nothing more. If you own a 50ZA and like it or don’t see anything better in the 50GM, then it makes absolutely no sense to switch imo. I don’t want to trigger anyone questioning their own preferences, I’m just expressing mine.
LBJ2 wrote:
The Sony 50 1.4 has always been one of my favorite IQ lenes. Seems its a very popular IQ lens overall. Some of us still call it awesome. I like to use it for street/event portraits right at 1,4. I’ve never noticed nervous/harsh rendering, but I’ve never compared to the Otus 55.
The 50ZA has indeed won the FM Forum popularity contest and it’s great that you love it. You go right on calling it awesome.
p.2 #11 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
The FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA is one of the best 50mm I've ever owned. However, I didn't like the mid-zone dip wide open (where I usually place my subjects). It looks like the 50/1.2 GM fixed that in spades!
p.2 #12 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
j4nu wrote:
Does ZA really have busy oof rendering? I've never really noticed it but I also have never really compared it to other fast 50... I think Nokton is a bit smoother but the difference is not dramatic.
I have tried multiple times the ZA but never liked it, despite its popularity:
Colors are beautiful indeed
But rendering is much better with my nokton 1.2 and OOF much smoother on my sigma ART;
Transition zone on the sigma could be deeper though.
AF accuracy has never been on par with the sigma (especially eye af wide open) on my different bodies.
CA is on the same level as the others. so not better
Sharpness is of course the best in the corner for the ZA... but in mid field, my two others 50s are much better. In center, I could not really find a difference between the 3.
The thing is wide open the ZA is soft, but not with this special SA rendering of the Nokton. And I much prefer the latter overall optical qualities, despite its corners weakness
p.2 #13 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Of course, the new GM won't have the nokton special look wide open, but if the GM is as sharp as the sigma, with better correction, and a smoother transition zone... well I won't resist a long time.
Hopefully sigma will release a new 50 1.4 DG DN someday
p.2 #14 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
LBJ2 wrote:
Would be great if you have a chance to post a few wide open compare images. Gratias tibi
I will soon post some recently done GM 50/1.2 pictures,wide open included.There are also a few 50/1.4 Zeiss ZA pictures of mine in the ZA 50/1.4 Planar thread.Have!
p.2 #15 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
liggy wrote:
I have zero fast FE lenses in the bag and I love the 50mm focal length. Both seem to deliver fantastic images. No need for video.
The 1.4 used looks like a way better financial choice and is far more capable than me as a photographer but I’ve decided to preorder the 1.2
Buy once, cry once. If the 1.4 was significantly lighter / smaller that might have made a difference but I’m not seeing a downside to the 1.2
Just stumbled upon this. Personally I really don’t care *that* much for MTF charts but if you like them you’ll like this. Roger Cicala directly compares the Zony and the 1.2 in this article.
p.2 #16 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Thanks for your detailed reply!
Do you have any samples comparing the mentione lenses?
I remember looking at Fred's comparison between the Nokton and ZA and the difference in smoothness wasn't that big imho. Maybe I got the wrong impression though...
hesb wrote:
I have tried multiple times the ZA but never liked it, despite its popularity:
Colors are beautiful indeed
But rendering is much better with my nokton 1.2 and OOF much smoother on my sigma ART;
Transition zone on the sigma could be deeper though.
AF accuracy has never been on par with the sigma (especially eye af wide open) on my different bodies.
CA is on the same level as the others. so not better
Sharpness is of course the best in the corner for the ZA... but in mid field, my two others 50s are much better. In center, I could not really find a difference between the 3.
The thing is wide open the ZA is soft, but not with this special SA rendering of the Nokton. And I much prefer the latter overall optical qualities, despite its corners weakness...Show more →
p.2 #17 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Well about the rendering comparison between the nokton and the ZA, I think fred's samples give a really good idea.
When I make a comparison I usually delete all the files after, because it takes to much place in my computer!
The funny thing is background blur looks quite similar between the nokton and the sigma, but, the transition is more progressive with the nokton.
I would not say that the zeiss is harsh, it is just different. It is a bit like the APO voigtlander. Not the smoothest rendering, but it still looks good. (when the subject is in focus...)
Don't forget though that we are comparing three really good lenses...
and the difference is a bit bigger than I remembered... hesb wrote:
Well about the rendering comparison between the nokton and the ZA, I think fred's samples give a really good idea.
When I make a comparison I usually delete all the files after, because it takes to much place in my computer!
The funny thing is background blur looks quite similar between the nokton and the sigma, but, the transition is more progressive with the nokton.
I would not say that the zeiss is harsh, it is just different. It is a bit like the APO voigtlander. Not the smoothest rendering, but it still looks good. (when the subject is in focus...)
Don't forget though that we are comparing three really good lenses......Show more →
p.2 #19 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
hesb wrote:
I have tried multiple times the ZA but never liked it, despite its popularity:
Colors are beautiful indeed
But rendering is much better with my nokton 1.2 and OOF much smoother on my sigma ART;
Transition zone on the sigma could be deeper though.
AF accuracy has never been on par with the sigma (especially eye af wide open) on my different bodies.
CA is on the same level as the others. so not better
Sharpness is of course the best in the corner for the ZA... but in mid field, my two others 50s are much better. In center, I could not really find a difference between the 3.
The thing is wide open the ZA is soft, but not with this special SA rendering of the Nokton. And I much prefer the latter overall optical qualities, despite its corners weakness...Show more →
Soft? I don't think so. I think the ZA wide open is very good and sometimes I use it for landscape shots (also for large-format prints) in daylight at f1.4 (because of the special image impression it can create).
I could never really see the midzone dip on my copy.
Here is the comparison of Fred with the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/25#14840216
I'm also looking forward to the 50mm GM. I already liked the first sample pictures very much. The sharpness also seems to be very very good.
But I'm curious about the "3D capabilities" of the GM. Here the ZA is one of the best lenses ever. From my point of view, this has little to do with the bokeh quality in a technical sense. Lenses with poorer bokeh, such as the 35mm Loxia, can also produce extremely three-dimensional images. One of my most quoted examples of this speciality of the ZA is this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frankdavid67/27038903997/
From my point of view, the 3D kings are still the Loxia 35mm / ZA 35mm / Sigma 35mm f1.2, the ZA 50mm, the GM 85mm and the Canon 200mm f2 IS L and that is (for me) one of the most important criteria when buying lenses.
In the images thread of the new GM I can already see some very nice - in my opinion - "3D pictures". But I am really curious to see whether it will come close to the ZA in this (very subjective) category.
.
There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.