I do mostly videos and prefer the 55 f1.8. For special video and photo shoots, I use the 50GM f1.2 but over 3 years I have used the f1.2 only a dozen time (but each time the image is unforgettable). This video uses the 50GM f1.2 (along with the 85 sigma art f1.4).
?list=PLjXa_7SkeGhibI08xR48xq9zqXulePh0k&t=8
The closer up shots are with the Sigma Art 85 f1.4 (which is a little slow in AF-C compared to the Sony 85 f1.8).
The 55 f1.8 I used 70% of the time. Here is an example of the 55 f1.8: ?t=24
The 50 f2.5 I used 30% of the time. I need both the 55 f1.8 and 50 f2.5 because I shoot track and field video continuously for 7-8 hours in 4K60fps (using three Sony a7S3 and an A1). Here is an example of the 50 f2.5 on the A1 (recording in 8K30): ?t=29
I would not buy the 50 f2.5 as a primary lens: the image is so-so and missing the character (i.e., perfect imperfections) of the 55 f1.8.
If you buy the 55 f1.8, be aware that there is a latent defect with the glue that holds the focusing element to the linear actuator. I figured out how to fix it so if you have replaced an iPhone 6 battery (and the phone worked afterward) you can do it too
mudlake wrote:
This is my opinion after owning both lenses: if you can afford it, get the 50GM. It’s the best 50mm in the world. The old adage, “buy once, cry once” applies to the 50GM. The 55/1.8 is certainly very good, but after owning it for 3 years, I never warmed up to its image quality, especially the bokeh. I just didn’t like how my people pictures looked. But that’s just my opinion. Others would disagree.
The 50GM is a lens you’ll never sell once you own it - IF you are a 50mm lover.
I love both the 55/1.8 and the Sony GMs. I love the 50mm focal length. I sold my 50/1.2 for two reasons:
1) The 55/1.8 is a stellar lens with a unique look that I love, especially with regards to color balance. It has character that the GMs often lack. There is a richness of color and an ever so slight softness to the images it produces, while the GMs produce a nearly perfect but often sterile image in comparison. The old 55/1.8 is still my favorite Sony system lens.
2) For situations when I need a faster 50 with fewer aberrations - sometimes this equates with less character - I use my Sony 50/1.4 GM. I have owned both GMs, watched a jillion reviews of both, and in none of the reviews or in my direct experience was there any significant difference in IQ, bokeh included, between the 1.4 GM and the 1.2 GM. The only real difference in use and results between the two GMs, IMO, is that the 1.4 is a lot lighter and easier to handle.
smpetty wrote:
I love both the 55/1.8 and the Sony GMs. I love the 50mm focal length. I sold my 50/1.2 for two reasons:
1) The 55/1.8 is a stellar lens with a unique look that I love, especially with regards to color balance. It has character that the GMs often lack. There is a richness of color and an ever so slight softness to the images it produces, while the GMs produce a nearly perfect but often sterile image in comparison. The old 55/1.8 is still my favorite Sony system lens.
2) For situations when I need a faster 50 with fewer aberrations - sometimes this equates with less character - I use my Sony 50/1.4 GM. I have owned both GMs, watched a jillion reviews of both, and in none of the reviews or in my direct experience was there any significant difference in IQ, bokeh included, between the 1.4 GM and the 1.2 GM. The only real difference in use and results between the two GMs, IMO, is that the 1.4 is a lot lighter and easier to handle....Show more →
I know a lot of people love the 55/1.8. For some reason the images just didn’t do it for me.
I recently purchased the Voigtlander 50/1.2 SE and absolutely love it. It’s optimised for portrait distances and it produces sharp and beautiful images even wide open. And it’s so small! I still love the 50/1.2 GM since its autofocus is so good, but it’s the CV 50/1.2 SE that will travel with me.
Overall, Sony has been doing extremely well at the 50mm mark all along. All of them are excellent. Of the 55mm, people are still writing glowing reviews of this humble seven element optic at B&H, in 2024.
The 55mm focal length was a fine choice by Sony, perhaps influenced by the Zeiss Otus 55mm released in the same year. And it has the Carl Zeiss coatings from that era as well, and they won't hurt colour balance one bit. There are people who go back and forth over this lens. I'm not generally indecisive, but I am one of them.
It has an crystalline immediacy to its images of people, and I see the B&H blurb sells it as a 'premier portrait lens', whereas their take on the two GMs are the same for each, headlining with: 'G Master Resolution and Bokeh' adding 'Impressive Speed and Sharpness' for the f1.2.
---
It's almost enough to make you think there is something to the take of the Angry Photographer and Yannick Khong on low element count lenses. It set off a storm of derision some years back. The response might indicate there is something to it, even if it's not easy to be certain about.
Adding to this reflection of theirs, Cosina and Leica appear to work hard to keep element counts very low in their M class lenses, using better glass rather than Nikon/Canon level element counts. Even Voigtlander's f1.2 lenses have just eight elements. Both Sony's GM 50s use 14 elements, Canon's competitor uses 15 elements, and Nikon's 50/1.2 has all of 17 elements.
---
My 55mm has never had the high contrast look at f1.8, but it sure steps up at a stop down, so I use it at f2.8-f3.2.
I'd like Sony to consider a VII of it, keeping it small but adding 1-2 APD elements to have it work better wide open and better asph surfacing would clean up the occasional LoCA many of us see from time to time. Keep the flat field and aim for better corners, that would make for a well-rounded light lens.
How many mirrorless full-frame ~50mm lenses are getting on to being 11 years old? None! Time to do what I suggest ;-) The 55/1.8 was announced by Sony on October 16, 2013.
mudlake wrote:
I know a lot of people love the 55/1.8. For some reason the images just didn’t do it for me.
I recently purchased the Voigtlander 50/1.2 SE and absolutely love it. It’s optimised for portrait distances and it produces sharp and beautiful images even wide open. And it’s so small! I still love the 50/1.2 GM since its autofocus is so good, but it’s the CV 50/1.2 SE that will travel with me.
I also have the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.2 SE and it is simply awesome. Couldn’t agree more! So small!
mudlake wrote:
I know a lot of people love the 55/1.8. For some reason the images just didn’t do it for me.
I recently purchased the Voigtlander 50/1.2 SE and absolutely love it. It’s optimised for portrait distances and it produces sharp and beautiful images even wide open. And it’s so small! I still love the 50/1.2 GM since its autofocus is so good, but it’s the CV 50/1.2 SE that will travel with me.
How do you guys focus the Voigtlander on a moving model at f1.2?
You can use the Techart AF adapters with the VM version of the Voigtlander lenses. I use it with the 40/1.2 a lot! I've never tried the 50/1.2 but I've considered it.
You do not get the biting sharpness with the Nokton 50 1.2 as in the 50 GM 1.2. I do like the bokeh on the Nokton though. I have some low element count lenses and maybe there is something to the look they give off, but I want to take the 50GM out with me and have to force myself to mix things up.
As my kids are grown, most of my moving subjects are canines. I set my aperture at f/2 or less, set auto ISO for a shutter speed of 125-250 (indoors) or 250-500 (outdoors), turn on focus magnifier and MF Assist, and manual focus on the eyes. I take a lot of throw-away shots this way, but the keepers can be magnificent.
smpetty wrote:
As my kids are grown, most of my moving subjects are canines. I set my aperture at f/2 or less, set auto ISO for a shutter speed of 125-250 (indoors) or 250-500 (outdoors), turn on focus magnifier and MF Assist, and manual focus on the eyes. I take a lot of throw-away shots this way, but the keepers can be magnificent.
The complex lenses have a strong tendency to flatten human faces and remove mystery from womens' faces. Not all, but many. This tells you they need to be handled with care and prospective buyers need to see plenty of samples of the kind of portraits they shoot to have some measure of assurance they have got the right one.
It must be understood that such lenses with 12-14, even more elements, are running downs a path that has not been walked before - certainly not with today's glass technology - so little is known or appreciated about the outcome. Portraiture is not surveillance.
Well performed actual side by side image comparisons (difficult I know) of say, 50mm portrait lenses, are as rare as hens teeth on the web. And taste enters the frame, so to speak. It varies widely, so this is the foggy market designers must work towards. They do this by injecting their own taste which is then amplified via marketing campaigns and influencers to persuade buyers this is the look they also want.
Some love the Sony 50/1.4 (and similar others) look of sharp idealized perfection painted over a smooth background. The rest of the frame may often as well be a green screen, rather than an integrated whole that sees the person and environment complement each other in harmony.
A further problem is that the 'great wide open' lenses have nowhere to go if their look is not for you, where a slightly more sensitive lens that may look 'soft' (what a sin!) often only needs a half to one stop to finetune that preference. So the f1.2 lenses are hoisted on their own petard because their superfast aperture is their entire reason to exist, and their large asking price of entry.
It's best if you realise it is all a work in progress, with no solidly correct way to go. And that you are being manipulated by the faux 'taste masters'. Too many people lenses get you more acquainted with the model's makeup than their facial features.
philip_pj wrote:
The complex lenses have a strong tendency to flatten human faces and remove mystery from womens' faces. Not all, but many.
(...)
you are being manipulated by the faux 'taste master'.
