The Batis 85 is designed for portrait work. Airy and smooth rendering. Sharpness isn't everything when it comes to people photos.
swldstn wrote:
Used to own the Batis 85/1.8 but sold it when I got the 85/1.4 GM. Maybe I should go back to it. Was a great lens but thought I wanted something faster. My mistake I think.
AGeoJO wrote:
Some folks ditched or in the process of ditching the GM f/1.2 for the f/1.4. Now, that Sigma has introduced the 50mm DG DN or even less money, lighter and smaller, I wonder how many will go for the Sigma now ? Just halfway kidding of course but the new Sigma looks intriguing enough to be considered as a combo with the GM f/1.2. One lens for one end of the spectrum being the fastest but less suitable for travel but awesome bokeh while the other is slower but quite a bit smaller and lighter, about perfect for travel. The GM f/14 is neither “meat” or “fish”, so to speak… ...Show more →
At that point I would combine the f/1.2 GM with the f/2.5 G. Or just get an RF 50mm f/1.8 stm for my Canon body.
For me though, if I don't need a large aperture, the flexibility of a zooms is more attractive than the compactness of a small prime.
Exactly…!!! I torn between getting the 35 or this 50 but I do have several Voigtlander’s in this range but would be nice to have on the A7RV
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
This GM is the 50/1.2 GM killer. It combines all the good parts from 35 GM and 50/1.2 GM into a single lens. Price is a little steep for a 50/1.4, but everything is more expensive now. I am tempted to swap my Voigtlander 50/1.2 with this lens, but Voigtlander also produces beautiful results and works wonderfully as a supplemental lens to my 35 GM. This thread is not good for users like me with chronic GAS problems.
I'm with you man. The 1.2 is top shelf and worth it. When I need smaller, I truly go smaller with the 40mm 2.5 G lenses (50mm 2.5 G is also available).
This whole saving under 300 grams and going from 72mm to 67mm is not worth it if you already own the 1.2 GM.
I used to think the 35 GM was balanced so well in so many areas and that I might never get used to the 1.2 GM in size and weight. Present day, the 50mm 1.2 GM is pretty much glued to my camera unless something very specific is needed.
Dj R wrote:
With such a user name, you should never switch from 1.2 to 1.4 muhahaha
Why all the debate.
One has better bokeh and light gathering. Was regarded as the best 50 ever. It is slightly larger and heavier, but will always remain small and light for a mirrorless 1.2 50mm. The other is a little smaller and lighter.
Technically they are both PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. optically, handling, af. Neither could be any better. Sony is crushing it.
Splitting hairs aside from 1.2 vs 1.4 bokeh, light gathering, and 262 grams. You spread 262 grams of cream cheese on three bagels. Is that really going to weigh your bag down?...Show more →
Some pictures taken today during morning stroll.The lens is insanely sharp.Both wide open and stopped down.The sharpest 50/1.4 I've ever used.It also has high microcontrast,very good colour rendition and good bokeh,but not as good as GM 50/1.2.
In short: another optically superb lens with no character.
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
Extrension ring 10mm was used
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/4.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/8.01/125s200 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/1250s100 ISO0.0 EV
Romantic poet Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorf took the Easter basket :)
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/1600s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/8.01/125s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/8.01/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/8.01/250s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/8.01/250s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM4AFE 50mm F1.4 GM lens50mmf/1.41/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
Yet you concluded that the 50/f1.4gm is "another optically superb lens with no character."
As a fairly newcomer to photography as a hobby, I am confused by such a paradox. What is character if it's none of those aforementioned qualities? What am I missing or not seeing when I am taking photos with my collection of lenses? I'd certainly like to avoid my photos lacking in character because of my lens choice.
mudnut wrote:
Yet you concluded that the 50/f1.4gm is "another optically superb lens with no character."
As a fairly newcomer to photography as a hobby, I am confused by such a paradox.
By and far saying a lens has character is a polite way of saying it is flawed. So his statement is somewhat redundant as any optically superb lenses must by definition lack character. The effect that some like seems to be that a character (flaw) of a lens can add some characteristic to an image that was not part of the scene being photographed. It is rare that anyone will try to demonstrate exactly how and when that is an improvement compared to a "flawless" image. In other words, I really don't think you need to worry about that.
mudnut wrote:
Yet you concluded that the 50/f1.4gm is "another optically superb lens with no character."
As a fairly newcomer to photography as a hobby, I am confused by such a paradox. What is character if it's none of those aforementioned qualities? What am I missing or not seeing when I am taking photos with my collection of lenses? I'd certainly like to avoid my photos lacking in character because of my lens choice.
When people talk about a lens being "optically flawless" or "highly corrected", they are speaking of technical characteristics of the handling of light in terms of the science of optics, for example to what extent there are chromatic aberrations or astigmatism. When they refer to "rendering" they are talking about the aesthetic qualities of the images created by the lens, for example the way a lens reproduces the transition zone in an image (the area of an image that begins just behind the plane of focus and goes progressively more out of focus). One is a set of measurable technical characteristics and the other is an aesthetic judgement that while more subjective may also be widely shared or agreed with.
Often, these two qualities are thought to be inversely related. For example, the designers of the Sigma i series 45mm f2.8 lens have said that they tolerated a higher level of optical aberrations in their design of the lens in order to obtain unusually superb rendering. Many think they succeeded.
mudnut wrote:
Yet you concluded that the 50/f1.4gm is "another optically superb lens with no character."
As a fairly newcomer to photography as a hobby, I am confused by such a paradox. What is character if it's none of those aforementioned qualities? What am I missing or not seeing when I am taking photos with my collection of lenses? I'd certainly like to avoid my photos lacking in character because of my lens choice.
Hi,
I think that my point of view was very well explained by comments above.
BTW: From all GM primes,to me,only two have some character.I mean GM 85/1.4 and GM 135/1.8.So don't worry.Yet I use them all,(save 100/2.8 GM),with pleasure.
I think that my point of view was very well explained by comments above.
BTW: From all GM primes,to me,only two have some character.I mean GM 85/1.4 and GM 135/1.8.So don't worry.Yet I use them all,(save 100/2.8 GM),with pleasure.
Between the 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2, which one do you prefer? Factoring weight vs rendering and any other factors that's relevant?
? Just halfway kidding of course but the new Sigma looks intriguing enough to be considered as a combo with the GM f/1.2. One lens for one end of the spectrum being the fastest but less suitable for travel but awesome bokeh while the other is slower but quite a bit smaller and lighter, about perfect for travel. The
