Sorry for disrupting the image thread, but since there already is some discussion going on here...
how would you (lucky owners ) rate the background rendering smoothness of the GM? I mean those specific FM transition zone torture tests where you focus on something not too close / a few (3-4) meters away with busy background like grass, branches, foliage, etc. I'm wondering if the exceptional sharpness (if tests are to be believed) impacts negatively that smothness or is it on par or even better than ZA...
I don't have experience with the 50ZA, but from I initial tests I think the 85GM has better bokeh overall when both are wide open. The 85GM is far less sharp as well though.
It's still early days with the 50GM though, so that impression may change.
sidaths wrote:
I don't have experience with the 50ZA, but from I initial tests I think the 85GM has better bokeh overall when both are wide open. The 85GM is far less sharp as well though.
It's still early days with the 50GM though, so that impression may change.
Thanks! Yes, I think 85GM is unbeatable when it comes smoothness .
The only differences I can tell without pixel-peeping at 100% between the ZA and GM are the colour rendition and distortion control, and in both areas I prefer ZA over GM.
For me GM wins at sharpness and well controlled CA but I probably wouldn't upgrade if I still own the ZA.
WanderingCloud wrote:
The only differences I can tell without pixel-peeping at 100% between the ZA and GM are the colour rendition and distortion control, and in both areas I prefer ZA over GM.
For me GM wins at sharpness and well controlled CA but I probably wouldn't upgrade if I still own the ZA.
ZA vs GM
Not really a usable comparison in my opinion. Different angle and distance, just look at the right side of the frame, e.g. he clock.
WanderingCloud wrote:
The only differences I can tell without pixel-peeping at 100% between the ZA and GM are the colour rendition and distortion control, and in both areas I prefer ZA over GM.
For me GM wins at sharpness and well controlled CA but I probably wouldn't upgrade if I still own the ZA.
ZA vs GM
I didn’t get on well with the ZA busy oof rendering. Nice to see a smoother less-busy blur in the background on the GM example.
It would be great to see some images out on the streets with the 50mm GM. So far the image upload efforts in this thread aren’t very insightful or helpful towards understanding the imaging performance of this lens. Pointing the lens at objects near the lens’ minimum focus distance is (imo) mostly trite, boring, and lazy. I am most eager to see the oof rendering when the lens is used to frame mid-distant subjects.
darbo wrote:
I didn’t get on well with the ZA busy oof rendering. Nice to see a smoother less-busy blur in the background on the GM example.
You're gonna stir a lot of people's pots by saying that ZA is busy . I agree though, that GM looks smoother here.
... I also think criticizing people for the type of pictures they post is a bit over the line...
I also take a lot of close-up pictures when I get a new lens .
j4nu wrote:
You're gonna stir a lot of people's pots by saying that ZA is busy . I agree though, that GM looks smoother here.
... I also think criticizing people for the type of pictures they post is a bit over the line...
I also take a lot of close-up pictures when I get a new lens .
I probably am indeed out of line being critical regarding the abundance of mfd photos. This may be my first ever criticism I’ve ever made about photos posted in this forum. Sincere apologies everyone...I let my impatience for seeing helpful-to-me images overrule my usual reticence to be critical. I promise that transgression will be my last in this thread.
My reason for critcizing mfd photo posts is that nearly any lens has the appearance of a nice smooth oof rendering when focusing close. The ZA oof looks good in the above example, but I did not like how it handled background foilage when shooting mid-distant images.
Have you ordered this lens? I just purchased the 24mm GM and am hopeful that this 50GM might be a good pairing to it.
j4nu wrote:
You're gonna stir a lot of people's pots by saying that ZA is busy . I agree though, that GM looks smoother here.
Really? I always thought it Was consensus that the ZA is a high-contrast lens with a matching background.
Had it for a few weeks, but found it quite soft and barely usable in the midzone-dip-region, must have been a weak copy. Still, the background was busy, I would compare it to my Batis 85.
So, let's wait a few years for nice(r) used prices of the GM (ouch). Or a sigma.
darbo wrote:
I probably am indeed out of line being critical regarding the abundance of mfd photos. This may be my first ever criticism I’ve ever made about photos posted in this forum. Sincere apologies everyone...I let my impatience for seeing helpful-to-me images overrule my usual reticence to be critical. I promise that transgression will be my last in this thread.
My reason for critcizing mfd photo posts is that nearly any lens has the appearance of a nice smooth oof rendering when focusing close. The ZA oof looks good in the above example, but I did not like how it handled background foilage when shooting mid-distant images.
Have you ordered this lens? I just purchased the 24mm GM and am hopeful that this 50GM might be a good pairing to it. ...Show more →
I think I have managed to let go of my GAS in this case (following Julia's advice) as I still have the ZA. I'll try to take some background foliage-busy shots to see if it's indeed too contrasty.
Ummon wrote:
Really? I always thought it Was consensus that the ZA is a high-contrast lens with a matching background.
Had it for a few weeks, but found it quite soft and barely usable in the midzone-dip-region, must have been a weak copy. Still, the background was busy, I would compare it to my Batis 85.
So, let's wait a few years for nice(r) used prices of the GM (ouch). Or a sigma.
I don't want to derail this thread anymore, but my biggest issue with ZA was the AF (as I shoot my kids mostly), I rarely if ever run into mid-frame dip issue (and general sharpness is very high). I simply rarely shoot the way to notice it, but I'll try to do some FM-like test for it eventually.
Anyways, my AF issues were greatly reduced when I switched to a new body. We can continue this discussion in the ZA thread if needed I guess .
) rate the background rendering smoothness of the GM? I mean those specific FM transition zone torture tests 
where you focus on something not too close / a few (3-4) meters away with busy background like grass, branches, foliage, etc. I'm wondering if the exceptional sharpness (if tests are to be believed) impacts negatively that smothness or is it on par or even better than ZA...
. I agree though, that GM looks smoother here.