I used the lens (M-mount version) a bit more on the A7III lately, so here are some more samples for those that wonder how it is doing on a Sony camera.
On the A7III we see some triangle bokeh I already know from Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX or ZY 50mm 0.95 M.
Need to find a similar scene with M10 to see if it happens there as well (my guess: yes).
On the A7III I also see some "good" (or non reverse by @LarsHP@'s definition) field curvature.
The camera might have been tilted downwards a bit though, increasing this effect.
Lovely images from around Matterhorn, if I am not mistaken.
Regarding using the phrase "reverse field curvature", I find it useful in order to distinguish it as the opposite of the normal or typical shape. I have seen others calling it "negative field curvature" and "convex field curvature", but I don't think those phrases convey the shape as clearly.
fjablo wrote:
hm convex vs. concave sounds very clear to me whereas normal or reverse requires explanation. The V in convex even illustrates the shape of the DOF!
Convex vs concave depend on the point of view (literally).
In the normal case (simple spherical lens), the lens is front-focusing at the side of the image.
This is called Petzval curvature:
Most modern lenses correct this aberration to make the focus field more "planar" (hence the Zeiss definition).
However, in some circumstances, this correction may cause the FC to be reversed at the extreme borders.
Disclaimer: IANAOE (I am not an optical engineer), so feel free to correct / add.
CheshireCat wrote:
Convex vs concave depend on the point of view (literally).
Very true. But it should be quite clear what the point of view is in this case shouldn’t it? And we wouldn’t have to cite Wikipedia articles on optical design so that people understand it. Was just a suggestion though
I am calling it outwards field curvature when the focal plane bends away from the camera as it gets further off-axis. The opposite direction would be inwards where the focal plane bends towards the camera.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I am calling it outwards field curvature when the focal plane bends away from the camera as it gets further off-axis. The opposite direction would be inwards where the focal plane bends towards the camera.
Inwards and outwards convey the meaning more clearly to me than normal/reverse or concave/convex.
Just received the Sony FE version. Just did few tests shots and it seems very good. Central sharpness at f/1.1 is pretty amazing. It come with a nice metallic bayonet lens hood and also a metallic lens cap but unfortunately it's the screw on type.
Compared to the TTArtisans 50mm f/1.4, the lens is more compact. Construction quality is about the same (both very nice). The 50mm f/1.1 is definitively sharper in the center but slightly less in the corners. Also noticed that the TTArtisan needs to be stop down more in order to reduce vignetting.
Josegulias wrote:
Hi Mskad2!! When did you order? I am patiently waiting for mine since the last week!
Ordered it from a vendor on eBay Sunday 13 and got it this morning Wednesday 16. The guy had one FE mount, one Canon R and one Nikon Z. Only the Canon R is available now. Pretty good price too: $160 and free shipping. I think I bought once a lens hood that was more expensive than that. Found the same lens on Alibaba. $130 a piece if you order ... a thousand of them
170GBP for the emoun version from Syoptic in ebay. February 6 and waiting... I don't know if they have changed something but maybe mine come from the second batch... enjoy yours and post some images please!! Many thanks mate!!
Interesting new note from seller on the ebay listing:
Revisions are being planned for a revised filter amongst other details but there is no set date for when it will be available or what will be changed. Estimate for any revisions will be around 2-5 months.
I was able to shoot some images with the lens and also compare with some of the other 50mm-ish lenses I have for Sony E Mount (Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2, TTArtisan 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 45mm 2.8).
Below some images at various distances and f-stops. No easy to remember the f/stop on a lens that doesn't provide EXIF info
The photo of the fence reminds me the look of the VC 40 1.2, maybe a bit less contrasty? Sold it the last year but I liked it a lot. How do you compare the images from these two?
