chiron wrote:
The Batis lenses have what Zeiss has described as "rounded sharpness."
And I would agree with that. Owned them all and I can't quit the 40, 85, and 135. For whatever reason, they all reduce the amount of PP I need to do. Just double checking I was understanding correctly.
gunmetal wrote:
Batis smoother/less harsh than 135 GM or other way around?
Exactly what @chiron has said below (or above ). But I am judging just from the samples seen on the web. My 2.8/135 Batis is in the post, and I chose it over the other two f/1.8 lenses specifically for its rendering.
I bought 50GM 1.2 last year and since then using it rigorously, last month I bought GM 1.4 and decided to keep my 1.2 and return 1.4, reasons -
A newer GM 1.4 is not much cheaper than a used 1.2, in-fact could be more expensive depending on taxes.
I didn't feel the weight or size difference to be any drastic. My other 2 favourite lenses 70-200GMII and Samyang 135mm are in similar or higher weight range.
I found the AF to be more assuring on 1.2
I found 1.2 renders better, similar to 24GM, Samyang 135 (I sold my 135GM for this). 50GM 1.4 is akin to 35 GM or Sigma 65mm.
Heavier weight of 1.2 does come handy and with improved IBIS of RV, results are incredible wide open.
I would say if someone wants crazy sharp lenses go with 20G, 35GM, 50GM 1.4, 135GM
Outstanding wrote:
I bought 50GM 1.2 last year and since then using it rigorously, last month I bought GM 1.4 and decided to keep my 1.2 and return 1.4, reasons -
A newer GM 1.4 is not much cheaper than a used 1.2, in-fact could be more expensive depending on taxes.
I didn't feel the weight or size difference to be any drastic. My other 2 favourite lenses 70-200GMII and Samyang 135mm are in similar or higher weight range.
I found the AF to be more assuring on 1.2
I found 1.2 renders better, similar to 24GM, Samyang 135 (I sold my 135GM for this). 50GM 1.4 is akin to 35 GM or Sigma 65mm.
Heavier weight of 1.2 does come handy and with improved IBIS of RV, results are incredible wide open.
I would say if someone wants crazy sharp lenses go with 20G, 35GM, 50GM 1.4, 135GM
This is pretty much exactly the impression I have from looking at images: the 1.2 is like the 24 and 85, the 1.4 is like the 35. All of these are excellent lenses, just a bit different in their rendering and the feel of their images. I do know that when Sony does finally does introduce an 85 GM II that I am unlikely ever to sell my 85 1.4 GM, even if I add what I assume will be a smaller 85 II. I can't imagine any new 85 surpassing what the current GM can do in terms of the look of an image.
Start with saying I’m a huge fan of 50mm focal length that probably comes from the fact that from age 13 until I graduated college it was the only focal length I owned and used on film.
I own both the f/1.2 which I bought when it was introduced, to replace my 50/1.4 ZA, and added the 50/1.4. Wasn’t trying to save money but did want to explore the improved size and weight. I owned other slower 50mm but am a fan of the Sony GM ergos. I actually shot with my 35/1.4 GM in cropped APS-C on my A1 and A7R IV to get a feel in advance on how it might handle.
Plan to keep both and really use the f/1.2 along with my 135/1.8 GM or 85/1.4 GM for portrait work. I use the f/1.4 for more general purpose work and carry it along side my midrange or wide angle zoom. Use even smaller 50mm lens some times on my “C” size full frame cameras.
Edit: add one point. Why didn’t Sony make the 50/1.4 GM a 40/1.4. Probably too close to 35/1.4. And where is a 28/1.4 or 28/1.8 G or GM?
swldstn wrote:
Start with saying I’m a huge fan of 50mm focal length that probably comes from the fact that from age 13 until I graduated college it was the only focal length I owned and used on film.
I own both the f/1.2 which I bought when it was introduced, to replace my 50/1.4 ZA, and added the 50/1.4. Wasn’t trying to save money but did want to explore the improved size and weight. I owned other slower 50mm but am a fan of the Sony GM ergos. I actually shot with my 35/1.4 GM in cropped APS-C on my A1 and A7R IV to get a feel in advance on how it might handle.
Plan to keep both and really use the f/1.2 along with my 135/1.8 GM or 85/1.4 GM for portrait work. I use the f/1.4 for more general purpose work and carry it along side my midrange or wide angle zoom. Use even smaller 50mm lens some times on my “C” size full frame cameras.
Edit: add one point. Why didn’t Sony make the 50/1.4 GM a 40/1.4. Probably too close to 35/1.4. And where is a 28/1.4 or 28/1.8 G or GM?...Show more →
A Sony 28 f/1.4 or even an f/1.8 is the great missing lens in Sony's line-up. I think its absence must mean that there is a large gap between who we are on this forum and the target group that Sony has in mind for its lenses. That target group doesn't seem to care about the 28mm fov.
chiron wrote:
A Sony 28 f/1.4 or even an f/1.8 is the great missing lens in Sony's line-up. I think its absence must mean that there is a large gap between who we are on this forum and the target group that Sony has in mind for its lenses. That target group doesn't seem to care about the 28mm fov.
I would love a Sony 28mm f1.4 GM the size between the 24GM and 35GM.
Outstanding wrote:
I bought 50GM 1.2 last year and since then using it rigorously, last month I bought GM 1.4 and decided to keep my 1.2 and return 1.4, reasons -
A newer GM 1.4 is not much cheaper than a used 1.2, in-fact could be more expensive depending on taxes.
I didn't feel the weight or size difference to be any drastic. My other 2 favourite lenses 70-200GMII and Samyang 135mm are in similar or higher weight range.
I found the AF to be more assuring on 1.2
I found 1.2 renders better, similar to 24GM, Samyang 135 (I sold my 135GM for this). 50GM 1.4 is akin to 35 GM or Sigma 65mm.
Heavier weight of 1.2 does come handy and with improved IBIS of RV, results are incredible wide open.
I would say if someone wants crazy sharp lenses go with 20G, 35GM, 50GM 1.4, 135GM
Apart from sharpness, I would be interested in how you would describe differences between the rendering of the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4. What differences do you see apart from the small difference in maximum aperture. For example, can you say what rendering differences you see at 2.8 or 4.0 or 5.6? To me, this is what would be most interesting to understand about the two lenses. Again, apart from sharpness.
I had both on loan from a buddy last weekend. Both amazing lenses. I found the f1.2 is capable of creating more special images but mostly due to the wider aperture. Shooting both at f1.8 they look almost identical. Will try to dig up some examples.
To me the it matters which aperture gives round bokeh shapes - no or very minimal cats eye shapes please. The 50mm f/1.2 GM sits around f/1.8 or f/2.0 or so.
I don't have any technical evidence, but to me it seams larger front elements give a more pleasing rendering, especially if the aperture is stopped down just enough to get those round bokeh shapes, and especially at borders and corners. Rounder shapes give you more freedom to compose subjects off center.
I have both the Sigma EF 85mm f/1.4 Art (for shooting at home on my R5) and the Sigma FE 85mm f/1.4 Art DN. The latter is more compact, but those cats eye shapes are pretty pronounced at f/2.0, and still there at f/2.8. The EF lens is a behemoth, but at f/2.0 the cats eyes are mostly gone.
My best rendering lens is the Sigma 105mm Art, and if any spec could be telling something about it's rendering it's not so much the f/1.4 max aperture, but rather the 105mm filter size. If you're going to compare pictures of the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 to a 24-70mm f/2.8 both shot at f/2.8 you will also find the lens with the larger front element wins for beautiful rendering, even when it's not using that larger aperture number.
I've never shot the 50mm f/1.4 GM, but I'm not in a hurry to try it, as I'm expecting a smaller "no cats eye limited aperture". I'm also hoping for a new 85mm f/1.4 GM, but mainly because I want 4 VXD motors in it, not because I want a more compact option. It's rather the opposite: please, make it big.
For me the appeal of the 50mm f/1.2 GM is it combines a beautiful rendering with that f/1.2 as an aperture option AND with crazy fast AF in a lighter weight and more compact package than the Canon RF (which focuses - at GM/L/ART levels - clunky) and is 170g more, and also more front heavy. For my use cases there is simply no flaw. It's a perfect lens.
To my eye the RF platform and the Nikon platform are more in a need of a compact 50mm f/1.4 than the FE platform... but the FE platform has it.
I didn't have both but I knew I would always be looking at 50/1.2 if I bought 50/1.4, so I bought 50/1.2. and I am happy with my decision. I have no gas for 50/1.4. However I bought Loxia 50 after buying 50/1.2 GM. Someone posted 50 GM and Loxia 50 side by side in a different thread and I liked super contrasty and unique Zeiss look of Loxia. It was also cheap enough in the used market to be a no brainer.
One big take away is, the GM 50/1.2's bokeh is smoother, not only at 1.2, but stopped down. It's also more round when stopped down, especially when comparing the others at 1.4.
It also mentions how the corners on the GM 50/1.4 are better than GM 50/1.2.
When the three lenses have the same aperture of f/1.4, you can find that the image quality of the SEL50F14Z is a bit hazy due to the influence of dispersion. The duel between the SEL50F12GM and the SEL50F14GM is evenly matched. The central image quality of the SEL50F14GM is good from f/1.4 to f/11. It can be regarded as the working aperture. The SEL50F12GM maintains a high level of performance from f/1.2 to f/11, while the SEL50F14Z's performance is relatively stable from f/2 to f/11.
Then the edge image quality is the highlight, because this is the home field of the SEL50F14GM. When the three lenses are both f/1.4, the image edges of the SEL50F14GM are relatively solid. The SEL50F12GM did not catch up with the SEL50F14GM until the performance of f/4. The performance of the SEL50F14Z here is also the same. Much the same. Overall, the SEL50F14GM takes into account both center and edge image quality, while the SEL50F12GM must make some sacrifices in order to compromise with the f/1.2 ultra-large aperture....Show more →
I hate large lenses but love lenses that render well. I am also thinking about adding a 50 to my lens collection. Unfortunately it seems the 1.2 appears to render better based on the comments in this discussion. In the past I have chased sharp images but now am beginning to feel that may be a mistake in the long run.
One big take away is, the GM 50/1.2's bokeh is smoother, not only at 1.2, but stopped down. It's also more round when stopped down, especially when comparing the others at 1.4.
I couldn't find the review you posted on the url you listed. Does the review include comparison images at F2.8 and smaller? I heard a YouTube reviewer say he felt the two lenses evened-out at about F2.8.
LBJ2 wrote:
I couldn't find the review you posted on the url you listed. Does the review include comparison images at F2.8 and smaller? I heard a YouTube reviewer say he felt the two lenses evened-out at about F2.8.
Hmm, there seems to be a problem on how this forum handles the URL.
This forward link from a URL shortener should work.
I am wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the rendering against the 65/2 dg dn, given that both lenses are of similar weight (65/2 = 463.9g with metal hood, 50/1.4GM = 516g)
Lenstip's testing seems to indicate that the 50/1.4GM is sharper
You know what? I kind of changed my mind on this one. I've been praising the 50/1.4 GM left and right since it came out and I made the switch, but I just reviewed a slew of old 50/1.2 GM images vs. the 50/1.4 GM. While there isn't a huge difference, I definitely think the 50/1.2 GM has some special sauce to it. I kind of wish I had kept that one.
I own the 1.2 and have access to all Sony demos, incl the 1.4. That being said I haven't requested any demos in a couple years.
With the 1.2 it is tempting to shoot a lot at wide open. You want to make use of your hard earned money after all. And here lays the issue: the shallow DOF coming from the 1.2 is not easy to work with. Sharp eyes and an out-of-focus nose isn't really fun. So you step back and the subject isn't framed properly anymore. Then you stop down to 1.8 after all.
The 1.2 makes sense at night, in the streets, with objects far away enough. It is a specialized lens, not a do it all 50mm workhorse.
Just to make a point at 1.2. Eyes sharp, nose is gone...
.