I never tried both at the same time so I really shouldn't reply here.
But... I found the 50/1.2 to be too expensive and too heavy for me. When the f/1.4 version came out I found it was as small or big as the 35/1.4 GM I was used to. I didn't notice any any deciding factor in favor of, or against, any of them.
There is a quarter of a notch more background blur available with the 1.2. There is half a notch, but most often not necessary, more details/resolution available with the 1.4.
I have the 1.4 version and I'm very happy with it. The half stop speed advantage (summing nominal aperture value and transmission) of the 1.2 doesn't really mean anything in real life shooting. The weight never goes away.
The direct comparisons I have seen are you-tube clips and if they showed anything they confirmed my own impressions.
All those words jst to justify the question: Are you seriously considering the f/1.2 and if so for what rational(?) reason?
Jonas B wrote:
I never tried both at the same time so I really shouldn't reply here.
But... I found the 50/1.2 to be too expensive and too heavy for me. When the f/1.4 version came out I found it was as small or big as the 35/1.4 GM I was used to. I didn't notice any any deciding factor in favor of, or against, any of them.
There is a quarter of a notch more background blur available with the 1.2. There is half a notch, but most often not necessary, more details/resolution available with the 1.4.
I have the 1.4 version and I'm very happy with it. The half stop speed advantage (summing nominal aperture value and transmission) of the 1.2 doesn't really mean anything in real life shooting. The weight never goes away.
The direct comparisons I have seen are you-tube clips and if they showed anything they confirmed my own impressions.
All those words jst to justify the question: Are you seriously considering the f/1.2 and if so for what rational(?) reason?...Show more →
Good question. I have the 50/1.2 GM. I bought it about a year ago and I have been very pleased with the rendering--not so much the degree of blur but how it handles transitions and gradations of light and colors. Images made with the lens (you can see some in the 50/1.2 thread on the forum) often have a luminous quality.
On the other hand, the lens is quite large and heavy. It is not a lens to take traveling or to just throw in a small bag for a walk around the harbor with the dog. Of course, one can do those things, but the lens is inconvenient in those or similar applications.
The 50mm f1.4 GM is a much better size, very close in all dimensions and weight to the 35/1.4 GM and not so dissimilar to the 24/1.4 GM. The three of them would make a very nice set, and I fully expect Sony to introduce sometime soon an 85/1.4 GM II in a similar size, weight, and form, or as close as they can get. That would cover the focal lengths at which I do virtually all of my shooting.
So, I think about whether to replace my 1.2 with the 1.4. Or, heaven forfend, have both of them (ouch!).
The 50/1.4 GM has been very well-reviewed. There have been no criticisms of it, and reviewers have appreciated it size and weight. Some say that it has just a degree less blur than the 1.2, which of course is true.
But I am more interested in how different the overall rendering is--not blur per se--but the look of images made with the lens. That is why I wanted to hear from people who have used both, though of course comments like yours are valuable and very welcome also.
Ok, I see... Well, my comment was probably of little value.
If you wait a little there will be several commenting on how superior the 1.2GM is. You know which forum you are at...!
But really, the low quality (4K stills for two seconds each at Youtube) comparisons I have seen didn't show any difference of value (to me). Still, there have to be differences. My guess is we'll get observation about separation ability and transition zones.
Thank you lensfan and j4nu.
After having looked at those two (partly ill-informed and speculating and believing) videos I feel pretty fine. Now we all can say that we made the right choice!
We have both at work and what I prefer about the 50/1.2 is how smooth it is wide open with flawed skin for portraits. For everything else, I'd rather take the out the lighter, smaller 1.4.
j4nu wrote:
If we're posting youtube videos, I like this one as it focuses on actual pictures:
I saw this comparison and in one of his shots there was a very noticeable difference in background blur to my eyes with the f1.2 being the more pleasing image. However it must be said that the 50mm f1.4 was also pleasantly rendered but seeing them side by side made me love my f1.2 GM even more.
j4nu wrote:
If we're posting youtube videos, I like this one as it focuses on actual pictures:
The problem I have with this comparison is that he only compares the lenses wide open (AFAIK). But the lenses have different formulations that may be expected to produce differences in rendering at multiple apertures. I would like to see the lenses compared at the same aperture as well as wide open. The ideal comparisons for my interest would be something like wide open, then at 1.4, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6.
chiron wrote:
The problem I have with this comparison is that he only compares the lenses wide open (AFAIK). But the lenses have different formulations that may be expected to produce differences in rendering at multiple apertures. I would like to see the lenses compared at the same aperture as well as wide open. The ideal comparisons for my interest would be something like wide open, then at 1.4, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6.
Yes, that would be nice, but he's a wedding photographer so it's natural that's what he shows in the video .
I don't think I know anyone else who does as detailed comparisons as Fred...
As others have said, I’d default to the f1.4, unless you are taking more portraits, and perhaps even then. Partially in focus portraits tend not to be what people want. Weight/bulk are also in the f1.4’s favour, as is sharpness. The f1.2 can have a distinct bokeh signature, which some can’t live without, which I can understand.
Goodrich wrote:
As others have said, I’d default to the f1.4, unless you are taking more portraits, and perhaps even then. Partially in focus portraits tend not to be what people want. Weight/bulk are also in the f1.4’s favour, as is sharpness. The f1.2 can have a distinct bokeh signature, which some can’t live without, which I can understand.
The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is not the thing I'm most interested in. It is rather the differences in how each lens renders at, for example, f4 or f5.6.
chiron wrote:
The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is not the thing I'm most interested in. It is rather the differences in how each lens renders at, for example, f4 or f5.6.
So you're more interested in lens' "personality"....I guess Fred is one of those guys who can do this sort of comparisons quite well...nevertheless, I'm all ears here, as I very much want to re-purchase the 50/1.2 GM, I used to like its "personality"....
catacore wrote:
So you're more interested in lens' "personality"....I guess Fred is one of those guys who can do this sort of comparisons quite well...nevertheless, I'm all ears here, as I very much want to re-purchase the 50/1.2 GM, I used to like its "personality"....
Yes, Fred is about the only one I know who compares lenses regularly and who does so at multiple apertures and multiple points int he frame. He usually notes resolution, aberrations, microcontrast, color tones, field curvature, and overall contrast. I would be interested in his speculating more about the overall rendering or draw of a lens and characterizing what he sees in terms of the effect on the omage. For example, what is it about the rendering of the Sony 35/1.4 ZA or the Sigma 45/2.8 i series that he likes so much. I like those two lenses also, and I would be interested in his interpretations and characterizations of their visual effects.
So far I'm set with these:
- 50G as a walkaround during daylight
- 50GM 1.2 for bokeh and night
- CV 50APO for landscapes (which I should definitely do one day - ha)
chiron wrote:
The problem I have with this comparison is that he only compares the lenses wide open (AFAIK). But the lenses have different formulations that may be expected to produce differences in rendering at multiple apertures. I would like to see the lenses compared at the same aperture as well as wide open. The ideal comparisons for my interest would be something like wide open, then at 1.4, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6.
I don't know if he has processed all the images from both cameras with the same presets (or in the same way), but to my eyes, in some images, the 50/1.2 looks smoother (less "harsh/contrasty") and more subtle in rendering. But I am biased, so I'm probably just "seeing" things.... It is sort of same impression I have when comparing the 2.8/135 Batis images on the web against 135/1.8 (Sony/Samy)...
catacore wrote:
I don't know if he has processed all the images from both cameras with the same presets (or in the same way), but to my eyes, in some images, the 50/1.2 looks smoother (less "harsh/contrasty") and more subtle in rendering. But I am biased, so I'm probably just "seeing" things.... It is sort of same impression I have when comparing the 2.8/135 Batis images on the web against 135/1.8 (Sony/Samy)...
Smoothness that is important. Also the effect of the way separations show up (including at f5.6!), the way contrasts are handled by the lens. There are really a lot of things.
I do think that every lens formulation has a different look to its images that affects the viewer. We may not always be able to specify exactly what it is that is different, but the effect on the viewer is different.
If we were talking about paintings, the specific concrete differences between Vermeer's work and that of some of his contemporaries, like Honthorst or De Hooch, who painted in a similar style, might be difficult to articulate but the effect on the viewer of each artist is different.
catacore wrote:
I don't know if he has processed all the images from both cameras with the same presets (or in the same way), but to my eyes, in some images, the 50/1.2 looks smoother (less "harsh/contrasty") and more subtle in rendering. But I am biased, so I'm probably just "seeing" things.... It is sort of same impression I have when comparing the 2.8/135 Batis images on the web against 135/1.8 (Sony/Samy)...
Batis smoother/less harsh than 135 GM or other way around?
.