Grenache wrote:
Indeed. “Decentered” is probably >98% of the time a photographer who doesn’t know what they are doing. That is happening less these days with eye-AF being so good. It amazes me that I can buy 70 year old lenses that are always good performers yet so many people - it used to be almost exclusively wedding photographers - seemed only to purchase decentered modern lenses.
My 50GM is witheringly sharp across the frame, even wide open. Same with the 35, 135, and 100-400…all immaculately engineered lenses. The 24 GM is not sharp across the frame until about f/4, but it is not soft either…and one should not expect wide open perfection at 24mm.
The 50GM is probably my favorite lens ever, and I have owned a lot of lenses from nearly every brand there is.
I lost count of the number of times I have seen people post 100% crops of a blurry eye who complain about their lens being “soft,” who then post the full image - when asked, - and you see perfectly sharp hair (or background), and they just missed focus.
People complaining about decentering often show an image wherein the left and right sides of the image are obviously in different planes, or the camera is not perpendicular to the scene. Indeed, evaluating centering of a lens actually requires a real test.
In ~30 years of shooting, I have only had two lenses that appeared to be decentered, one was a Samyang 85, which was so bad, it looked like a tilt-shift lens, fully tilted, and a 1950s Leica that a prior owner had forced the moving lens group off axis somehow…repaired and now is flawless.
Chronic decentering in reputable manufacturers is just not a thing. It is internet mythology and inexperienced users.
I think you’re going a bit too far. There are certainly some users here who know what they are doing. I’d say more than the 5% you estimate. But it does seem odd. Since 2019 I’ve bought the 14GM twice, 20G, 24GM, 35GM, 50/1.2 and 1.4 GM, 135GM, 12-24GM, 24-70GMII, 70-200GMII, 100-400GM twice because I sold it once. I test my lenses at the store before I ultimately buy them. It’s a local store in Germany. Only the 14GM out of those lenses had a problem, it showed a defect after a couple days, and the store let me exchange it.
Like I said, maybe it does make a difference if you buy online or local. I never buy online if possible. I think especially those who hunt for great deals online might see a higher number of not so good lenses. There definitely is some variation in lenses, even Sony GM. The field curvature often varies a bit. But the reports of people who „went through“ 5 or 7 different 12-24GMs, or a handful of 50/1.2GMs just seem odd from my perspective as a German customer.
zeitlos wrote:
For almost everyone else (or at least a lot, myself included), I would probably agree. But I don't know if it's wise to put FM in that category.
lensfan wrote:
This lens really loves mechanical shutter, especially at 1.2.
Thanks. So there was no mechanical shutter used in my shot? I didn‘t realize this. I don‘t even know where to active/didacticism it. Or is it being done automatically? How does it differ in terms of image quality then?
zeitlos wrote:
Thanks. So there was no mechanical shutter used in my shot? I didn‘t realize this. I don‘t even know where to active/didacticism it. Or is it being done automatically? How does it differ in terms of image quality then?
Here goes explanation how it works: https://photographylife.com/mechanical-electronic-shutter-efcs
Electronic shutter/EFCS tends to degrade the bokeh/out-of-focus, especially in bright light/high aperture.
To be precise, EFCS negatively affects bokeh (cut-off bokeh balls) at high shutter speeds (generaly speaking starting from 1/1000s but the effect becomes visible at even higher SS). Electronic shutter is not affected.
fotografur wrote:
You can tell this was not mechanical shutter?
I'm not sure I can but bokeh is on the busier side to my eye. I shoot this lens almost exclusively at 1.2. Would be interesting if zeitlos could confirm.
Robin Smith wrote:
I didn't know lenses could love shutters since they interact after the light has passed through them. Perhaps it's some kind of quantum effect...
With this lens I have the most noticeable effects from EFCS used in bright light and artifacts from electronic shutter under artificial light. Never realized this is such an issue using 35GM almost exclusively at 1.4.
lensfan wrote:
I'm not sure I can but bokeh is on the busier side to my eye. I shoot this lens almost exclusively at 1.2. Would be interesting if zeitlos could confirm.
I only found one entry for the electronic shutter in the menu of the Sony A7III and it said "off".
I don't know because I've never dealt with it, but I think you have to activate the electronic shutter manually, don't you? At least I've never done anything like that.
zeitlos wrote:
I only found one entry for the electronic shutter in the menu of the Sony A7III and it said "off".
I don't know because I've never dealt with it, but I think you have to activate the electronic shutter manually, don't you? At least I've never done anything like that.
It's because Sony keep changing their naming for (fully) elelctronic shutter.
On A7 III, it's called "silent shooting": https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1720/v1/en/contents/TP0001661969.html
This setting is safe for bokeh, but you can see distorted objects when turned on if you move the camera quickly or shoot fast moving subjects.
I had my newly purchased 50mm 1.2 GM with me on a family trip to the Tegernsee in Bavaria close to Munich. Still have to get used to this new lens and learn how to handle it. Some first shots.
...
.
