p.1 #1 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
Anyone have the opportunity to compare these two for portraits and travel? The Viltrox is obviously smaller and lighter but doesn't have 1.4. I suspect the Sony is definitely an advantage in fast moving situations but for this use case probably is immaterial. They both seem to be sharp from the reviews and comments. I strongly prefer having an external f stop dial so that rules out the Viltrox 50 2.0 for this discussion.
p.1 #2 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
Haven't shot the Sony but can say I have taken the 55 EVO with me nearly everywhere for the last month, I like it a LOT. It's stupid sharp down to wide open.
p.1 #4 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
I would highly recommend the Sony 50/1.4 except that mine broke for no reason. Even though it has an aperture ring, it will often randomly choose a different aperture than the one set on the ring. The only way to reliably control the aperture is to put the aperture ring in A mode, and then dial in the aperture manually on the camera body. Repair would cost more than a new Viltrox 55/1.8.
p.1 #5 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
Not tried the evo but all reviews seem good, been looking at the 35 myself.
I have the 50/2 air and the 50 1.2gm.
From Dustin abbots comparison the evo is better in most regards compared to the air, sharpness seemed to be similar as did a.f.
For the price they are exceptionally good.
For me I think the 1.2 has spoilt me in regards to performance, especially a.f and the 1.4 I suspect will be similar.
I would now always say if you can afford the Sony get it, but you have to weigh up if the extra cost is worth it for you, as the performance gain likely won’t match the extra cost.
p.1 #6 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
I know I will probably get flamed for saying this but here goes: the 5mm difference between a 55 and 50 doesn’t sound like very much on paper, but it can be significant for the resulting images. I just got the 55 evo and as Scott said, it’s perfectly sharp in the center ⅔ even wide open. I find it’s f1.8 through f3.5 bokeh wonderful, haven’t used it enough to say much more beyond that.
However, if I wanted a “normal” lens specifically for portraits, I’d take a hard look at the Sigma 65/2 as well as the 55 evo. Similar size and weight, and even similar cost for a used Sigma compared to a new 55 evo. The extra 10mm keeps it just under “tele” yet I think they would make it even better as a “normal” portrait lens with the slightly tighter frame; but in the same breath, they might make it just too tight for street work.
p.1 #9 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
jmmaher wrote:
The 65 is a fantastic lens for portraits but I am thinking to long for many things as a general purpose lens. Still worth considering. Jim
I think it’s probably ideal as a “normal” portrait lens, but agree it’s probably too long as stand alone normal lens. End of day, that’s why I chose the 55 evo for myself as well. I am wondering however, if I might have been as happy with the lighter, half the cost 50/2 air?
p.1 #10 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
jmmaher wrote:
Anyone have the opportunity to compare these two for portraits and travel? The Viltrox is obviously smaller and lighter but doesn't have 1.4. I suspect the Sony is definitely an advantage in fast moving situations but for this use case probably is immaterial. They both seem to be sharp from the reviews and comments. I strongly prefer having an external f stop dial so that rules out the Viltrox 50 2.0 for this discussion.
Any thoughts?
Are you using this on a a7c(2) or a normal alpha body?
I took the old Zony 55mm with me to Europe years ago and kind of found 55mm to be a little tighter than I would have liked in some situations, but you can mitigate that if you have some space behind you. I went the other way for my travel setup and use the Samyang 45mm. I have a great copy and it's exceptional particularly for its size. It balances on my a7c2 like it was born to be used on a camera that size.
I have the Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM and while I love the lens and it's usable on the a7c2, it's a little too unbalanced for me. If I am using my a7r5 it's a great fit, and sometimes I do travel with that combo, for the "skinny" outfit it's not leaving the house.
p.1 #11 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
I have both the Viltrox 55 and Sony 50 1.4 GM in hand right now, using them both. The Viltrox is definitely sharper, and that doesn’t mean my Sony isn’t sharp, it is. The AF is slightly faster on the Sony, yet I feel the Viltrox is nailing the eyes better than the Sony does - maybe its skill issue . The bokeh is the biggest difference, balls are smoother and next to onion rings on the Sony where the Viltrox has them. The Viltrox has a lot more vignetting than the Sony as well. Is it worth +/-$700 more? To me, no.
Some non-scientific samples. Angles/distance to subject obviously not the same, wasn't meant to be a scientific study. They were both used wide open all night, so eyes won't be perfectly sharp. The focal point slightly different on the last photos, so don't focus on sharpness. Other images I have that have the same focal point the Viltrox is clearly sharper
p.1 #12 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
Jack Flesher wrote:
I know I will probably get flamed for saying this but here goes: the 5mm difference between a 55 and 50 doesn’t sound like very much on paper, but it can be significant for the resulting images. I just got the 55 evo and as Scott said, it’s perfectly sharp in the center ⅔ even wide open. I find it’s f1.8 through f3.5 bokeh wonderful, haven’t used it enough to say much more beyond that.
However, if I wanted a “normal” lens specifically for portraits, I’d take a hard look at the Sigma 65/2 as well as the 55 evo. Similar size and weight, and even similar cost for a used Sigma compared to a new 55 evo. The extra 10mm keeps it just under “tele” yet I think they would make it even better as a “normal” portrait lens with the slightly tighter frame; but in the same breath, they might make it just too tight for street work. ...Show more →
Strongly agree with the difference between 50mm and 55mm for portraits. To go 1 step further the 58mm F/L is where some lens manufacture to go all in and make their premier portrait lens. (NIKKOR 58mm Noct) It has to do where perspective (facial) distortion stops. 50mm has 10% more distortion than 55mm, at 58 the perspective distortion is basically gone. That’s why I chose the Zeiss 55 f1.8 for my Sony and Nikon 58 f1.4G with N Dslr bodies for the studio portrait lens in my time shooting for swimsuit and clothing manufactures. The slight additional background blur of a faster 50mm lens (against a paper or cloth background) was not as important as eliminating facial distortions.
Also agree about the Sigma 65mm ft. A very good portrait lens, though I use it more for outdoor shots.
p.1 #14 · Thoughts on the new Viltrox 55 1.8 versus the Sony 50 1.4 for portraits and travel
rsolti13 wrote:
I have both the Viltrox 55 and Sony 50 1.4 GM in hand right now, using them both. The Viltrox is definitely sharper, and that doesn’t mean my Sony isn’t sharp, it is. The AF is slightly faster on the Sony, yet I feel the Viltrox is nailing the eyes better than the Sony does - maybe its skill issue . The bokeh is the biggest difference, balls are smoother and next to onion rings on the Sony where the Viltrox has them. The Viltrox has a lot more vignetting than the Sony as well. Is it worth +/-$700 more? To me, no. ...Show more →
. The bokeh is the biggest difference, balls are smoother and next to onion rings on the Sony where the Viltrox has them. The Viltrox has a lot more vignetting than the Sony as well. Is it worth +/-$700 more? To me, no. 
