We will see, I doubt it. We have field curvature to consider, too. The 50/1.4 has a significant midzone dip, shown by DPreview in their review and lensrentals optical bench measurements.
For me at f1.2/f1.4 I would like to have the inner 2/3rds of the image circle to be sharp and dont care about the very corners at all!
.
I agree, with a lens like this, the edge resolution is not that important, even if I like to photograph landscapes with an open aperture because of the look.
Maybe / probably Lenstip received a weaker copy.
(According to their samples, my Sony Zeiss is at least equivalent to the f1.4 in the midzone. In the center, the GM is even better than the GM. Here is a picture, if you are interested, you can show me the horrible midzone dip: https://www.flickr.com/photos/helmhagen/50907551708/in/dateposted-public/ and that is quick and sloppy manually focused by hand while skiing, so it is possible to get even sharper results at f1.4.)
Photos posted on Flickr won't show anything. That photo, for example, doesn't display on my 4K monitor as critically sharp anywhere, let alone the midzone. But I know that is Flickr, not you, the camera or the lens.
You need to post a 100% crop or a RAW for download.
Besides, it's a fact that ZA has a midfield resolution dip.
Which is differently pronounced, depending on the respective copy and I've tried a few.
My exemple is an example in 4k resolution taken at open aperture without tripod. The midzone dip doesn't seem that bad on my copy. In any case, you can see the bad corners in the Lenstip examples more quickly.
I stick to what I see rather than what others tell me. I can live with this kind of horrible midzone dip
We will see, I doubt it. We have field curvature to consider, too. The 50/1.4 has a significant midzone dip, shown by DPreview in their review and lensrentals optical bench measurements.
For me at f1.2/f1.4 I would like to have the inner 2/3rds of the image circle to be sharp and dont care about the very corners at all!
.
I agree, with a lens like this, the edge resolution is not that important, even if I like to photograph landscapes with an open aperture because of the look.
Maybe / probably Lenstip received a weaker copy.
(According to their samples, my Sony Zeiss is at least equivalent to the f1.4 in the midzone. In the center, the GM is even better than the GM. Here is a picture, if you are interested, you can show me the horrible midzone dip: https://www.flickr.com/photos/helmhagen/50907551708/in/dateposted-public/ and that is quick and sloppy manually focused by hand while skiing, so it is possible to get even sharper results at f1.4.)
Photos posted on Flickr won't show anything. That photo, for example, doesn't display on my 4K monitor as critically sharp anywhere, let alone the midzone. But I know that is Flickr, not you, the camera or the lens.
You need to post a 100% crop or a RAW for download.
Besides, it's a fact that ZA has a midfield resolution dip.
Which is differently pronounced, depending on the specimen and I've tried a few.
It is an example in 4k resolution with an open aperture. The midzone dip doesn't seem that bad on my copy. In any case, you can see the bad corners in the Lenstip examples more quickly. Which is differently pronounced, depending on the specimen and I've tried a few.
It is an example in 4k resolution with an open aperture. The midzone dip doesn't seem that bad on my copy. In any case, you can see the bad corners in the Lenstip examples more quickly.
I stick to what I see rather than what others tell me. I can live with this kind of horrible midzone dip
Mar 16, 2021 at 11:47 AM
Previous versions of HelBen85's message #15533941 « Pre-order: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM ($1,998) »
