Re: Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM
hesb wrote: j4nu wrote: darbo wrote: LBJ2 wrote: j4nu wrote:
The ZA is not an awesome lens, but a lot of FE shooters have used it. Stopped down, the MTF diagram below shows its bad astigmatism.
Huh, the more you know...
I was surprised to read that too. Not the part about the astigmatism but the part about "not an awesome lens"
Lensrentals 2016
"The Sony [FE 50 F1.4] is phenomenally good in the center; just absolutely superb. From a resolution standpoint it is clearly better than the Otus in the center, and just as good as the Otus away from the center as well. There is a little sag of the Sony’s MTF halfway to the center but then improvement out to the edges."
I’ve owned, and loved, the Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Favorite lens of all time. Gorgeous color, contrast, and oof rendering.
I’ve also owned, and not liked, the Sony 50mm 1.4 ZA. If I was taking pictures of test charts, sure, the ZA looks super. There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.
The 50GM rendering is looking much more promising to me - I hope it can finally satisfy my craving for an 55mm Otus-quality rendering in an AF FE-mount lens. The Otus seems to liquify oof areas - like a watercolor painting - and I’m seeing the same look repeatedly in the 50GM image thread. I like that very much!
Does ZA really have busy oof rendering? I've never really noticed it but I also have never really compared it to other fast 50... I think Nokton is a bit smoother but the difference is not dramatic.
I have tried multiple times the ZA but never liked it, despite its popularity:
Colors are beautiful indeed
But rendering is much better with my nokton 1.2 and OOF much smoother on my sigma ART;
Transition zone on the sigma could be deeper though.
AF accuracy has never been on par with the sigma (especially eye af wide open) on my different bodies.
CA is on the same level as the others. so not better
Sharpness is of course the best in the corner for the ZA... but in mid field, my two others 50s are much better. In center, I could not really find a difference between the 3.
The thing is wide open the ZA is soft, but not with this special SA rendering of the Nokton. And I much prefer the latter overall optical qualities, despite its corners weakness
Soft? I don't think so. I think the ZA wide open is very good and sometimes I use it for landscape shots (also for large-format prints) in daylight at f1.4 (because of the special image impression it can create).
I could never really see the midzone dip on my copy.
Here is the comparison of Fred with the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1561782/25#14840216
I'm also looking forward to the 50mm GM. I already liked the first sample pictures very much. The sharpness also seems to be very very good.
But I'm curious about the "3D capabilities" of the GM. Here the ZA is one of the best lenses ever. From my point of view, this has little to do with the bokeh quality in a technical sense. Lenses with poorer bokeh, such as the 35mm Loxia, can also produce extremely three-dimensional images. One of my most quoted examples of this speciality of the ZA is this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frankdavid67/27038903997/
From my point of view, the 3D kings are still the Loxia 35mm / ZA 35mm / Sigma 35mm f1.2, the ZA 50mm and the GM 85mm and that is (for me) one of the most important criteria when buying lenses.
In the images thread of the new GM I can already see some very nice - in my opinion - "3D pictures". But I am really curious to see whether it will come close to the ZA in this (very subjective) category.
May 10, 2021 at 05:37 AM
Previous versions of HelBen85's message #15591612 « Zony 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZA VS Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM »
There are trade-offs: the thing I like least about the ZA (rough/busy/nervous oof rendering) also gives the ZA a bit more propensity to deliver a 3d look, which I do like.