Blakehfreeman wrote:
Really asking about rendering and sharpness, don’t care about the weight…
I remember seeing comparisons between the two lenses here in the FM forums. I wasn't able to find them using the search function, maybe someone knows where they are. IIRC, there wasn't much in it in terms of rendering or sharpness, ie both are excellent and quite close in terms of performance. But my memory might be wrong.
What I do know, I have the 50/1.2 GM and have no interest in ever 'updating' it, rendering/bokeh is soft, wide open sharpness is already excellent, there is negligible CA wide open. It's heavy and large, so I have a 55/1.8 ZA when weight matters (and the 50/1.4 ZA just for when I get bored with the other two).
Don’t have any experience with the 1.4. Although it appears to be an excellent lens. In terms of sharpness, I hear it’s on par with the 1.2 maybe a hair sharper
I do own the 1.2. It is a superb piece of glass. Sharpness is excellent. Even wide open. Its lack of CA also contributes to its perceived sharpness. Renders beautifully. And has lovely lens flare on backlit portraits
I don’t use it as much as I should. But when I do, it doesn’t disappoint
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Really asking about rendering and sharpness, don’t care about the weight…
Then there can be only one answer, and that is the 1.2/50 GM. Here is a comparison that I find quite revealing. Many people don't see any real difference. I personally copied all the photos at the time and compared them blindly several times over a period of time; without knowing which was which, I ALWAYS preferred the photos taken with the 1.2. https://education.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-4-gm-vs-sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm/?v=5f02f0889301
old-gregg wrote:
Is +1/3EV worth the 260g weight tax? Not for me but YMMV.
The +1/3 EV itself isn't the main point. What matters is the effect that the aperture being one-third of a stop wider has on has on the rendering in this specific case. And that is where it comes down to what the user values most. For me, the difference in the look of the image is definitely worth the trade-off in weight, size, and price compared to the 1.4 GM. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't consider the extra weight, size, and cost of the 1.4 GM relative to the 55mm f/1.8 worth it based on the rendering.
So, it’s not as simple as a glance at the specs might suggest; it’s really a very personal matter.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Then there can be only one answer, and that is the 1.2/50 GM. Here is a comparison that I find quite revealing. Many people don't see any real difference. I personally copied all the photos at the time and compared them blindly several times over a period of time; without knowing which was which, I ALWAYS preferred the photos taken with the 1.2. https://education.magicweddingphotographer.com/sony-50mm-f-1-4-gm-vs-sony-50mm-f-1-2-gm/?v=5f02f0889301
To the OP... Nifty Fifty knows his stuff Just look at his User Name
I had both. Sold both. I'm going to get the f1.2 again hands down.
Most buy these lenses to shoot wide open and the f1.2 is more magical for me. It's worth the extra price and weight.
I've shot both and now shoot the f1.2. For me, the f1.2 adds a very noticeable degree of subject separation and smooth bokeh, plus, the ability to keep ISO's down in low light. I have a cabinet full of premium FE lenses, but if I could only have one lens, this would be it!
In my opinion, you can't really get the f/1.2 look from an f/1.4 lens. I used to own the 50mm f/1.2 and sold it when I switched to Nikon. If I ever move back to Sony and need a fast 50, I'd buy the 50mm f/1.2 again rather than the 50mm f/1.4.
This is always a heated topic. There are plenty of photographers on FM who are far better than I am and feel the two lenses aren't different enough to justify the extra cost and weight of the f/1.2. Your mileage may vary, of course.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
This is always a heated topic. There are plenty of photographers on FM who are far better than I am and feel the two lenses aren't different enough to justify the extra cost and weight of the f/1.2. Your mileage may vary, of course.
I went on a deep dive last year trying to make a decision on these two. I recently sold my 50 1.2 and regret it, will buy another soon.
What I found was that you can find reviews and feedback from users that contradict each other. I've seen people say the 1.4 is sharper edge to edge, and I've seen people say no, the 1.2 is. Also have seen people say same about autofocus capabilities. Edge to edge sharpness wide open was important to me because when I'm taking portraits, the subjects head is in the top (right hand) 1/3rd of the frame and I like sharp eyes. Test charts only tell a very limited story at a specific distance to the camera.
So, idk. Part of me wants to try the 1.4 next time but the rendering of the 1.2 will probably draw me back.
Thank you all. I picked up the 50mm 1.2gm and then started to read the 1.4gm was sprinkled with fairy dust so was just checking in - appreciate all the feedback!
Blakehfreeman wrote:
then started to read the 1.4gm was sprinkled with fairy dust
Yes, on the front element. But those are just the owners' pathetic attempts to take the biting sharpness out of the f/1.4 lens.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Thank you all. I picked up the 50mm 1.2gm and then started to read the 1.4gm was sprinkled with fairy dust so was just checking in - appreciate all the feedback!
Do you mind me asking: what changed? You said weight doesn't matter, but I was in another thread earleir were you mentinoed that you had transitioned away from Nikon because their fast lenses were heavy, and you specifically mentioned the 50mm f/1.2S. Why reproduce the same heavy setup?
I got the f/1.2 when it came out. It is easily the best 50 I have ever had, and I have used dozens, over the years. Bokeh is gorgeous. Sharpness is insane, and despite there being a lot of heavy glass in there, it focuses faster than I can think.
I had no interest in the f/1.4, when it came out, because the f/1.2 was damn near perfect. In fact, I sold many of my other 50s, because they never got taken out of the cabinet, after I had this one.
I think that the pixie dust of the f1.4 is marketing, to make both price points feel special (not doubting that the f/1.4 is a good lens, only that there is no reason that it is better, if weight and cost are not a concern)
Just look at his User Name