p.3 #1 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
HelBen85 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Yes the ZA wide open is soft. So is the sigma, so is the nokton.
The nokton is softer, and has a special look.
In comparison to other 1.4 lenses: the Sigma 40mm 1.4 is not soft, the GM 35mm is not soft, and the Sigmas 85mm are not soft wide open.
I'm talking only about what I have had and used.
When I tried the ZA, I wanted to upgrade from my Sigma, I had hoped that it was on the same level as the Sigma 40 or 85, but it is not. definitely not!
p.3 #2 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
When Roger calls the 50ZA 'not awesome', he means that in the context of its MTF results, not necessarily how real world images look. Remember, Roger usually only tests lenses wide open, and extrapolating that to smaller apertures can be fraught (for example, his test showed the Sigma 28mm f1.4 as being sharper at f1.4 than the Otus 28mm, but other people's stopped-down tests showed the Otus was sharper from f1.8 on - yet I kept reading all over the net from then on that 'the Sigma was sharper than the Otus' - context people!).
I'd not seen the f5.6 MTF of the 50 ZA before; perhaps Roger did it just for his current article on DpReview, but I must say, it doesn't look very awesome to me either, yet I've always liked the images I've seen from the ZA.
Bokeh, like sharpness, is relative: I think what's going on here is that, for its time, the 50ZA was great, and that got deeply embedded in peoples heads, hence the surprise - even from Fred, when the CV50 f1.2 showed much smoother bokeh.
From what I've seen of the GM so far, its bokeh is smoother than the ZA as well - and that is supported by Roger's MTF; but the ZA still has its unique rendering qualities (and I'll always prefer the Zeiss T colours)
p.3 #3 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
hesb wrote:
Yes the ZA wide open is soft. So is the sigma, so is the nokton.
Quoting Roger's initial review of the ZA, from 2016:
"The Sony 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."
So I don't understand how we can say that the ZA is "soft"? If you're basing that on personal experience, maybe you had a bad copy?
If I'm interpreting the MTF charts correctly, I *think* the conclusion might be that the ZA is quite good wide open, except for the mid-zone dip, but that it doesn't sharpen up as much outside the center when stopped down?
p.3 #5 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
httivals wrote:
Interesting, very helpful article, by Roger Cicala. Thanks for the link. My question - why is the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 almost 1/2 lb. heavier than the Sony GM 50mm f1.2? . . . There's 15 elements vs. 14 for the Sony . . . Perhaps it's the different filter sizes 77mm vs. 72mm? Does that mean that the Sony likely vignettes significantly more? . . . Hhmm.
That's largely due to the multiple XA (extreme aspherical) lenses—a technology unique to Sony.
This avoided the need to increase the front lens size, and allowed them to thoroughly compensate for aberrations that arise in larger diameter lenses.
In particular, the XA optics contributes greatly to reducing the number of lens elements required in the front assembly, and also reducing its size and weight. Being able to use, in this position, a large-diameter aspherical lens with a manufacturing precision that only Sony can achieve was a huge advantage that underpins the whole optical design of the compact F1.2 lens.
p.3 #7 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
princeharbinger wrote:
While I'm happy with my preorder. I expected the purple graph to be above the 7. I also wish they would test the lenses stopped down.
That's a good observation. Looks like the original FE 50 F1.4 Lensrentals measurements marked just under 0.7 at 50 lp/mm. The GM 135 exceeded ( by a lot) The Batis 135 and both Loxias ,85 and 25 also exceeded and the Batis 18 barely under 0.7 as well. *The GM 24 oddly lower than expected.
p.3 #8 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Why not 0.8 ?
LBJ2 wrote:
That's a good observation. Looks like the original FE 50 F1.4 Lensrentals measurements marked just under 0.7 at 50 lp/mm. The GM 135 exceeded ( by a lot) The Batis 135 and both Loxias ,85 and 25 also exceeded and the Batis 18 barely under 0.7 as well. *The GM 24 oddly lower than expected.
p.3 #10 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
To be honest, I just can't translate XX lp/mm values to specific picture qualities.
I think I'd be hard pressed to tell apart center sharpness difference of ZA moderately stopped down in real life pictures...
p.3 #11 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
MrTMan wrote:
Quoting Roger's initial review of the ZA, from 2016:
"The Sony 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."
So I don't understand how we can say that the ZA is "soft"? If you're basing that on personal experience, maybe you had a bad copy?
If I'm interpreting the MTF charts correctly, I *think* the conclusion might be that the ZA is quite good wide open, except for the mid-zone dip, but that it doesn't sharpen up as much outside the center when stopped down?...Show more →
I always base on personal experience, with two different copies... and according to other sources, I am not the "only" one that feels that the ZA is not "That" good wide open...
p.3 #12 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
So, according to this site ZA has sharper midfield then center wide open?
No, thanks .
hesb wrote:
I always base on personal experience, with two different copies... and according to other sources, I am not the "only" one that feels that the ZA is not "That" good wide open...
p.3 #13 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
j4nu wrote:
To be honest, I just can't translate XX lp/mm values to specific picture qualities.
I think I'd be hard pressed to tell apart center sharpness difference of ZA moderately stopped down in real life pictures...
p.3 #14 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
LBJ2 wrote:
That's a good observation. Looks like the original FE 50 F1.4 Lensrentals measurements marked just under 0.7 at 50 lp/mm. The GM 135 exceeded ( by a lot) The Batis 135 and both Loxias ,85 and 25 also exceeded and the Batis 18 barely under 0.7 as well.
The 135mm GM is the most impressive. Hopefully, by 2022 we'll see a 85mm F/1.2 GM with equal measurements. Zeiss hasn't been the same since they lost their best engineer.
p.3 #15 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
hesb wrote:
I always base on personal experience, with two different copies... and according to other sources, I am not the "only" one that feels that the ZA is not "That" good wide open...
I don't doubt your experience. But for what it's worth, mine is laser sharp in the center. It's not impossible that you tried two bad copies, it's an older lens from back when Sony was still having significant issues with sample variation.
p.3 #16 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
MrTMan wrote:
I don't doubt your experience. But for what it's worth, mine is laser sharp in the center. It's not impossible that you tried two bad copies, it's an older lens from back when Sony was still having significant issues with sample variation.
You might be right! my first copy was really decentered... the second was good, but still not as good as my sigma. Anyway, it is not really important, and this thread is more about the GM, which looks to be "really" good even wide open.
p.3 #17 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
So for good or bad I've taken the plunge. Hopefully my new FE 50mm f/1.2 GM will arrive at the end of the week. I also just sold both my 55/1.8 and 50/1.4 ZA lenses to fund it. Having both, one for its small size and one for its image quality was just a waste since I never ended up using the smaller 55/1.8 after a while.
Three things influenced me to switch over without being able to afford doing a direct comparison to the new GM. Expected focus speed improvement, ergonomics that will make it feel just like my other GM lenses (something I personally value) and the performance of both my 35/1.4 GM (which I have now had for three weeks) and my 135/1.8 GM.
Hopefully I won't regret the change and will enjoy the new lens. If not I will have to scour the forum so another excellent ZA and move back. I hope that won't happen. Admit I have always been a Zeiss fan but we will see.
p.3 #18 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
princeharbinger wrote:
The 135mm GM is the most impressive. Hopefully, by 2022 we'll see a 85mm F/1.2 GM with equal measurements. Zeiss hasn't been the same since they lost their best engineer.
I know the Sony 100/ 1.4 rumor has been resurrected again after some years of hibernation, but I also think a GM 85 1.2 could be imminent too. But then again, my Sony Emount predictions have never exceeded more than about zero percent. Ha !
p.3 #19 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
LBJ2 wrote:
I know the Sony 100/ 1.4 rumor has been resurrected again after some years of hibernation, but I also think a GM 85 1.2 could be imminent too. But then again, my Sony Emount predictions have never exceeded more than about zero percent. Ha !
The FE 85mm f/1.2 GM is more of wish than a rumor. :-)
Just like they did with the new 50/1.2, Sony could possibly make a 85/1.2 with the same size/weight of the current 85/1.4 or perhaps they could take the same path from the FE 35/1.4 GM and make a smaller 85mm f/1.4 lens. I would prefer the latter with fast AF and same rendering as the predecessor, but I can see how many would prefer a f/1.2 version.
p.3 #20 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Great, I got a email stating that it's on backorder. Pretty bogus when I preordered it early last month. Having to wait until September is unacceptable. If they knew they were going to be short with supply they should have waited until they had enough.
)
.