p.8 #1 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Fascinating how much time some people have to troll without any frame of reference or useful information.
Hide button press…
As this thread makes clear, Sony and the Sony-Zeiss collaboration both have made some outstanding lenses. It is not a question of good or bad but which lens or style is ideal for x or y. Neither is a slouch. Great “problem” to have for photographers.
p.8 #8 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
fotografur wrote:
And 50
The 50 GM quickly became one of my favorite lenses. I love the look, "pop",I get from it. It very much reminds me of my Canon days and the 50 1.2L but SHARPER!
That's the issue with discussing this topic ... We really be should exchanging photos with limited comments, not the other way around.
Anyways, I used to think that 3D effect / pop / depth is the same thing and basically Zeiss lenses provide more of that in general. Then, I've read comments that at some point it becomes a "cardboard" effect and is not desirable any more ...
p.8 #12 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
j4nu wrote:
That's the issue with discussing this topic ... We really be should exchanging photos with limited comments, not the other way around.
Anyways, I used to think that 3D effect / pop / depth is the same thing and basically Zeiss lenses provide more of that in general. Then, I've read comments that at some point it becomes a "cardboard" effect and is not desirable any more ...
p.8 #14 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
DaveFP wrote:
I think it is ok to discuss as long as we remember that it is all somewhat subjective.
To me:
3M = pop - cardboard cutout effect - 2 distinct planes; 1 superimposed on the other - graphical
ZA = depth - modeling - subtle tonal gradations - no distinct sense of planes - a sense that one could fall into the picture or reach into the scene.
Both types of rendering work; depends on what you want.
On occasion I do find that the cutout look distracting.
You describe it very nicely, and in your words, one can say that Zeiss lenses overall have a lot of depth, even at smaller apertures and focussing farther away, the depth in the images is what attracts me. It brings life to the images. But of course it is very subjective.
I don't like what you call the cardboard cutout effect personally.
p.8 #15 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Personally I think the depth and pop you see in some images and not others using the same lens has more to do with the lighting, actual image, background and angle used. YMMV
p.8 #16 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
I rented the 50mm ZA a couple of years ago and wasn't particularly impressed by the rendering or "pop". (not to mention the relatively slow and noisy AF)
When I see pictures from the 50GM, some have a rendering that I really like and that I'm not getting with any of my other lenses (70-200 GMII, 35GM, Tamron 28-75 G2). Tempting.
p.8 #17 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
Fboss wrote:
I rented the 50mm ZA a couple of years ago and wasn't particularly impressed by the rendering or "pop". (not to mention the relatively slow and noisy AF)
When I see pictures from the 50GM, some have a rendering that I really like and that I'm not getting with any of my other lenses (70-200 GMII, 35GM, Tamron 28-75 G2). Tempting.
I had similar impressions during my time with the ZA. Compared to Batis 40 for example (which is pure Zeiss I hope), the colors and contrast never stood out in the same fashion IMHO. I'd call the ZA less Zeissy in that regard...
p.8 #19 · Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
I find the 50 GM fantastic. Sharp, nice rendering, fast AF, minimal flares, possibility of nice pop or three dimensionality (depends on light, background, aperture). Still have the 50ZA and 55/1.8. I prefer the GM over all others and the 55/1.8 over the 50ZA. 50ZA is only for back-up.
Very highly corrected lenses ( high level of contrast and micro contrast) can display both Depth and Pop/3D/Cutoff effect.
If I understand what you wrote correctly, I think confusion may come about on the forums where some categorize pop or cutout or what you wrote "like a separate image than has been glued to the background." as a negative and like you wrote "depth is more about the subtle tones that provide a sense of shape" as a positive, when in reality Both can be signs of an optimal lens.
"Very highly corrected lenses like the ZEISS Otus line quickly reach peak performance. This allows shooting at wider apertures such as f/1.4 or f/2 or f/2.8 with incredible “pop” or “snap”. When set against a blurred background, the perceived sharpness is even higher because in-focus areas have wonderful micro contrast juxtaposed against blur—the image appears to pop out of the background like a 3D cutout." — Lloyd Chambers
A very good discussion IMO and plenty of details and illustrations to back up Llyod's points.
Also a good reference how to determine MTF "measured" contrast and micro-contrast:
-"Micro contrastrefers to contrast of very fine details, such as 40 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). Modern sensors have resolution well over 100 lp/mm, so 40 lp/mm is a proxy for what happens with greater resolution.
-Overall contrastrefers to contrast of coarse structures, generally taken as 10 lp/mm but also medium structures, generally taken as 20 lp/mm."
Sony MTFs do not account for diffraction and are said to be computer generated so we need to look for an additional source to judge Sony lenses.
I've been looking for a direct comparison ( which can take some discipline) of same subject/same lighting, same background blur, side by side test shots between the GM and the FE/Zeiss to better understand any differences in contrast/micro contrast. I own the FE-Zeiss 50 and as soon as I get my hands on the GM I will. Until then, if someone has a good reference as described above please post images or url reference.
.
... We really be should exchanging photos with limited comments, not the other way around.
...