p.4 #1 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
I just went through a bunch of old Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 - I am surprised (shocked?) how many arent' really in focus on eyes/subject. I know it was a while back, Sony AF systems have come a long way, but no way I'm recommending that lens at this point. Sigma 50/2 if you want something lighter and more affordable, otherwise Sony 50/1.4 GM used, which is a killer value.
p.4 #2 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
Focus misses in an AF lens? That's strange, but if you insist on shooting at f1.8 I suppose it is possible. My uploads cache is chock-a-block with FE55 people images, with nary a one out of focus. How to explain? You might be using a newer camera that my 2013-2014 a7 series bodies. I find their AF flawless.
On the focal length of 55mm itself, it has a rich and vibrant history, as most experienced photographers are aware. It stretches even to the present day of course. 55mm was very often the preserve of luxury or superior lenses, think Otus 55mm or Nikon (and Canon) 55/1.2, Pentax 55/1.8. Aided and abetted by what must seem the alien focal length of 58mm, goodness me. Until recently 65mm was the hole, not 55mm.
With the FE55, Sony in those early days was thinking the a7 series would be a kind of EVF Leica-esque range, hence the tiny 35/2.8 and the 465 gram a7r. So in this roundabout way, by producing a light 55mm Sony avoided over-egging the design - as has sadly happened in recent years, culminating in the monsters like the GM 50/1.4, with all of fourteen elements to its 'credit.
By a quirk of fate, that element count is exactly double that of the lithe FE55, which at 280 grams also is half the weight of the GM 50/1.4. And that comparison is with a lens that is itself a slimmed down job from the previous ZA 50/1.4, a 780 gram monster. There are a few more random selections for the Young Persons Guide to the very first Sony a7 lens below. It's never been discounted in ten years, to my knowledge. Are they sharp enough? People are getting hard to predict these days, so maybe these are too soft.
p.4 #3 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
patotts wrote:
I just went through a bunch of old Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 - I am surprised (shocked?) how many arent' really in focus on eyes/subject. I know it was a while back, Sony AF systems have come a long way, but no way I'm recommending that lens at this point. Sigma 50/2 if you want something lighter and more affordable, otherwise Sony 50/1.4 GM used, which is a killer value.
Really?
Fred himself has repurposed the Zony 55, I’m sure he wouldn’t have done that if he felt it had misfocussing issues.
Have you seen any other reviews that have reported these issues?
p.4 #4 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
jaybr wrote:
Really?
Fred himself has repurposed the Zony 55, I’m sure he wouldn’t have done that if he felt it had misfocussing issues.
Have you seen any other reviews that have reported these issues?
J
Just look at this other thread that I saw, Philip's lovely portrait, but 55/1.8's critical focus just isn't there
Misfocussing can occur with all autofocus lenses, for many reasons.
You didn’t answer my question, “Have you seen any other reviews that have reported these issues?”
Am I to presume you haven’t?
J
Nov 19, 2024 at 07:18 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
patotts wrote:
Just look at this other thread that I saw, Philip's lovely portrait, but 55/1.8's critical focus just isn't there
I like this portrait a lot. You seem to as well. How do you know critical focus isn't there? For that you would have to know the intent of the photographer. Yeah, the sharpest plane of focus is a bit in front of the eyes in this shot, but there is lots of depth of field. Not every portrait needs to have the sharpest plane of focus be at the iris. In fact, some might see that as formulaic and not be at all what they want in a portrait. For all we know Philip's intention was for the plane of focus to be exactly where it is. For me, I think part of why this portrait is striking is that the plane of focus isn't at the iris. It makes the shot a little less typical and fits the expression and ever so slightly softens the face making the expression less of a glare--it is still almost a glare. That is of course my take, and may not be Philip's take at all, but the point is critical focus is having the plane where the photographer wants it to be and I don't know whether this shot has critical focus or not because I wasn't the photographer and I don't presume to know what his intent was.
p.4 #8 · Sony 55mm Zeiss 1.8, Sony 50mm G 2.5, Sigma 65mm F2 - which is best?
Yeah, I wasn't trying to take away from whatever Philip's intent was, I just don't have any of my 55/1.8 uploaded and that was the easiest way to showcase what I meant.
I could be that I used an A7R2 and R3 back then, it would be my copy of the 55/1.8 - hey, it could be my technique... but in my experience, a lot of my portraits looked like that - eyes not being in complete focus. I just thought it was worth sharing.
